Atonement - when?

[phkrause]

My point is that atonement has been going on since sin raised its ugly head on this planet. Enoch received atonement on the basis of the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world," by a Priest who was after the order of Melchizedek. While the actual crucifixion of Christ took place in 31 AD, I believe that in the mind of the God "who is, and who was, and who is to come," the "I AM", that was as good as an accomplished fact when Abel offered his lamb. Did God wait until 31 A.D. or 1844 to reconcile Enoch who had already been enjoying the bliss of heaven for thousands of years?

I that Gerry. Makes sense to me also.

[JoeMo]

Windsor,

That was an awesome post! I truly appreciate you (and Walter) not only sticking to the Bible; but to the original Greek. I even broke out my interlinear and Concordance to see if what you said was true. With my limited knowledge of Greek and it's idioms, I will not refute a single word of your post.

That being said, there is nothing there that says when Jesus did enter the "hagia hagion" - be it 31 AD or 1844. Nonetheless, given your post, I can no longer argue it either way.

I have stated in previous posts that I reserve the right to be wrong change my mind, given sufficiently sound logic and use of scripture. I now claim that right.

Windsor, you are a Christian gentleman and a scholar; and you have my respect.

Happy Sabbath,

JoeMo

[Gerr]

I was going to respond to Joe's claim that Jesus went into the most holy place, but you beat me to it. Thanks, Windsor.

Since you did not bring up the ESV in your translation comparison, shall I presume that you don't have it? As good a translation the NASB is, when it comes to the subject of the sanctuary in Hebrews, I don't think it's that faithful to the original Greek. And if you use the NIV, you'd be totally confused. The NIV has Jesus going into the most holy place at His ascension. I believe the ESV has it ALL correct, at least in all the texts that I have looked at so far. That's one of the major reasons I chose this translation for my main study/memorization Bible, although I consult over a dozen translations as well.

[Gibs]

One thing "atonement" implies, cleansing,

Da 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Ex 30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

Here is the meaning of that atonement,

kaphar kaw-far'

a primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:-- appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).

The True Day of Atonement couldn't be done but only by the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us. Yes the atonement program was set up from the beginning but couldn't be done until our High Priest, Jesus Christ entered into the Most Holy place in Heaven. There He pleads His Blood over every redeemed case. The casses from Adam have been collecting there and really it is being cleaned of case by case until He does the last one. And truly can the end of the 2300 days ending in 1844 be refuted? No it is rock solid, it is the pillar of SDAdventism.

A word from EGW on the "day of atonement",

" We Are in the Day of Atonement

We are in the great day of atonement, when our sins are, by confession and repentance, to go beforehand to judgment. God does not now accept a tame, spiritless testimony from His ministers. Such a testimony would not be present truth. The message for this time must be meat in due season to feed the church of God. But Satan has been seeking gradually to rob this message of its power, that the people may not be prepared to stand in the day of the Lord. {1SM 124.3}

In 1844 our great High Priest entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to begin the work of the investigative judgment. The cases of the righteous dead have been passing in review before God. When that work shall be completed, judgment is to be pronounced upon the living. How precious, how important are these solemn moments! Each of us has a case pending in the court of heaven. We are individually to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. In the typical service, when the work of atonement was performed by the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the people were required to afflict their souls before God, and confess their sins, that they might be atoned for and blotted out. Will any less be required of us in this antitypical day of atonement, when Christ in the sanctuary above is pleading in behalf of His people, and the final, irrevocable decision is to be pronounced upon every case? {1SM 125.1}

What is our condition in this fearful and solemn time? Alas, what pride is prevailing in the church, what hypocrisy, what deception, what love of dress, frivolity, and amusement, what desire for the supremacy! All these sins have clouded the mind, so that eternal things have not been discerned. Shall we not search the Scriptures, that we may know where we are in this world's history? Shall we not become intelligent in regard to the work that is being accomplished for us at this time, and the position that we as sinners should occupy while this work of atonement is going forward? If we have any regard for our souls' salvation, we must make a decided change. We must seek the Lord with true penitence; we must with deep contrition of soul confess our sins, that they may be blotted out." {1SM 125.2}

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gerr]

Let me ask you again. If atonement did not begin until 1844, how did Enoch, Moses, & Elijah get into heaven?

Notice also that the cleansing in Dan 8:14 is of the sanctuary.

[JoeMo]

As I have opined previously, the atonement/reconciliation, which is because of Jesus' sacrifice actually began before the creation of the world (in the heavenly realm). Enoch, Moses and Elijah are covered by the same sacrifice as we are. Enoch lived before the Flood; and we have very little information on the pre-flood culture. It was likely so different from what we have now that our present-day world view can't fathom it. As for Moses and Elijah, they are the first-fruit representation of the righteous dead and the righteous living who will never see death. However, I am humbled (not in a bad way) by Windsor's earlier post (thanks again, Windsor); and am more open to other's thoughts.

Gerry, I'm still not convinced that Jesus entered the MHP in 1844; because I'm not convinced of the validity of the day-for-a-year concept as it pertains to prophecy. My read of those verses in the OT apply to judgement, not prophecy. Again, I'm open to other opinions. In the name of consistency, why would John talk about Satan being bound for 1,000 years if elsewhere in Revelation he used the the day-for a year concept? Using that concept, is it possible that Satan will be bound for 360,000 years? I find that hard to believe. Could the 2,300 days, 1,260 days, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days be literal?

[phkrause]

Could the 2,300 days, 1,260 days, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days be literal?

If that is the case than you'll have to come up with the events that would correspond to those dates! Because right now the events that correspond to the dates are pretty firm, I'd say.

[Gerr]

While there may be some problems with the year-day principle, I think it is the principle that makes the most sense when dealing with Dan 8 & 9.

What do you care if Satan is bound for 360,000 years? You'd be enjoying paradise anyway! Let him suffer, not having anyone to tempt. That would only leave him and the other demons nothing to do but play the blame game and fight among themselves!

[Samie]

Samie, again, you are a sinner. You need grace because you aren't making under law. So stop it with the perfection talk...no one is doing it.

And you alone are good?

God had made us all holy, that is, he sanctified us through the death of Christ (Heb 10:10), even if you don't believe it. God does not remember our sins (Heb 10:16, 17), even if Robert reminds God Samie is full of sins. Sins committed are not imputed (2 Cor 5:18, 19), even if Robert imputes to Samie all sins. So many other Biblical proof.

It's you who must stop with your anti-biblical talk, Robert. You cannot even cite related biblical verse to back up your claim.

And when did I insist that we are under the law? You don't even seem to know what you are talking about. Sorry, but why do I have the funny feeling I am just wasting my time discussing with you? You bring out issues out of the blue. Not a good sign.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

Could the 2,300 days, 1,260 days, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days be literal?

If that is the case than you'll have to come up with the events that would correspond to those dates! Because right now the events that correspond to the dates are pretty firm, I'd say.

Yes, JoeMo, they are literal. And they will find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming.

pkrause, the problem with the given dates is that those were based on what proponents thought as the corresponding event specified by Scriptures, when in fact, they were not. An example is the start of the 2300 days. While Scriptures specify a decree for restoration of Jerusalem, proponents of 457 BC came up with the decree then issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus. But Scriptures tell us that decree was specifically for beautification of the temple in Jerusalem making the funny equation "restoration of Jerusalem" = "beautification of the temple".

This perhaps explains why no one seemed to have came up with a difficult question on the alternative chart I proposed in the OP of another thread entitled "End-Time Prophecies in Daniel". Maybe they believe the chart is biblically unimpeachable? Just maybe.

I did not give any date simply because I cannot. The end-time prophecies are yet to be fulfilled in the future shortly before the 2nd Coming.

[Samie]

While there may be some problems with the year-day principle, I think it is the principle that makes the most sense when dealing with Dan 8 & 9.

...

I don't think so, Gerry. The prevailing understanding of Daniel 8 & 9 does not seem to consider the plain statements of the Master Teacher Himself in Mat 24:15-31. Those statements make quite an impact in the correct understanding of not only Dan 8 & 9 but also Dan 7, 11 & 12.

The Lord had indicated to His disciples that the setting up of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet will trigger a rapid succession of events starting with the great tribulation at the end of which unusual celestial phenomena will occur and will be capped by the 2nd Coming.

Those words of the Savior indirectly tells us that all prophecies related with the abomination of desolation will find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming. Because Daniel records that the setting up of the abomination of desolation will be preceded by the taking away of the 'daily', all other prophecies in Daniel having to do with the taking away of the 'daily' is likewise directly related with the abomination of desolation.

This then will bring us to the inevitable conclusion that since the 2300 days is related with the taking away of the 'daily', it too will find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming.

Can you think of any bible-based reason why I could possibly be wrong?

[Robert]

God does not remember our sins (Heb 10:16, 17), even if Robert reminds God Samie is full of sins.

God knows our sins, Samie, but because of Christ's doing & dying you have been freed from under the law. The law can't demand your death. Why? Because you died to the law in the humanity of Christ. As far as the law is concerned you have met its justice in Christ.

However, we must never say that we have no sin in our lives. We need not become self-righteous. The minute we view ourselves as righteous that minute we no longer need Christ's righteousness.

[Gerr]

If those are literal days, then the prophecies of Dan 8 & 9 don't make sense. The year-day principle has been used for over a thousand years. So did the reformers.

[JoeMo]

For the record, I don't outright reject the day-for-a-year concept; I just question it rather than blindly accept it and reject everything else. Sure; the concept has been used for over 1,000 years. People believed the earth was flat for thousands of years, too: but they were wrong. The ancient practice of astrology (which many still use to guide their lives) is partially based on the concept that the universe orbits the earth - something people believed for thousands of years. They were wrong. Peter and Paul both believed that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. They were wrong. That doesn't mean they were infidels; it just means they were wrong. Could the same be true of EGW and the pioneers of our faith? I just don't want to blindly believe whatever the denomination feeds me to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Concerning the day-for-a-year principle, Daniel 8 talks about the 2,300 "days" (KJV) in relation to the daily sacrifice. Many other translations refer to "evenings and mornings". Since the context of the passage indicates (to me, at least) that they were referring to the sacrifices (Dan. 8:13-14) could the 2,300 days be referring to the evening and morning sacrifices? If so, one could reasonably conclude that 2, 300 evenings and mornings equals 1,150 days. 1,150 days seems (to me at least) to fit better into the 1,260 days, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days referred to at the end of the book of Daniel.

Furthermore, in Dan. 8:26, the angel says:

“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” Also see Daniel 8:17 and !0:14.

This tells me that the 2,300 days could not have started during Daniel's life; which is in opposition to the traditional SDA view. I'm not saying the traditional SDA view is absolutely wrong; but I am saying it could be wrong. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater here; I'm just saying an intelligent beings, we cannot exclude other possibilities. I will never reject the Sabbath or my belief that Jesus is coming soon - concepts I think we can all agree on.

Be Blessed,

JoeMo

[Gerr]

Okay, let's see you and all those who think that those days in Daniel 8 & 9 are literal days, let's see you plot the time sequences and show what happened on those dates.

E.g. what happened 2300 literal days from the time the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given? Where in the 2300 literal days was the messiah anointed? And the sanctuary cleansed?

[cheddar]

Okay, let's see you and all those who think that those days in Daniel 8 & 9 are literal days, let's see you plot the time sequences and show what happened on those dates.

E.g. what happened 2300 literal days from the time the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given? Where in the 2300 literal days was the messiah anointed? And the sanctuary cleansed?

I see Dan. 8 & 9 as being literal days and the reason why is because of all the problems with the traditional adventist view.

Let’s briefly go thru all the problems (these are just the ones off the top of my head, I’m sure there are more):

1) day for a year. There is only one time prophecy where the day for a year even comes close to being a valid principle and that’s the 70 weeks. When it comes to the 1260, 1290 & 1335 day time periods it doesn’t work it all and it definitely doesn’t work for the millennium. A valid principle is something that works across the board not here and there.

2) start date. No start date is ever given for the 2300 days. To say that the 2300 days have the same start date as the 70 weeks is a guess at best. Daniel was never given the start date and if the 70 weeks are ‘cut off’ from the 2300 days who’s to say they aren’t cut off at the end. Once again a guess. The closest thing to a start date that I have been able to find is the appearance of the ram but even I admit that that’s a guess too.

3) cleansing. At the end of the 2300 days the sanctuary is cleansed (a finished cleansing) but that’s not what happens in the traditional adventist view. In that view at the end of the days Jesus goes into the most holy and begins the cleansing not finishes it. How can anyone say that the sanctuary was cleansed in 1844 when it was supposedly just beginning?

4) temple. Jesus speaks of the abomination of desolation being set up in an earthly temple just prior to the time of trouble/great tribulation. 70AD does not fit the description. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed but no anti-christ figure ever set up anything close to what Jesus described. Revelation does focus on the heavenly sanctuary but Matt 24 does not. So a 3rd temple will exist in Jerusalem just prior to the time of trouble.

5) day of atonement. The day of atonement is part of the fall feasts (trumpets, DOA, tabernacles.) Adventists pull the day of atonement from the fall feasts and say if was fulfilled in 1844 but then fail to show where the trumpets were fulfilled prior and the tabernacles occurred after. The trumpets do not even begin until the 144K are sealed and afflict people who don’t have that same seal. The 144K have not been sealed yet so none of the feasts have been fulfilled including the day of atonement.

[JoeMo]

Gerry,

Since the angel said the prophecies in Daniel were for the last days, maybe the event(s) that kicks off the 2,300 days haven't happened yet. I've read that the Jews are ready to build a new Temple (i.e., all the timbers and stones are already cut; and the rabbis have inspected and approved of the red heifers). If/when they do build it, maybe that could be the initiating event.

Do you think that when the angel said the events were for the far future, that they could have indeed been initiated in Daniel's lifetime? I'm not saying that what I propose is irrefutable fact; I'm just saying how I read the Bible vs. what EGW and the church state.

Regardless of what the initiating event is, I believe that something to kick off the time of trouble (e.g., war in Middle East, closing of the Straits of Hormuz, collapse of the Dollar/Euro, terrorists setting off a nuke) could happen soon. I'm just not ready to blindly accept our traditional view to the exclusion of every other possibility. It's just a discussion point - not a statement of salvational doctrine.

[JoeMo]

Nice post, cheddar. You explained the problems with the day-for-a-yeat concept much better than I.

[Samie]

If those are literal days, then the prophecies of Dan 8 & 9 don't make sense. The year-day principle has been used for over a thousand years. So did the reformers.

Sunday-keeping had been with us for more than a thousand years likewise, but it does not make sense to you, does it?

It's not what the majority or what the Reformers said. It's what the Master Teacher said. Why not take a glance at the OP of "End-Time Prophecies in Daniel" and tell me where I went against Scriptures in that chart?

[JoeMo]

Just a thought -

Could the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel be the rebuilding of the Temple and the re-institution of the OT sacrificial system (thus denying the priestly role of Jesus and His all-encompassing sacrifice)? I'm not saying that's what I believe it to be; it's just a thought I had in contemplating this current discussion.

[Samie]

Just a thought -

Could the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel be the rebuilding of the Temple and the re-institution of the OT sacrificial system (thus denying the priestly role of Jesus and His all-encompassing sacrifice)? I'm not saying that's what I believe it to be; it's just a thought I had in contemplating this current discussion.

[cheddar]

Just a thought -

Could the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel be the rebuilding of the Temple and the re-institution of the OT sacrificial system (thus denying the priestly role of Jesus and His all-encompassing sacrifice)? I'm not saying that's what I believe it to be; it's just a thought I had in contemplating this current discussion.

It very well could be. I used to think that the AOD was a national Sunday law but that doesn’t fit at all. The AOD might entail Satan rebuilding the temple and marching the ark of the covenant into the most holy place and then him claiming to be God.

I do think there will be a national Sunday law but I think it will happen before that.

[Gibs]

No, JoeMoe, cheddar,

Note, the "daily",

Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The "daily" is Christ's ministration in the Most Holy place since 1844 and the AOD happens after that.

The 1290 days of Dan. will never come to fruitition because the time is shortened for the elect's sake.

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

John in his prophecy never mentioned the 1290 or the 1335 days as these will be the days of Dan. that will be shortened, the days amount to 75, 2'1/2 months. The 1260 will be, but is not the 1260 yr prophecy to 1798. This the endtime prophecy of John, Rev 13:

Re 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Re 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Re 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

No more continue after that for the beast, so this is endtime literal time prophecy. The fact it being stated "forty and two months" to continue proves it is the end. He can't contimue longer because no more power is given!

Please read and understand what you read!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

In his book "Kingdom of the Cults", Walter Martin defined one of the characteristics of a cult as a religion where people consider the words of men (or women) to be on par with or above the words of scripture. That's one of the factors he used in determining that Mormons and JW's were a cult. I think some of us need to be careful of how frequently we quote the words of men (or women) compared to how often we quote the words of Scripture, lest some of the non-SDA's on this site think SDA's are a cult. SDA's claim to be people of the Bible; so let's use the words of the Bible.

The Bible says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place at His resurrection. Someone who says He entered it in 1844 won't change that. The Bible says that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world; and that we were fully reconciled (atoned for - past tense) at the crucifixion. No one else's words can change that. The Bible says that Jesus uttered to words "it is finished" right before He died. Just because someone else says it isn't finished yet doesn't change that. Let's stick with the Word of God rather than the words of men (or women) to back up our points.

If it it's already finished, God has a lot of explaining to do for the last 2000 years of human misery.

Secondly, it absolutely does NOT say that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in AD 31. Here is an interesting explanation you can read that I pulled from bibleministry.org.

WHERE DID JESUS GO (IN HEAVEN) IN A.D. 31?

According to many Bible Scholars, the evangelical world, Walter Martin, Desmond Ford and many Seventh Day Adventists, Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in AD 31. This position of course, contradicts the historical official position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Did Jesus really entered the Most Holy place in Heaven in AD 31 or in 1844 as Seventh Day Adventists propose?

According to Walter Martin, "If Jesus at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth....Then there isn't any investigative judgment. Nobody has been looking over the books in heaven since 1844, because Jesus entered at the time of His resurrection into heaven itself with His own blood. It's all over. He obtained eternal redemption for us. You don't need this forced holiness in which you spend your life keeping track of all the commandments that you're supposed to keep in order for you to eventually to come out on the right side"--Walter Martin, March 15, 1989 lecture in Fresno, California.

Let's analyze this answer: While there is absolutely no question that we are saved by faith, there is also no question that we must obey the faith, (Rom 16:26) with and in God's power. I see no "forced holiness" in doing what Jesus said: "If your love me, keep my commandments...He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me..." John 14: 15, 21.

Walter Martin stated that "If Jesus at the resurrection [A.D. 31] went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth."

If we follow Mr. Martin's assumption, then the opposite assumption should also hold true. That is: If Jesus at the resurrection [AD 31], did not entered the second apartment [because He entered the first apartment] of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is an 1844 Investigative Judgment. It is not a myth.

I do not believe however, that the question regarding where Jesus entered in AD 31, can be answered by either assumption alone. It is just not as sample as that. There is much more we need to investigate and research in the Bible to find out what is God's truth. The Bible alone must interpret itself. The Bible alone must give the true and proper answer.

Before we start our Bible study, let us read on how Walter Martin described the Evangelical Conferences of the mid- 1950's and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, (Walter Martin and the Seventh Day Adventist Church) at his March 15, 1989, Fresno, California, lecture (Published in the Study of Hebrews nine by Vance Ferrel of Pilgrims Rest - Beer-sheba Spgs, TN 37305):

"Now, I'll never forget when we were in Washington {D.C.} at the Seventh Day Adventist Seminary {General Conference building, not the Seminary which was next door} negotiating these various doctrines and going through them in 1956 (spring 1955 to spring 1956). I said:

Why don't you get a couple of Greek scholars from the Seminary bring them over here." and I said, "Dr. Canon {an Evangelical college teacher he brought with him} is a Greek scholar and I read the text of the Greek." I said, "Let us take a look at whether or not Hiram Edson and Ellen White and early Adventists were right, or if in fact the very foundation of the denomination was based upon theological error."

They said, "Fine." They sent for Dr. {William} Murdoch and for Dr. Theodore Heppenstall, both of whom were excellent Greek scholars. I'll never forget Dr. Canon sitting at this large table with all these Adventists around us, and Dr. Canon saying, "I wonder if we turn in our Bibles-I'd like you to do that right now,-to the Epistle to the Hebrews." And they said, "Fine." And they turned to Hebrews, chapter 9. When they got to Hebrews, chapter 9, we all had our Greek New Testaments out. And Dr. Canon said, "I would like to exegete for me Hebrews 9 versus 11 and 12. We won't look at any theology books, yours or ours... Just the text, and you tell me what the text says."

Dr. Murdock looked at the text, Dr. Heppenstall looked at the text, and Dr. Canon read:

"But Christ, having become a High Priest of good things which are to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say not of this building, not earthly, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Canon went through it in Greek {verbally translated it to them}, and I turned to Dr. Roy Allan Anderson, head of all Seventh-day Adventist ministers and missionaries, and I said, "All right this passage contradicts Ellen White, Hiram Edson, and all the foundations of Adventism. If Jesus at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth.

Anderson looked down at the text and he turned to Ted Heppenstall and said these words, "Does the Greek text say that, Ted?" And Ted Heppenstall looked up from his Greek New Testament and said, "Yes." Dr. Murdoch said, "It does."

Does the Greek text really say that? Let us use several Bible versions, and let us look at the original Greek using several Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bibles, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Strong's Bible Concordance:

HEBREWS NINE

Let us you and I examine Hebrews 9, verses 11 and 12 in the New International Version (NIV): {9:11} "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation."

{9:12} "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." This particular translation states that He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. Obviously this is AD 31.

But, let us now look at the King James Version:

{9:11} "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"

{9:12} "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

According to this version, in this particular verse, he entered the Holy Place not the Most Holy Place as stated in the New International Version. Again, this is AD 31, but not the same place. Which is right the NIV or the KJV? This gets even more confusing when we compare the NIV and the KJV in the following verses:

NIV {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence." {9:25} "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."

KJV {9:24} "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" {9:25} "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;"

The NIV in verse 24 uses the word "sanctuary" and the KJV uses the word holy places. In verse 25, the NIV uses the words "Most Holy Place" and the KJV uses the words "holy place". As we can see these two Bible versions do not agree with each other. However, in Hebrews 9:8, they do:

NIV {9:8} "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing."

KJV {9:8} "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing". In this case "The Holiest of all" and the "Most Holy Place" are the same thing. But is the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy" place, also the same thing? or the same place? Let us ask the question again, which is right? The NIV or the KJV?

What if we use another version. Let us try the New American Standard Heb-Greek Key Study Bible 1977 in Hebrews 9: 24, 25 and 8:

NASB {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" {9:25} "nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own." {9:8} "The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing."

According to the NASB (New-American Standard) Hebrew-Greek Study Bible, Jesus entered the holy place, not the Most Holy Place in AD 31! Once more, let us ask the question: Which Bible version is right? The NIV, the KJV or NASB?

To determine which is right, we need to determine the meaning of the Greek words in the Bible manuscripts for the words: "sanctuary", "holy place" and the "most holy place". We find the words "hagion", "hagia" and "hagia-hagion", are used in the original language in which the book of Hebrews was written.

We will start our investigation of the meaning of these three words by looking Abingdon"s Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Let's see how it defines the word hagion:

39. hagion {hag'-ee-on} neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):---holiest (of all), holy place, sanctuary.

According to the above definition (s), the word can mean 'holiest', 'holy place' or 'sanctuary'. This is where the problem begins. This is the reason why many Bibles, (particularly modern translations) use one of the three terms to define 'hagia' or 'hagion' or 'hagia hagion' as the same thing. The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews) defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter 9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place' {9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the 'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent. When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc.

The author of Hebrews used 'hagia' in the following chapters and verses: 8:2; 9:2, 8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11, which means Holy Place. He did not use 'hagia hagion' (Most Holy).

Let us see another definition of the same word under the number:

(hagia, hagion): The interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding 'spiritual holy place,' perhaps regarded as being in heaven - 'the holy place'...'a tent was constructed, the outer one...which was called the Holy Place' He 9:2; 'he entered once and for all into the Holy Place' He 9:12. The inner room was more specifically identified by the phrase [hagia hagion] literally 'holy of holies He 9:3, a Hebrew idiom indicating superlative degree" The Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains-Second Edition. United Bible Societies, New York, 1989 Volume 1 - Under the number 7.35.

So we can see accordingly, that Jesus entered the Holy Place in AD 31, not the Most Holy (Holy of Holies). Personally I have studied quite a few other different Bible versions in the Spanish and English languages, compared text by text, using several standard Hebrew-Greek Study Bibles and Bible concordances

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

No.

So then, when does atonement take place?

To answer the question based on Scriptures, there is a need to know what the objective of atonement is according to Scriptures:

Leviticus 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

The main objective of Atonement done on Yum Kippur is to cleanse the people from all sins. Did Jesus already wash us from sin?

KJV Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

If atonement is cleansing from sin, and Revelation says we have already been washed from sin, then atonement took place when Jesus washed us from sin by His own blood. Obviously, this is prior to 1844, because Revelation was written long before 1844 and it tells us that Jesus has already washed us clean from sin.