Stendahl disagrees with this view based on his understanding of Galatians 3:24,25, RSV: "So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;" Note that in this translation, decidedly different from the KJV, the roll of the law ended when Christ came. The law served only until the first advent. The KJV says that the law brings us to Christ. Many people understand this to mean that the law continues to work in bringing people to Christ. The RSV indicates that the function of the law ended when Christ came.

It doesn't matter in one sense. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convince people of sin. 

24  So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
25  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; RSV

Schoolmaster in KJV is an unfortunate translation. The "schoolmaster" was a trusted servant responsible for accompanying his charge to school. Young's literal translation describes the KJV schoolmaster as  "child-conductor." This is a better translation. Note that both versions agree that once we come to Christ, we are no longer under the supervision of the child-conductor. Luther understood this. Calvin, on the other hand, likened the law in the Christian's life to a whip with which one lashes a lazy ass. 

I decided that it might be of value to give a background to the book that we call the Bible.

Catholic Bibles mainly differ from Protestant Bibles in that they include some ancient writings, generally called by Protestants, The Apocrypha, that is not included in Protestant Bibles Some other differences are very minor and not significant.

Origin: All of the Biblical books began as written documents (Autographs) written well before printed documents existed. We do not have any of those documents. All we have are copies of the original documents. Those documents do contain some scribal errors. But, they are highly accurate and the minor errors are commonly seen in comparison with other copies which we have.

 Chapters and Verses: As first written, the Biblical books did not have chapters and verses. They were mostly written as one document. L Scholars added the chapters and verses at a later time.

The New Testament was written in Biblical Greek (Koine Greek) which differs from the modern Greek language of today. Scholars understand that language very well today. Those documents also contain Individual words from other languages that were spoken in Palestine in the time when the writings were prepared.

The Old Testament was mostly written in Biblical Hebrew, which differs ftom the modern Hebrew of today. However, a little bit of the Old Testament was written in
Aramaic, which is well understood today. Aramaic is a close cousin to the Hebrew of that time. All those who spoke Hebrew were likely able to understand Aramaic.

Translation: The Bibles that you purchase today have generally been translated in one to the following three types:

Formal Translation sticks very clsely to the original text. It is commonly used for doctrinal study, preaching and by scholars.

Dynamic Translation attempts to esent the authors thinking in a manner that is easly understood in the translated language.

Paraphrased translation attempts to present what the translator thinks the author wanted to say, into the translated language.

The careful student of the Bible will need to understand the background of the Biblical material and the process of producing the copies and the methods of translation. However, that student can rest assured that the Bibles of today do contain what God wanted humans to know.

Well, this explains a lot....

"There is one word in the New Testament that comes straight from Greek mythology. Not a metaphor. Not a translation choice. The actual name of the abyss where the Titans were imprisoned.

It was written by a Jewish fisherman from Galilee.

The letter is 2 Peter, composed in Koine Greek for diaspora communities spread across the Roman world in the first century CE. Verse 2:4 is about angels who sinned and what God did with them.

Most translations render the passage simply as "cast them into hell." But the Greek word Peter chose was not Hades. Not Gehenna. Not "the pit." The word came directly from "Tartaros," the deepest region of the underworld in Greek mythology, a place so far below Hades that, in Hesiod's Theogony, a bronze anvil dropped from the surface of the earth would fall for nine days before reaching it.

The verb Peter used, "tartarosas," appears nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Every other writer who needed a word for the realm of the dead reached for Hades or Gehenna. Only this one verse goes to Tartarus.

In Hesiod's account, written roughly seven centuries before this letter, Tartarus is where Zeus imprisoned the Titans after the war for Olympus. Sealed away from the rest of creation. Absolute confinement.
Peter placed fallen angels there.

He was writing for people who had grown up inside Greek cultural memory. He did not need to explain what Tartarus meant to them. He needed only to use the word, and they would already understand the weight of it.

He did not argue against the mythology. He absorbed its cosmological grammar and refilled it. The prison stayed. The inhabitants changed.
Scholars call this kind of move a recontextualization: taking the structural logic of a pre-existing concept and fitting it to new theological meaning. It is one of the more quietly stunning word choices in the entire text.

A fisherman. A word borrowed from Hesiod. One verse that most readers have never noticed, because every translation made it vanish back into "hell."....

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vertical-morality-maga-christians_l_68dc8386e4b0b11989f00fb8

Thr following is a shorter, summarized version of the above article.

https://us.headtopics.com/news/vertical-morality-might-describe-why-maga-christians-seem-74000915#google_vignette

https://www.signstimes.com/?

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.

Sorry, I don't have the reference handy.

It got me wondering. Spiritualism - the Fox sisters and their hoaxes, table rapping, ouija boards and so on - is pretty much a dead force in the world these days. It still exists around the corners, but it's far from a massive influence with the power to lead the masses astray.

Frankly, it's an historical artefact of the time when EGW was writing. It was a craze in 19th century America, but has since faded.

The thing is, antiCatholicism is the same sort of thing: powerful in mid-19th century America, fading now, as Catholicism shows its face as simply one sect among many, albeit a large and wealthy one.

I honestly think it might be time for SDAism to move on. The 'two great errors'... turn out to have been made by EGW, or at least by those who take her writings a century into the future and expect that they will still apply in the same way.

It might be worth thinking about the great spiritual threats of now: my own nominee would be the conviction, despite Jesus' direct statement, that it's possible to serve both God and Mammon.

What are your candidates?

My thought was that it is a public declaration of one's faith and a desire to walk in newness of life.

If my belief on this is correct ... why would one be baptized in private without witnesses and then never refer to it or acknowledge it during their lifetime?

Why would anyone do this? Do you feel that a leader would do this? Would this set a good example? Or am I totally off base and perhaps we should keep our baptisms secret?

What are your thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mzPscRcVSo

Anyone have any insight here? I'd like to know what Cranfield says in his Shorter Commentary on Romans.

https://www.icr.org/article/15965

Christian films often portray that all those who have not received the mark of the beast will be killed, this is a symbolic truth. The circumstances are true, but they missed the real meaning due to some failed interpretations. All those who have not taken the mark are killed, this part is true, but those who have not taken the mark are Hamas. The mark was given during the elections for the president of the Palestinian authority, which was boycotted by Hamas. Hamas has never received the mark. Films like to portray all people as subject to the mark. This part is wrong. It only affects those Palestinians who did not take the mark, and not the whole world. It is only Hamas. This makes the mark as what the letter indicates. It was the indelible ink brand given to those who voted in the Palestinian elections.

Ro 5:11  And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 

The Greek word for atonement is καταλλαγή [SN/OLB# 2643] OLB refers to the Online Bible computer program.

2643 is used 4 times in the NT. Except for Romans 5:11, it is translated as reconcile/d or reconciliation:

Ro 11:15  For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling <2643> of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

2Co 5:18  And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation <2643>;

2Co 5:19  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation <2643>

A closely related word is καταλλάσσω [2644]:

Ro 5:10  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled <2644> to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled <2644>, we shall be saved by his life.
1Co 7:11  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled <2644> to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
2Co 5:18  And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled <2644> us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling <2644> the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled <2644> to God.

 Sometimes the Greek words numbered 2643, a verb, and 2644, a noun, appear in the same verse The translation term, "atonement", used in Romans 5:11 is an outlier in  the KJV.

The Day of Atonement service in Leviticus 16 is explained in  Hebrews 10. The word "atonement" is not mentioned

1 Corinthians 7:11 uses the word translated as "atonement" in Romans 5.11. It refers to the reconciling of a couple in a troubled marriage.   

This is a 7 part series by the VOP

The temple was polluted and cleansed at different times in the Old Testament. During the ascendence of Ahaz (735-715), the temple  doors were shut (2 Ch. 28:24), The daily sacrifices were stopped, no incense was burnt, the lamps in the temple were put out (2 Ch 29:7). In other words, the daily was taken away. His son, Hezekiah (715-686) opened the doors and cleansed the temple during his reign. In this account, the word translated “cleansed” is taher. Hezekiah ordered the priests to sanctify the house and “Carry the filthiness out of the holy place” (2 Ch. 29:5). The priests came together to “cleanse the house of the Lord” (2 Ch 29:15). They went into the inner part of the Lord’s house and carried out all the uncleanness they found (2 Ch 29:16).  Three things were done to the temple at this time. The doors were repaired (2 Ch 29:3) The temple was sanctified (2 Ch. 29:5,17). The temple was cleansed (taher) (2 Ch. 29:15). This was not ritualistic cleansing. Actual filth inside the temple was carried out and disposed of at the brook Kidron (2 Ch. 29:16).

The work of cleansing the temple during Hezekiah’s reign was undone by his son Manasseh (696-642). He built altars and placed a graven image in the house of the LORD (2 Ki. 21:4, 7). A graven image in the temple is described as the “desolating sacrilege” in the RSV of 1 Maccabees 1:54. The Greek translated as “desolating sacrilege” is the same as that used in Daniel 9:27, 12:11, Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14. Luke, in a similar passage does not mention the abomination of desolation. Instead, Luke says that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies (21:20). The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v., “abomination of desolation”  identifies the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes as fulfilling these references in Daniel. “Some rabbis, however, see in it [the Hebrew expression translated as abomination of desolation]an allusion to Manasseh, who, as related in II Chron. xxxiii. 7, set up "a carved image . . . in the house of God."

Manasseh did more evil than the nations around him. 2 Kings 24:1-4 says that the evils of Manasseh brought about the destruction of Judah. He was taken captive by the king of Assyria. As a prisoner in Babylon, he realized his sin. He was eventually released. Upon returning to Jerusalem, he removed the image from the temple, as well as the altars he had built, calling upon the people to serve the Lord (2 Ch. 33: 5-13).

Manasseh’s son Josiah (reigned 640-609) began his work with the repair of the temple (2 Ki. 22:5). Together with Hilkiah the high priest, they removed all the items used in the worship of Baal, Astarte, and the host of heaven. Also destroyed were the houses of the cult prostitutes connected to the temple (2 Kings 23:7). Chariots and horses to the sun were also removed from the entry way into the temple (2 Kings 23:11).

The word translated “cleansed” in the KJV of Daniel 8: 14 is translated as s appears as “rightful state, “reconsecrated,” “restored,” in other versions. It is a form of the Hebrew trigram ts d q. The Hebrew word “nitsdaq,” to which we refer, is also used in a different form in KJV Daniel 12:3: “And they that turn many to “righteousness” shall shine as the stars forever.” Young’s Literal Translation of Daniel 12: 3 says “…and those justifying the multitude…”

It’s the same word used in Isaiah 53:11 when it says the righteous servant will “justify” many. Isaiah 45:25 says that all Israel will be “justified” in the Lord. Same word. Psalms 19:9 uses the word to describe the “righteous” judgments of God. All the other appearances of the word refer to the righteousness or justification of people or God. Daniel 8:14 uses it to refer to the justification of the sanctuary. The Greek Old Testament, known as the LXX, translates the word in Daniel 8: 14 with a word that means “cleansed” as in the KJV.

* One of the unusual aspects is that the article was written by two different people.  I am only one of those people.

*  The second unique aspect of that article is that the second author is a devout Roman Catholic ho posts on Club Adventist under the name Gustave.  Here he freely posts his overall thinking of Adventism.  My position is that it is helpful to understand how other people think about us.

NOTE:  I have decided to unlock this thread even though the article has not yet been posted.   I expect that it will be posted later today--Sunday, the 17th.