The aftermath

[JawgeFromJawja]

aniel 8: 9-12--

Quote:

This last horn is by some taken for Antiochus Epiphanes, but not very judiciously. A horn of a Beast is never taken for a single person: it always signifies a new kingdom, and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one.

That word "never" will getcha if you use it injudiciously.

There can be little doubt that the initial horn of the goat, broken at the height of his power, represents a person, Alexander.

Sir Isaac Newton was a supergiant of a man - in mathematics and physics. Outside those fields, he had numerous heretical ideas, especially in theology. For instance, he did not believe in a personal devil, and he did not believe in the trinity. For much of his life, he practiced alchemy, which entailed beliefs that would curl an Adventist's toes, and even mine, profane and blasphemous as I am said to be.

Newton was a loner, suspicious to the point of paranoia, and during several periods of his life almost certainly psychotic. There has been much speculation about causes of his episodic insanity: he has been said to have bipolar disorder, mercury poisoning (from his alchemical experiments and dabbling), and chronic schizophrenia. There is more - much more. Newton's opinions outside physics and math should be taken with caution.

Antiochus reigned over one fo the four horns, and the little horn was a fifth under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did NOT Antiochus.

Scholars and knowledgeable lay people have opined that Daniel and Maccabees perceive Antiochus IV 's "greatness" as relative to his destruction, "abomination", and "desolation" of God's people, Israel. How great did they perceive him? Great enough to permanently celebrate victory over him with the holiday of Hanukkah annually. Of course, Passover celebrates the overthrow of Egyptian bondage, but how many other holidays do they have celebrating freedom?

It is described great above all the former horns, and so was NOT Antiochus. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans, and he did not enlarge it.

Two years before the line (actually, a circle) drawn in the sand incident, Epiphanes conquered Egypt and set up a puppet government. Antiochus IV waxed greedy, and decided to take all of Egypt. By that time, Rome had overcome most of her enemies, and could dare to confront Antiochus IV.

The horn was a King of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practiced; that is, he prospered in his practices against the holy people: but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews.

Fierce countenance? Antiochus IV was crazy and unpredictable. He did indeed have a fierce countenance, punctuated by periods of reason and diplomacy. Instead of "Epiphanes" ("Manifest"), his widely used nickname was "Epimanes", a middle east play on words meaning "the crazy one".

The horn was mighty by another's power, Antiochus acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the Host of Heaven, the Prince of Princes; and this is the character NOT of Antiochus but of Antichrist.

Good gracious, yes, Epiphanes did stand up to God, The Prince of the Host of Heaven. And he IS considered an archetype of The Antichrist.

The horn cast down the Sanctuary to the ground, and so did NOT Antiochus; he left it standing. The sanctuary and Host were trampled under foot 2300 days; and in Daniel's prophecies days are put for years: but the profanation of the Temple in the reign of Antiochus did not last for so many natural days. These were to last till the time of the end, till the last end of the indignation against the Jews; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the sanctuary which had been cast down should be cleansed, and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed.

Ant. IV Epi's history is a facinating but relatively neglected topic in Middle Eastern history. But not neglected by The Jews, who consider his devastation and desecration to be some of the worst they experienced. To them, he was beyond "great".

So many credible scholars take opposite tacks from Newton's perception of history that

[John317]

Daniel 8: 9-12--

Antiochus reigned over one fo the four horns, and the little horn was a fifth under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did NOT Antiochus.

Scholars and knowledgeable lay people have opined that Daniel and Maccabees perceive Antiochus IV 's "greatness" as relative to his destruction, "abomination", and "desolation" of God's people, Israel. How great did they perceive him? Great enough to permanently celebrate victory over him with the holiday of Hanukkah annually. Of course, Passover celebrates the overthrow of Egyptian bondage, but how many other holidays do they have celebrating freedom?

Ok, that's what they opined, but what is their textual & historical evidence for this?

Perhaps the Maccabees perceived Antiochus IV in that way, but Daniel lived at a different period of time, long before both the Maccabees and Antiochus IV. The Maccabees may well have been wrong in their identification of Antiochus IV as the fulfillment of Daniel 8: 9, 10. For me, the fact that the Jews celebrate Hanukkah is no evidence that Antiochus IV fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 8. I don't mean any disrespect to Jews, but they are wrong about the Messiah and hold many false teachings about prophecies. So I'm not persuaded by their views of prophecy regarding the little-horn power.

It makes much more sense to me that each kingdom is greater than the one before it, such that Medo-Persia was greater than Babylon; Greece was greater than Medo-Persia, and Rome was greater than Greece.

When Daniel describes these powers' greatness, it seems to me that he's talking about their greatness as an empire, not necessarily how badly they treated Israel. This becomes evident when we compare Daniel 2 & 7 with chapter 8. Even chapter 8 describes these kingdoms as they're viewed in relationship to other nations besides Israel. For instance, verse 9 speaks of the powers represented by the four horns as "growing exceedingly" in many directions, not only in the direction of the Glorious Land, Israel.

[John317]

.. It is described great above all the former horns, and so was NOT Antiochus. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans, and he did not enlarge it.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Two years before the line (actually, a circle) drawn in the sand incident, Epiphanes conquered Egypt and set up a puppet government. Antiochus IV waxed greedy, and decided to take all of Egypt. By that time, Rome had overcome most of her enemies, and could dare to confront Antiochus IV.

He almost conquered Egypt, and the reason he set up a puppet government was in order not to alarm Rome.

A lone Roman legate merely made threats and Antiochus withdrew. Therefore it is obvious that the Antiochus was nothing in comparison with Rome, even at that early period.

Antiochus ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 163 BC. He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. His father was greater than he was.

Not sure what you mean by "Rome could dare to confront Antiochus IV." Antiochus was a nobody and a weakling. All Rome had to do was make a threat and Antiochus meekly withdrew as commanded.

Originally Posted By: Isaac Newton

The horn was a King of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practiced; that is, he prospered in his practices against the holy people: but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Fierce countenance? Antiochus IV was crazy and unpredictable.

Yes, he was crazy, and unpredictable because he didn't know what he was doing and he failed at everything he attempted. The prophecy was that "the little horn" would "destroy wonderfully and prosper and practice." That is certainly no description of Antiochus IV. See Daniel 8: 23-25.

The REB predicted that this power "will succeed in whatever he does," and "he will succeed in his designs." Again, that's no description of Antiochus, the crazy man.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

He did indeed have a fierce countenance, punctuated by periods of reason and diplomacy. Instead of "Epiphanes" ("Manifest"), his widely used nickname was "Epimanes", a middle east play on words meaning "the crazy one".

The prophecy was that this power will be "a king of grim aspect, a master of stratagem," and that "his power will be great."

The king of grim aspect signifies that everyone would fear him because of his ability to overcome everyone standing in his way. Again, that doesn't describe Antiochus IV at all. He was cruel and evil, but he was never a master of stratagem, nor was his power ever great.

Originally Posted By: Isaac Newton

The horn was mighty by another's power, Antiochus acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the Host of Heaven, the Prince of Princes; and this is the character NOT of Antiochus but of Antichrist.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Good gracious, yes, Epiphanes did stand up to God, The Prince of the Host of Heaven. And he IS considered an archetype of The Antichrist.

The prophecy was:

"His power shall be great— but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints." Daniel 8: 24.

He did destroy some of the Jews, but did he succeed in what he does and did he destroy mighty men?

How did Antiochus IV stand up to God? I know that he offered a pig as a sacrifice on the altar, and he cruelly murdered a lot of people, but is that what the Bible prophecy meant by "standing up to God"?

Antiochus' standing up against God was nothing as compared to Rome's standing up against God. Rome was the power that nailed Jesus Christ-- who is God--- to the cross.

[John317]

The horn cast down the Sanctuary to the ground, and so did NOT Antiochus; he left it standing. The sanctuary and Host were trampled under foot 2300 days; and in Daniel's prophecies days are put for years: but the profanation of the Temple in the reign of Antiochus did not last for so many natural days. These were to last till the time of the end, till the last end of the indignation against the Jews; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the sanctuary which had been cast down should be cleansed, and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Ant. IV Epi's history is a facinating but relatively neglected topic in Middle Eastern history.

He's an asterick of history.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

But not neglected by The Jews, who consider his devastation and desecration to be some of the worst they experienced. To them, he was beyond "great".

But that doesn't mean he fulfilled the prophecies, merely because the Jews consider his desecration of the temple some of the worst they experienced. To be the power referred to in prophecy he would need to fulfill many more prophecies, not least of which is the 2300 or 1150 day prophecy. He fulfilled neither of these, to say nothing of many other unfulfilled specifications

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

So many credible scholars take opposite tacks from Newton's perception of history that

But the fact is that Antiochus IV didn't fulfill most of the prophetic specifications.

[skyblue888]

Crozier: "Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5: 11; 'By whom we have now received the atonement,'(margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past."

__________________

Interesting John, I read that same paragraph today! You are suggesting that Crozier is quoting Romans 5:11 having Calvary on his mind.

Romans 5:11 was written way after Christ had ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions. "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." F.W.105. This is what he had in mind which is in total harmony with his previous six points.

Christ ascended up on High to make atonement and this was not the entire atonement. Crozier understood that. He understood that Christ had entered the most holy place on the 22nd of October to enter into the final phase of the atonement which He had begun after His ascension. Otherwise what he said in the six points he had just made would make no sense whatsoever.

The paragraph you quoted is on the same page where he made those six points showing that no atonement was made at Calvary.

Does that help?

sky

____________________________

I don't believe that Crosier wanted the reader to conclude there was no atoning sacrifice made a calvary. If he did, however, it would clearly contradict Ellen White and the Bible, don't you agree?

Ellen White's recommendation of the Crosier article doesn't mean she wanted her reader to think everything Crosier wrote in it was correct. She herself wrote many times that the death of Christ on the cross was a work of atonement.

I believe the following verses in the Bible also show that there was indeed an atonement made at the cross:

At the cross, Christ "brought about purification [or cleansing]from sins." Christ brought about this purification from sins before He took His seat at the right hand of God.(Heb. 1: 3).

NOTE: This purging of sin-- which was an atonement(Lev. 16:30)-- was a past act, but as Hebrews 9: 15 shows, it is also a present, continuous work of Christ our High Priest. M.L. Andreason comments, "Those who claim that Christ's work was finished on the cross fail to take into consideration the continual, daily application of the blood necessary to man's salvation. No more than God created the world and set it in motion, and then left it to run by itself, does Christ by one act on Calvary set redemption in motion, and then leave it to work by itself. The slaying of the sacrificial lamb in the sanctuary was a definite act which provided the means of reconciliation, the blood. But the blood had to be ministered to be efficacious, and the ministration was equally vital with the death. The blood shed on Calvary is mighty to the cleansing and purifying of the conscience from dead works, not as a past act merely, but as a living, present reality." (The Book of Hebrews, pages 350, 351.)

Romans 3:24-26

and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

2 Cor. 5:18-19

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

NOTE: the above is talking about the cross, not Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary. Notice: "reconciled," "was reconciling," all past tense.

Ephes. 1:7

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Col. 1:14

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [21] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

[21] And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, [22] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

It was at the cross that Christ "made expiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 1: 17).

cf. Leviticus 16:30

For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins.

At the cross, Christ "obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12)

At the cross, Christ "appeared once for all at the climax of history to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9: 26).

At the cross, "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of mankind" (Heb. 9: 28).

We have been consecrated, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10: 10)

At the cross, Christ offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins. (Heb. 10: 12)

"By one offering [at the cross] he has perfected for ever those who are consecrated by it." (Heb. 10: 14)

Romans 5: 18--

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Romans 5:10-11

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. [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 word translated "atonement" in verse 11 is the same word which is translated "reconciled" in verse 10. It is self-evidence that this atonement took place at the death of Christ on the cross. In verse 11, Paul says believers receive this atonement, but the atonement he speaks of took place at the cross and not at His ascension.

John317

________________________________

John, thank you for your response. There is no doubt in my mind and I am sure there was no doubt in Crozier's mind that Christ's death was the "atoning sacrifice" in the sense that by His dying upon the cross Christ fulfilled the condition for the atonement. This seems to be what Mrs. White understood. "Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29. Here she does not say that the atonement had been fulfilled but that the condition for it had been fulfilled. Then we read, "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Faith and Works, p.105.

And even before He could begin to make atonement in the sanctuary above, He waited for the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice.

Before you quoted those last statements from Mrs. White you and Gerry were saying that the cross was only a partial atonement, certainly not the complete atonement. But now you believe that it was complete and yet you believe that Christ is making atonement in the sanctuary above. If complete what need is there for a continual atonement followed by a final atonement? It just does not make sense to say that it is complete and then teach that He must now ascend up on High to make atonement and that after 1800 years He would make the final atonement.

Could it be that some statements have been tampered with?

I will let it rest for now. Thank you for your input.

sky

[John317]

....John, thank you for your response. There is no doubt in my mind and I am sure there was no doubt in Crozier's mind that Christ's death was the "atoning sacrifice" in the sense that by His dying upon the cross Christ fulfilled the condition for the atonement. This seems to be what Mrs. White understood. "Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29. Here she does not say that the atonement had been fulfilled but that the condition for it had been fulfilled. Then we read, "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Faith and Works, p.105.

Yes, I agree with this.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

And even before He could begin to make atonement in the sanctuary above, He waited for the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice.

True.

Quote:

Before you quoted those last statements from Mrs. White you and Gerry were saying that the cross was only a partial atonement, certainly not the complete atonement. But now you believe that it was complete and yet you believe that Christ is making atonement in the sanctuary above.

I believe Christ's atoning sacrifice was complete, but I certainly don't believe the the atonement per se was completed at the cross. I don't see "the atonement" and Christ's death as one and the same.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

If complete what need is there for a continual atonement followed by a final atonement? It just does not make sense to say that it is complete and then teach that He must now ascend up on High to make atonement and that after 1800 years He would make the final atonement.

I agree with you, and I apologize for not making myself clearer. I never intended to give the impression that no more atonement is necessary after the cross. Christ is performing a work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary today, and there will be a final atonement just before Christ returns.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

Could it be that some statements have been tampered with?

Interesting question. Maybe some statements could be changed, but not as many as it would require in order to make her writings appear to say something she never said. We can see the original sources of most of those statements in question, and those can't be changed because they've been in publications since they were first printed.

If you tell me which documents you believe might have been altered, I can do some research and find out if such a change was possible. I might even be able to see the statement in Ellen White's handwriting as well as the original printing of it.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

....John, thank you for your response. There is no doubt in my mind and I am sure there was no doubt in Crozier's mind that Christ's death was the "atoning sacrifice" in the sense that by His dying upon the cross Christ fulfilled the condition for the atonement. This seems to be what Mrs. White understood. "Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29. Here she does not say that the atonement had been fulfilled but that the condition for it had been fulfilled. Then we read, "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Faith and Works, p.105.

Yes, I agree with this.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

And even before He could begin to make atonement in the sanctuary above, He waited for the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice.

True.

Quote:

Before you quoted those last statements from Mrs. White you and Gerry were saying that the cross was only a partial atonement, certainly not the complete atonement. But now you believe that it was complete and yet you believe that Christ is making atonement in the sanctuary above.

I believe Christ's atoning sacrifice was complete, but I certainly don't believe the the atonement per se was completed at the cross. I don't see "the atonement" and Christ's death as one and the same.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

If complete what need is there for a continual atonement followed by a final atonement? It just does not make sense to say that it is complete and then teach that He must now ascend up on High to make atonement and that after 1800 years He would make the final atonement.

I agree with you, and I apologize for not making myself clearer. I never intended to give the impression that no more atonement is necessary after the cross. Christ is performing a work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary today, and there will be a final atonement just before Christ returns.

Originally Posted By: skyblue

Could it be that some statements have been tampered with?

Interesting question. Maybe some statements could be changed, but not as many as it would require in order to make her writings appear to say something she never said. We can see the original sources of most of those statements in question, and those can't be changed because they've been in publications since they were first printed.

If you tell me which documents you believe might have been altered, I can do some research and find out if such a change was possible. I might even be able to see the statement in Ellen White's handwriting as well as the original printing of it.

_____________________

Wow John, great reply. I really appreciate it, more than you can imagine. Thank you so much. Yes it would be good to see these statements in her handwriting. Andreason had complained about an effort on the part of the leaders of the GC at the time of the compromises with the Evangelicals to tamper with her writings regarding the atonement. Would you like me to post what Andreason said about it? It's not too long and it is very interesting.

The statements that we might want to double check are those that came from the appendix of B.C.7A since they come from the book Questions on Doctrine which was published shortly after the compromises. But the only way to be sure would be to see those statements in her handwriting.

sky

[John317]

Sir Isaac Newton was a supergiant of a man - in mathematics and physics. Outside those fields, he had numerous heretical ideas, especially in theology. For instance, he did not believe in a personal devil, and he did not believe in the trinity.

But are you surprised that such a brilliant and innovative scientist and thinker would hold some unorthodox views? I'm not. In fact, I would be shocked if he was completely orthodox in his viewpoints. Millions of SDAs themselves hold some theological views that are largely considered heretical.

During a seminar at a university, I once asked the great German theologian, Wolfart Pannenberg, if he believed in a "personal devil," and he told me that he would first need to define the word "personal." I think he said this in order to avoid having to say in front of many Christians that he didn't believe in a personal devil. He wrote a whole chapter in one of his books on the meaning and significance of the word, "personal," so I don't believe he was confused about what "personal devil" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfhart_Pannenberg

My point is that there are many Christians who don't believe in a personal devil. I do believe in one, but I can understand why others don't.

On the Trinity-- while I believe in it myself, most of the SDAs who lived in the 19th century and early 20th century didn't. In fact, the husband of Mrs. White didn't, and neither did most of the leaders of our church. Most SDAs from its founding in the early 1860s to about 1900 were anti-Trinitarian, although it was never an official doctrine of the church, and there were some Trinitarians in the church, who were never required to change.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

For much of his life, he practiced alchemy, which entailed beliefs that would curl an Adventist's toes, and even mine, profane and blasphemous as I am said to be.

You're right here, but I can't judge him on the basis of my view of alchemy, since he didn't hold the same view as I do and he lived at a different period of time. God judges people according to the light we have and according to the light we might have had if we had wanted to know the truth.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Newton was a loner, suspicious to the point of paranoia, and during several periods of his life almost certainly psychotic. There has been much speculation about causes of his episodic insanity: he has been said to have bipolar disorder, mercury poisoning (from his alchemical experiments and dabbling), and chronic schizophrenia. There is more - much more. Newton's opinions outside physics and math should be taken with caution.

Wow,JawgeFromJawja, you make it appear almost miraculous that the man was such a brilliant scientist and accomplished so much. Based on what you say here, it would seem that if he lived today, he'd be in a mental hospital or at the very least under some pretty serious psychological and medical therapy.

But what's important here is that everything Newton wrote concerning Antiochus IV is founded on sound reasoning in regard to valid historical and biblical evidence. No one is accepting his views simply because of his name and without looking closely at the reason he said what he did. I trust that this will become plain as we continue with our discussion.

[skyblue888]

Excellent thoughts, John.

sky

[John317]

....Christ ascended up on High to make atonement and this was not the entire atonement. Crozier understood that. He understood that Christ had entered the most holy place on the 22nd of October to enter into the final phase of the atonement which He had begun after His ascension. Otherwise what he said in the six points he had just made would make no sense whatsoever.

I think I see the solution to this seeming contradition between Crosier's article and Ellen White's recommendation of it. The solution is simply that Crosier's theme is the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month, and not whether Christ's death was an atonement per se. Crosier is only denying that Christ's death was the antitype of the Day of Atonement. Notice in the article that when Crosier speaks of "the atonement," he's referring to the atonement that fulfilled the Day of Atonement. As long as we keep this in mind, we won't be confused into thinking Crosier's rejecting the view that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice.

http://www.sdadefend.com/Our%20Firm%20Foundation/Crosier-sanctuary.pdf

Crosier makes this point clear in the following statements:

Quote:

One of these two conclusions is inevitable on the hypotheses that the Gospel Dispensation and the atonement made in it, is the antitype of the legal tenth day, and the atonement made in it. Upon which of these horns will they hang? If on the former, the declaration, "I came not to destroy the law," pierces them; but if they choose the latter, it then becomes them to prove that the law, which had a shadow of good things to come, was fulfilled within itself, that the shadow and substance filled the same place and time; also they will need to prove that the entire atonement for the forgiveness of sins was made before the Lamb was slain with whose blood the atonement was to be made...

...1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made?

The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest? but who officiated on Calvary? - Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement: the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4, 13-15. etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was the appointed High priest to make the atonement, and he certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after his resurrection, and we have no record of his doing any thing on earth after his resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not, according to Hebrews 8:4, make the atonement while on earth. "If he were on earth, he should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, he did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after his ascension, when by his own blood he entered his heavenly Sanctuary for us.

[JawgeFromJawja]

The book is controversial, divisive, and even incredible. Although it has influenced Western Civilization more than any other, it was originally written in multiple ancient languages. What with evolution of language, translation itself is open to heated debate, even among credible scholars. The language of my favorite translation is archaic and quaint, but poetic and soothing. My chosen book for exile would be The Authorized, or King James Version of The Bible.

Gracious. Heretofore, prior to Club Adventist coming into my life,I had just

read The Bible, not split it open, shredded it line by line, and cogitated about the merits of particular translations, and even the merits of the approaches to translation. I grew up and stayed with the KJV, a translation belonging in the "literal class" of translation. Even so, the often abstruse 400 year-old language still frequently required checking on changes in word definitions. Rather long lists of lists of words with changed meanings relative to 1611 are available, and should be used by readers new to the KJV.

In fact, when I attempt to get young people to read the Bible, there is an almost knee jerk response, a complaint of the difficulty in reading Scripture. Most of them must think I am referring only to the Authorized Bible.

John317, I began to think that many of our discussions about doctrine as based on Scripture are an exercise in futility when you pointed out the lack of gender agreement between certain pronouns in translations of a certain passage. Please see the underscored sentence in the excerpt from a post I wrote some eight years ago on a now defunct forum. In addition to changing language, original copies of Scripture have been lost, misplaced, destroyed, and deliberately mistranslated. To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord’s Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: “for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen”. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

Look again at your pointing out the lack of gender agreement in a passage of question. We have no assurance whatever that the translators of the versions in question were sufficiently educated in classical languages as to properly recognize such grammatical discrepancies, if indeed those discrepancies existed at the time of translation. We do not even have assurance of the integrity of the translators. It becomes obvious with study of various translations and methods of translation that personal integrity was open to question in the past. Indeed, their integrity remains open to question now, in the past, and for future translations.

Where does that leave us? Not to worry. We who ask for the guidance of The Holy Spirit in our Scripture reading AND understanding of Scripture are assured of proper interpretation of any Scriptural passage no matter what our freaky perception of God’s Scripture.

My God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The Father of Jesus Christ, gives each of us the Truth revealed in Scripture in accordance with our individual experiences and needs. However, we all stand equally before God as ongoing sinners with no excuse.

Jesus taught us the purpose, the meaning of The Law , in Matthew 7: 12 -

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.” (KJV)

Dear God, how many break this simple recapitulation of the law constantly, while professing to keep the bland, the dry, the love lacking, Old Covenant Law as detailed explicitly for Israel?

Even so, John317, discussion of doctrine among Spirit led Christians is of potential value among those accepting each other as born again Christians. However, I was uncomfortable with Adventists from my first contact with them in my childhood, and that discomfort increased with my definitely negative experiences with Adventists when I began courting, finally marrying my Adventist wife. Over the past several weeks with Club Adventist, my discomfort with Adventist Christian fellowship has worsened. Just as when my wife and I married, I must still ask myself this question:

is our discourse between Christian and Christian, or are you as an Adventist taking the position that I, a Baptist, am hopelessly outside the fold of God’s chosen people?

We who ask for the guidance of The Holy Spirit must accept guidance requested by prayer to be in accordance with God’s Truth. Otherwise, our prayers for guidance are of no merit. John317, do you believe non-Adventists prayers to be of no merit? Yes, I am being blunt. But consider, all too frequently, those of differing beliefs are told that heterodox beliefs are of the Devil. Really? Then those saying we are of the Devil must believe that at least in some circumstances, the Devil is stronger than God. This I cannot believe. Do you?

J317, weird heterodox that I am, I accept my beliefs to be in accordance with God’s Truth, just as all Christians of all “flavors” accept their beliefs as God’s Truth. I believe in my irrevocable salvation, my atonement, my pardon for sins, through the atoning death of Jesus of Nazareth. My salvation is all predicated on faith in God as the provider of that salvation.

These statements of faith have been blunt. Even so, please do not be diplomatic in your responses to them. Pussyfooting responses will ultimately not help me or you.

At least, let us not dance around the grammar of classical languages, hopefully not doing ripostes on such mushy questions as whether God created the Universe in six literal days or untold billions of years.

I read Scripture with a beginning prayer for guidance by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that prayer is in vain.

George

JawgeFromJawja

[John317]

My chosen book for exile would be The Authorized, or King James Version of The Bible.

You and me both. I have over 66 translations of the Bible, but the KJV is still my favorite and the one I read most often. It was one of our main text books for learning how to read. My aunt was my third grade teacher and my mom was the first grade teacher, and both of them bought large print copies of the KJV for everyone in their classes. I still have the one I got in third grade. We would read it out loud to each other during reading class. It would be great if teachers did that today. When you do that, you get used to the archaic words.

[John317]

Gracious. Heretofore, prior to Club Adventist coming into my life,I had just read The Bible, not split it open, shredded it line by line, and cogitated about the merits of particular translations, and even the merits of the approaches to translation.

Yeah, but aren't you glad for Club Adventist where you can do this? I don't think of it as "shredding" the Bible line by line, though. lol It is more like chewing it and swallowing it and making it a part of us, which is what Jesus meant when He said we're to drink His blood and eat His flesh. It is really all about making His word a part of our mind and our thinking.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I grew up and stayed with the KJV, a translation belonging in the "literal class" of translation. Even so, the often abstruse 400 year-old language still frequently required checking on changes in word definitions. Rather long lists of lists of words with changed meanings relative to 1611 are available, and should be used by readers new to the KJV.

There are also various editions of the KJV, which update the language. There's one called KJV II that I have. There are also editions of the KJV that put definitions of old words below the verse. Someone told me about a couple of editions of the KJV that just change the outdated words. As you probably know, the New King James Version does more than change the outdated words. I like the NKJV but it's good to be aware of the changes made in it.

By the way, as much as I love the KJV, I don't consider myself among the "KJV ONLY" crowd. I do enjoy many other translations, and I don't put down people who use other translations. I believe that people can learn the truth of the gospel and come to know God by reading many translations and not only the KJV.

[Johnnboy]

John317-You definitely were privileged to have that class of teachers and to learn to read from a literal translation, like the KJV of the Bible. Very valuable.

[John317]

Yes, I sure was. I know that my reading of the Bible as a kid is one of the influences that brought me back to Christ and the church after I wandered away. Those verses always reverbrated in my brain and I couldn't get away from them, thank God, no matter where I went or what I was doing.

[John317]

John317, do you believe non-Adventists prayers to be of no merit? Yes, I am being blunt.

It's fine to be blunt. I'm a blunt person. I don't like beating around the bush. Glad you don't either.

The answer to your question here is a straight-up, NO. God is no respector of persons, and anyone who intentionally gives you the impression that SDAs don't believe God answers the prayers of non-SDAs is giving you the wrong idea.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

But consider, all too frequently, those of differing beliefs are told that heterodox beliefs are of the Devil. Really? Then those saying we are of the Devil must believe that at least in some circumstances, the Devil is stronger than God. This I cannot believe. Do you?

I think you would agree that false doctrines and false beliefs come from only one source, but that doesn't mean that the people holding them are of the Devil. Martin Luther, a great hero of mine, obviously held some false teachings that were of Satan but Luther himself was unquestionably a man of God. There's probably not a single person on earth who doesn't hold some false beliefs. We're all learning.

And no, Satan is definitely not stronger than God. Not even close.

[John317]

John317, I began to think that many of our discussions about doctrine as based on Scripture are an exercise in futility when you pointed out the lack of gender agreement between certain pronouns in translations of a certain passage.

Are you referring to the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old?

If it's an exercise in futility to discuss Bible doctrine on the basis of Scripture, then upon what basis should doctrine be discussed? It sounds like you're saying the Scriptures are unreliable.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Please see the underscored sentence in the excerpt from a post I wrote some eight years ago on a now defunct forum.

OK, I will.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

In addition to changing language, original copies of Scripture have been lost, misplaced, destroyed, and deliberately mistranslated.

What do you mean "changing language"?

It is certainly true that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures have been lost or destroyed.

What do you mean "deliberately mistranslated"? Aren't you talking about the Greek NT and the Hebrew/Aramaic OT? If so, we're not talking about translating at all since those are the original languages of the Bible.

[John317]

... To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord's Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

Let me ask you two very important questions:

1) How is it that you are able to determine that this line of the Lord's prayer has been added?

2) Where are those lines from and do they add anything that teaches false doctrine?

[John317]

... To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord’s Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: “for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen”. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

Yes, there were some attempts to add to the Scriptures, but because we have so many manuscripts, those additions are not all that hard to identify. You've identified one such addition. But even those additions don't lead us to false teachings, do they?

I've been closely comparing about 15 different printed Greek texts with the ancient manuscript evidence for them for a number of years, and I have yet to see any variants that, if accepted, would be a cause of false doctrine.

One addition is 1 John 5: 7, but since I believe in the Trinity, I see nothing harmful in it. Jehovah's Witnesses would obviously disagree and claim that this addition brought in false teachings. But I firmly believe they're wrong. I don't believe God allowed any changes to be made that would lead His church into false teachings.

[John317]

...Look again at your pointing out the lack of gender agreement in a passage of question. We have no assurance whatever that the translators of the versions in question were sufficiently educated in classical languages as to properly recognize such grammatical discrepancies, if indeed those discrepancies existed at the time of translation. We do not even have assurance of the integrity of the translators.

What "translators"? I'm not discussing translations but the Hebrew/Aramaic of the OT and the Greek NT.

[John317]

.... We have no assurance whatever that the translators of the versions in question were sufficiently educated in classical languages as to properly recognize such grammatical discrepancies, if indeed those discrepancies existed at the time of translation. We do not even have assurance of the integrity of the translators.

Again, we're not talking about "translations" but of the original languages in which the books were composed. No one has any ancient manuscripts of NT books pre-dating the Greek manuscripts of the NT. The idea that the NT books were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then later translated into Greek is conjecture for which there is no proof. I believe it's possible that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, but then I'm sure Matthew supervised the translation of it into Koine Greek for the Greek-speaking churches.

I have seen no persuasive evidence that either Paul or Luke wrote their books in anything except Greek.

In the case of the NT, there are literally thousands of manuscripts of either portions of books or the entire book. Also, no one ever had access to all the ancient manuscripts, so even if they had wanted to change something, they couldn't have changed all of them. The manuscripts were distributed all over a wide area.

The bottom line for me is that after examining the evidence for the Bible, I have absolutely no doubt that we can trust it. I see strong evidence that God didn't inspire it only to have it destroyed or ruined by evil men.

Besides, if we can't trust the Bible, then there's no reason to trust any ancient book, because there's hundreds of times more evidence supporting the Bible than there is any other ancient book in all of history. All the evidence points to the reliability of the Scriptures-- that is, that what we have now is substantially the same as it was originally. The Dead Sea Scrolls certainly support this conclusion.

[Gail]

George, I am happy that you are here and have enjoyed following the topic :)

[John317]

... To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord’s Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: “for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen”. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

I've gone over quite a bit of the New Testament word for word and almost letter for letter in the Greek original, comparing the manuscript evidence for each variant, and while there are many hundreds of differences, most of those difference don't change the translation, and of the ones that do change the translation, the change is not such as to alter the essential meaning of the sentence or verse.

I don't know of any that change the doctrines of the Bible. The only verse I know which was added and could lead to a false view of God is found in

John 5:3-4

In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. [4] For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Yeah, but aren't you glad for Club Adventist where you can do this? I don't think of it as "shredding" the Bible line by line, though. lol It is more like chewing it and swallowing it and making it a part of us, which is what Jesus meant when He said we're to drink His blood and eat His flesh. It is really all about making His word a part of our mind and our thinking.

By George, John317, yer absolutely right. I just gotta get accustomed to such.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

[color:#FF0000Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I grew up and stayed with the KJV, a translation belonging in the "literal class" of translation. Even so, the often abstruse 400 year-old language still frequently required checking on changes in word definitions. Rather long lists of lists of words with changed meanings relative to 1611 are available, and should be used by readers new to the KJV.

]

After 400 years, I ain't about to change.

I still have a lot of the reading crutches around. I am still using them frequently, but not nearly so much as of yore.

Jawge