The apocalyptic impulse generally emerges from a life history of pain and suffering, and is grounded in the assaults against the body, the will, and the spirit of children that are rationalized as discipline.
It is surely no accident that so many of the Protestant Christians who are ardent advocates of corporal punishment for children are also intensely apocalyptic.
The painful punishment of children creates the nuclear core of rage, resentment, and
aggression that fuels fantasies of the apocalyptic end of the world.
This has been true at least from the early seventeenth century to the present.
The most consistent thread connecting apocalyptics generation after generation has been the experience
of pain, assault, and physical coercion resulting from harsh corporal punishments in childhood.
—Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse
by Philip J. Greven
This is a doozy of a statement and belief, Jeremy.
This makes EGW a co-redemptrix with Christ.
This quote is from the the video (linked to in original post) that has been expunged from the earth as far as I can find. Poof, gone. Wonder why?..
Watch and note who the Dean of LLU School of Religion, speaking on Truth and Post Modernism thinks makes you a better person, testifies to and models after…
52:25 “… they may discover that if Ellen White and the bible have made you a better person they may want to become more like you. Our testimony about Ellen White and our testimony about the scripture will have power when we come to them through these six points. But correctives will not be welcome unless our spirit is different from what they think Ellen White’s spirit was. In other words we need to model for them the Ellen White that we believe in the way that we treat them. That becomes the bottom line.”
So do you have the truth when you have the testimony of Ellen? Do the scriptures say to model Ellen? Replace Ellen White with Joseph Smith or the pope and you’d call that cultish. Replace his Ellen White’s with Jesus Christ and you have an actual Christian.
actually i wasn’t saying or even implying that the one causes the other…i was simply showing the analogy between the two events…
i think there probably are cases of egw idolatry, particularly among LGTers, but i don’t think stressing the importance of obedience to a prophet of god is idolatrous…in fact i think detracting from the message of a prophet is idolatrous because it shows that views and opinions other than the will of god as expressed through a prophet are paramount: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
ultimately it’s god who will judge, but i think it’s fair to say that a lot depends on meaningful opportunity…being an adventist today doesn’t necessarily mean meaningful access to egw…
yes, it is a doozy of a statement - lol, i haven’t heard that expression in many yrs - but i don’t think we have any biblical evidence that a prophet’s statements can be separated from the will of god…in fact the bible teaches us that god reveals his will through prophets, which means they can’t be optional…disregarding a prophet’s words really does mean disregarding the express will of god, and i just don’t see that that has any chance of ending well…
In these last days God speaks to us through His Son, according to Hebrews. I believe God uses the HS to speak to us, as well.
I don’t think that God uses the thundering prophet, as was done with Israel, in the New Testament church.
Did Ellen White make acceptance of her prophetic ministry a prerequisite for joining the Seventh-day Adventist church?
Yes, one wonders. . . .
I don’t know how long y’all plan to live, but I see a bit of a problem in the following:
How many words are there in the Bible?
The King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words.
How many words is that? If you can type at 60 words a minute, it would take you just over 217 and a half hours to retype the entire Bible. Can you imagine how long type-setting must have taken in the early days of printing?
How Many Words Did Ellen White Write?
During this remarkably fecund 70-year ministry to her church, some 25 million words would issue forth from the pen of Ellen White.
Even in death she would attain to literary distinction, for she has been constituted as (1) one of the most translated writers in the entire history of literature (in 1991 her treatise on practical Christian living, Steps to Christ,was available in 137 languages); (2) the most translated womanwriter of all time; and (3) the most translated Americanwriter of either sex.
How many books and articles did Ellen White write?
At the time of her death Ellen White’s literary productions totaled approximately 100,000 pages: 24 books in current circulation; two book manuscripts ready for publication; 5,000 periodical articles in the journals of the church; more than 200 tracts and pamphlets; approximately 35,000 typewritten pages of manuscript documents and letters; 2,000 handwritten letters and diary materials comprising, when copied, another 15,000 typewritten pages. Compilations made after her death from Ellen White’s writings bring the total number of books currently in print to more than 130.
Here’s the real kicker:
Did Ellen White make acceptance of her prophetic ministry a prerequisite for joining the Seventh-day Adventist church?
Speaking of those who “had no opposition” to her prophetic gift, but who, for various reasons, were still undecided regarding her ministry, Ellen White wrote:
Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and they have formed a good Christian character. . . .Some, I was shown, could receive the published visions, judging of the tree by its fruits. Others are like doubting Thomas; they cannot believe the published Testimonies, nor receive evidence through the testimony of others, but must see and have the evidence for themselves. Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them until they find their position and become established for or against.
If they fight against the visions, of which they have no knowledge; if they carry their opposition so far as to oppose that in which they have had no experience, and feel annoyed when those who believe that the visions are of God speak of them in meeting and comfort themselves with the instruction given through vision, the church may know that they are not right.
(Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 328).
Thus Ellen White gives explicit instructions against “try all things, hold fast that which is good.”
No one is going to live long enough to sort through this mess!
One may not, repeat MAY NOT question her writings and be a Seventh-day Adventist in good standing, even though one lifetime is not enough to plumb the depths of the Bible.
SDAs must wade through 25 times the material in the Bible and pronounce her inspired, or be “wrong.”
I was abusively “exorcised” for 16 hours because I was distraught by her writings and the way people were treating me for questioning them.
Friends, this is an impossible situation that will sink the Seventh-day Adventist Church, even if it were not afflicted with numerous other fatal besetments.
Something has to give.
Why We Will Aways Have Segregated Conferences
Yes, I think this has been happening for a long time, at least in the more Westernized countries.
The LDS church is experiencing much the same thing.
I don’t see how either of these churches can back off the claims made for their church and prophet, and stay together for very long. Both are totally dependent on the prophet/tess.
The KJV is wrong too, Jeremy. If you would like an in depth look into this I’d suggest getting your hands on DARCOM series - Issues in the Book of Hebrews would deal with your question. I’ll quote from our SDABC first: (from Heb. 8:2)
The sanctuary. Gr. ta hagia, literally, “the holies,” or “the holy [places].” The feminine hai hagiai is most unlikely here (see on ch. 9:2). Scholars quite uniformly hold that the Greek form is a neuter plural. There are differences of opinion as to the force and function of the plural in this instance. Some believe that the plural designates two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary corresponding to the two apartments in the earthly. Others believe that the plural is an intensive plural denoting simply the concentration of holy things in the sanctuary. The uncertainty arises from the fact that in ch. 9:2, 3 textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) a plural form for the Greek term that describes the first apartment and also for the term that describes the second apartment (see comment there). In view of this, the fact that ta hagia is a plural does not of itself prove that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary. However, that Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary is conducted in two apartments, or “two great divisions,” is transparently evident from a comparison of the earthly with the heavenly, for the earthly was “a copy of the true one” (ch. 9:24, RSV) in heaven. See also on Ex. 25:9; Dan. 8:14; cf. Additional Note on Heb. 10.
So all those translations that say “holy place” or “most holy place” are rejected by our own SDABC, and some Bibles translations too. My favourite translation for study, the ESV, translates it the way our SDABC suggests: He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Now having said that, my favourite translation, may be good in some areas, but not in others. Hence my, There’s no such thing as a perfect translation remark.
“Issues in the Book of Hebrews”: (quite lengthy read.)
Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews
Alwyn P. Salom
Tα αγια (and its variants) occurs a total of ten times in the NT, all of them in the Epistle to the Hebrews. A casual examination of translations and commentaries makes it evident that there is considerable confusion of expression (if not of thought) among translators and commentators in their handling of this word. Table I illustrates the variety offered by translations ranging from the KJV to Phillips. An attempt was made to choose a representative group, including the committee translation, the modern speech translation, and the paraphrase. Of the ten translations chosen there is complete agreement only at one point (9:1). In six of the verses under consideration (9:2, 8, 12, 25; 10:19; 13:11) there is disagreement whether τα αγια refers to the sanctuary in general or to a specific part of it. Of the 100 translations represented in Table I, 65–69 are in terms of the sanctuary in general, 11–13 are in terms of the outer compartment of the sanctuary, and 20–22 are in terms of the inner compartment. The same division of opinion has been p 220 discovered among the commentators where it has been found necessary to explain that “Holy place” in some instances does not refer to the Holy Place, but to the Holy of Holies!
Table I: Translation of τα αγια in the Epistle to the Hebrews
[Table I missing - cannot bring it up on this format]
In view of the fact that the auctor ad Hebraeos leaned so heavily upon the LXX,4 it would seem that this is the logical place to look for evidence of his meaning in the use of τα αγια. A study of the LXX revealed the results summarized in Table 2. Of the 170 uses of this word which had reference to the Tabernacle or Temple,5 the overwhelming majority (142) referred to the sanctuary in general. When used in this way τα αγια seemed to appear indiscriminately in the singular or plural, although more than twice as frequently in the plural. At the same time it should be pointed out that when it was used of either the outer or inner compartments it was more usually singular. With only four exceptions this use was found to be articular. This same general pattern seems to be followed (on a much smaller scale) in Hebrews.7 It is significant that of the 98 places where this LXX expression is a translation of the Hebrew, 36 translate מִקְדָּשׁ which designates a sanctuary in general. All of this would suggest that this word had the idea of the sanctuary as a whole for its basic meaning in Hebrews as in the LXX.
p 221 Table II: The Use of τα αγια in the LXXa
[Table II missing - cannot bring it up on this format]
It could be argued that, inasmuch as all the uses of τα αγια from Hebrews 9:8 on are found in a Day of Atonement setting, a connection must be made between these six uses (at least) and the seven uses of this same word in Leviticus 16. It is true that these latter references are to the inner compartment of the sanctuary.10 However, it should be pointed out that each of the uses in Leviticus is singular, while in Hebrews (with one exception) they are plural. If the author of Hebrews was making a conscious borrowing from Leviticus 16 undoubtedly he would have used the singular. Furthermore, it seems far more likely that he was influenced by the general tendency of the LXX (which indicates that τα αγια refers primarily to the sanctuary as a whole), than by a specific part of it.
In addition to the uses of τα αγια already considered, there are two other constructions in which it appears in the LXX. το αγιον των αγιων (and variants) occurs 11 times referring to the inner compartment of the sanctuary. Seven of these are of the order cited above (i.e. singular/plural) and four are plural/plural. All of them are translations of קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשׁים. Αγια Αγιων in Hebrews 9:3 is an example of this use and refers to the inner compartment. Although it appears in the LXX more frequently in the articular form (eight such uses), this is not sufficient reason to eliminate the anarthrous example in Hebrews from this category. It appears that the author of Hebrews had a specific reason for omitting the article.12
The construction with τοπος is found 16 times in the LXX, all of which are singular.13 It does not appear in Hebrews but is found in the NT at Matthew 24:15; Acts 16:13; 21:28. In all of its LXX appearances it refers to the sanctuary in general. All three of the NT uses could also be understood in this same way. Acts 21:28 is particularly significant in that τον αγιον τοπον τουτον is parallel to ιερον. The use of this construction in both the LXX and the NT supports the thesis that τα αγια primarily refers to the sanctuary in general.
The use of αγιος in nonbiblical sources reveals that the meaning “sanctuary” p 223 or “temple” was quite widespread. In the Ptolemaic period το αγιον was used for “temple” in the Canopus inscription of Ptolemy III (239 B.C.). Both Philo15 and Josephus also used it in this sense. Schlatter points out that Josephus used it sparingly in this sense probably because it would have sounded strange in the ears of Greeks who were used to hearing ιερον. Procksch18 agrees with Flasher that το αγιον and τα αγια were introduced into the LXX to avoid using ιερον which had heathen connotations.
Only three of the uses of τα αγια in Hebrews are anarthros. Of these, Hebrews 9:24 is qualified by the accompanying χειροποιητα so that it has the value of being definite, even though not articular. The remaining 9:2 (Αγια) and 9:3 (Αγια Αγιων) both refer to specific parts of the sanctuary (the outer and inner compartments respectively), as is clearly indicated by the context. Was the author trying to make a distinction between these two (by leaving them anarthrous) and the other uses in Hebrews thus indicating that these two alone referred to specific parts of the sanctuary? Was this a device employed deliberately, to show a difference between the two groups? If this is the case, it constitutes further evidence that τα αγια in p 224 Hebrews (apart from 9:2, 3) should be regarded as referring to the sanctuary as a whole.
The general conclusion reached from the study of the LXX use of τα αγια and the comparison with the use in Hebrews is that this expression refers basically to the sanctuary in general. The question remaining to be answered is the question of translation. How should it be translated in Hebrews? Should it be left in translation with the emphasis on the basic meaning and thus be translated “sanctuary” each time (as by Goodspeed and Knox)? Or should it be interpreted in the light of its context and the theology of the passage, and translated according to that specific part of the sanctuary which seems to be in the mind of the writer? It is the contention of the present writer that the basic meaning of the word should be uppermost in the mind of the translator and, provided it makes sense in the context, should be used for the translation. Thus “sanctuary” would be the translation throughout Hebrews except at 9:2, 3. It is then the work of the commentator, on the basis of his study of the context and the theology of the passage, to decide what specific part (if any) of the sanctuary was in the mind of the writer.
8:2 των αγιων here refers to the heavenly sanctuary as a whole. This is supported by the epexegetical statement that follows, και της σκηνης της αληθινης. σκηνη is used quite regularly in the LXX for both אֹהֶל and מִשְׁכָּן representing the tabernacle as a whole. While it is argued by Koester and Hewitt24 that the author is speaking here of two separate things, their position is not strongly supported. In view of the evidence already presented from the LXX of the use of τα αγια, it would appear that the primary meaning here is the sanctuary as a whole, not the p 225 inner compartment (the basis of the arguments of Koester and Hewitt). Moffatt strongly supports this conclusion.
In the larger context of the author’s argument the emphasis is here being placed on the existence of the heavenly sanctuary. Just as Israel had its place of worship and high priest, so (says the auctor) Christianity, on a grander scale, has the same. In the words of Moule, “sanctuary and sacrifice are ours.” Now it is true, both that the reference in the context is to the high priestly function (8:1, 3), and that the unique function of the high priest was concerned with the inner compartment of the sanctuary. Thus, while “sanctuary” must rightly be regarded as the translation of των αγιων, on a secondary level, at least, the author may be considered to have had a specific part of the sanctuary in view.
9:1 Coming as it does, at the beginning of a detailed description of the parts and functions of the earthly sanctuary, το αγιον κοσμικον obviously is a reference to the sanctuary in general and should be translated accordingly. As Bruce points out, the author bases his description on “the wilderness tent described in the book of Exodus … the sanctuary of the old covenant.” Westcott emphasizes that it gives naturally “the general notion of the sanctuary without regard to its different parts.”28 The singular το αγιον is not found elsewhere in Hebrews; however, it is found quite frequently in the LXX.29
9:2 Provided the reading Αγια is correct (τα Αγια B sa), this use is unique. The significance of this has already been discussed. Montefiore notes that the anarthrous form is unparalleled in Hebrews but fails to see any significance in it.31 Unaccountably (unless there is a printing error, or he is following the Textus Receptus), he identifies the word as αγια and then discusses whether it is neuter plural or feminine singular. He decides in favor of feminine and considers that it is an adjectival use qualifying σκηνη. However, it would appear rather to be a neuter form and a substantival use referring to the outer compartment (η τρωτη σκηνη) p 226 of the sanctuary. The contents of the room as described in the verse support this.
9:3 This is the most straightforward of the uses of τα αγια in Hebrews. The form Αγια Αγιων (both neuter plural) is equivalent to the Hebrew superlative קֹדֶשׁ קֳדׇשִׁים (“Holiest”) and thus refers to the inner compartment of the sanctuary. Like 9:2, the expression in this verse is anarthrous, and like 9:2, it refers to a specific part of the sanctuary. This, of course, is confirmed by the context (9:4) which describes the contents of this compartment.
9:8 Again, the basic meaning of τα αγια must be considered foremost in translating, so that “sanctuary,” as given by Goodspeed, Knox, RSV, and NEB, is correct. The comprehensive meaning which includes both the outer and inner compartments of the sanctuary explains the use of η πρωτη σκηνη. The sanctuary here described is the heavenly sanctuary of which the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary is symbolic.35
The means of access to the heavenly sanctuary was historically not available as long as the outer compartment had standing or retained its status. This outer compartment represents the customary limit of access to God in the experience of Israel. Westcott’s comment is pertinent: “the outer sanctuary [i.e., compartment] was the representative symbol of the whole Tabernacle as the place of service.”37 When the earthly sanctuary fulfilled its purpose at the death of Christ, the means of access was historically provided into the heavenly sanctuary.
9:12 The translations of the KJV, ERV, and ASV (“the holy place”) and of Moffatt (“the Holy place”) and the RSV (“the Holy Place”) are definitely misleading. The characteristic service of the Day of Atonement here referred to (cf. vs. 7), was located in the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary. However, inasmuch as the high priest had to pass through the outer compartment, it could be said that he “employed” (cf. vs. 11, δια της μειζονος και τελειοτερας σκηνης) the whole sanctuary in this service. “Whereas Aaron and his successors went into the earthly holy of holies on the Day of Atonement … Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary.” It is suggested, then, that τα αγια once more be rendered p 227 “sanctuary,” referring to the heavenly sanctuary.
9:24 If in 9:12 τα αγια is to be translated “sanctuary,” clearly it should be the same in 9:24, for the same locale is described. It is not a specific part of the heavenly sanctuary that is in the mind of the author, as is evident from his adversative phrase αλλ εις αυτον τον ουρανον. Commentators are almost unanimous in considering this use of αγια a reference to the heavenly sanctuary in general.
9:25 As in 9:12, the translation “Holy Place” (and variants) is misleading. The reference in the context of the Day of Atonement service of the earthly high priest is not to the outer compartment of the sanctuary. His characteristic service on that day was carried on in the inner compartment. However, once more, because the whole sanctuary is involved in these services, “sanctuary” is to be preferred as the translation, thus emphasizing the basic meaning of the expression. This leaves with the commentator the task of pointing out that the inner compartment was the place where the significance of that day resided.
10:19 Unquestionably, the context (vs. 20) indicates that the author here is referring to the Christian’s privilege of free access into the very presence of God, access which was denied both the worshipper and the ordinary priest in the earthly sanctuary. But again it is recommended that the translation of των αγιων be left as “sanctuary,” allowing the reader or commentator, on the basis of the literary and theological context, to draw his conclusions as to what part of the sanctuary is particularly in the mind of the author.
13:11 Although Westcott allows that this verse may apply to other than the Day of Atonement ritual, it is likely in view of chapter 9 particularly, that the author has this day in mind. From Leviticus 16:27 (cf. vs. 2) it is possible to discover that on the Day of Atonement the blood of the sacrificial animal was carried into the inner compartment of the sanctuary. Thus this part of the sanctuary was in the mind of the author. But the LXX use of τα αγια and the manner in which it has been used in Hebrews would lead us to render it once more in the neutral sense, “sanctuary.” (Pg. 221-227 - emphasis supplied)
DARCOM prefer the word “sanctuary.”
Now I could have just quoted the SDABC, but some extra material I felt was needed. Though I probably shouldn’t be quoting so much of it anyway. Stay away from those I-have-authority-on-nothing-Adventists. They’ll screw with your head.
i agree that the KJV has errors, like the misplacement of the comma in Luke 23:43, and the second comma in 1 Peter 1:2…but on the subject of the sanctuary in Hebrews, most KJV readers don’t arrive at the conclusion that christ entered into the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary at his ascension, that god the father has always and only been in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary, and that our 1844/IJ doctrine therefore needs to be renounced…people who are firmly fixed in these errors, and who necessarily reject egw, are almost invariably NIV readers…
i also take issue with the generally irreverent tone of the NIV…i just think the KJV sounds more spiritual…plus it’s easier to memorize…
but keep in mind that i grew up with the KJV…i read it quickly and easily, and experience no confusion whatsoever with its syntax…probably people who don’t have this background would benefit from something more modern…i recently heard a relatively educated individual attempt to read a passage from the KJV from the podium at my home church, which is considered mainstream and traditional…honestly tony, it was sad…that individual would have been much better off with a newer translation…
but i come back to the point that we can’t rule out the importance of being wary of anything new, given the times we’re living in…i mean, put yourself in satan’s shoes…if you can’t ban or burn everybody’s bibles, or everybody who is caught with one, what choice are you left with but to introduce a translation that alters slightly, but sufficiently, the very doctrines you don’t want people to believe…and what has the best cover, or the best chance of passing by unnoticed, but a user-friendly bible translation that chips away not only at important end-time doctrines, but at the authority of the one prophet who is really on to you, and all your plans…
we have to understand that satan is directing all his energies against egw even more than donald trump is directing all his energies against robert mueller…and the reason is clear: egw uncovers all of satan’s plans and methods…she is totally on to the way he works…she’s even seen what he looks like now, compared to what he looked like before his fall…satan’s power to deceive depends on people not knowing that they’re being deceived…he can’t be effective with people who are armed with egw…no wonder the bible - the KJV, at least - identifies the spirit of prophecy as being half the reason the remnant church is the remnant church…
Jeremy, “holy place,” is correct, theologically - for us. But it depends on what kind of Bible translation you want. One that is more literal, or one that tries to be theologically correct. A literal rendering would be “sanctuary.” What I quoted from Issues in the Book of Hebrews also deals with this: (which I feel as though you are not ATM capable of stomaching - due to the fact that you ignored it all in your following comment)
So then it is our job (the “commentator”) “to decide what specific part (if any) of the sanctuary was in the mind of the writer.” Both the KJV, and the NIV, among others, enter into the realm of theological interpretation rather than the “basic meaning.” Personally I like using both types of Bibles. I need all the help I can get.
lol I can show you plenty of KJV-readers, who are twice as much against our doctrines, as the NIV readers. You’re speculating.
I’m glad you later go on to say:
Yes, and more so, to modern secular people the KJV sounds like some relic of a superstitious departed era, read by a bunch of relics who refuse to depart.
Now I find that disturbing. Satan having influenced all these newer Bible translations. You really need to get away from this type speculation. Especially when its got to do with tarring peoples characters. You make things too black and white, when most of it is grey.
Ask yourself, why do we only find this type of thinking in the conservative branch of Christianity? As I’ve already stated in an early post, you find this in other Christian denominations too: “Satan is behind the newer translations.”
What then is the common denominator between Adventists and other Protestants who believe this way? Because Satan can’t be against our theology while at the same time against their theology too.
Again speculation. Or another way would be to do what our scholars and those who aren’t afraid to study have done: read the new translations, as Ellen White herself did, while at the same time able to defend those passages you disagree with. Theology can play a big role in translation: As we’ve discussed, some Bibles translate Heb. 9:12 “most holy place” while on the other hand, if you were asked to translate it, would use “holy place.” In doing so, both of you refuse to depart from your theology when translating “ta hagia”: Sanctuary.
Elmer, one detail that Jeremy @vandieman still has to work on a little bit is to define properly what “an EGW detractor” is. When he defines that properly, I may jump in …
you’re reading me wrong, tony…i did read the somewhat lengthy excerpt from what i think was our SDABC that you provided - i’m a relatively quick reader - and i didn’t comment on it, not because i couldn’t stomach it at the moment, but because the literal translation of sanctuary for all the derivatives of ta hagia isn’t, in my view, either the issue or the solution…the issue is that the NIV, which is a popular newer translation, is giving ammunition to some adventists in their war against egw’s clear teaching on 1844/IJ, which really means it’s a tool satan is using to undermine the gift prophecy, which is half the reason we are the remnant church…in other words, what the NIV is enabling amounts to an existential issue for our church…i don’t think the solution is portraying all translations as equally useful or harmless with perhaps complimentary strengths…after-all, no-one is using the KJV to undermine egw…
tony, i can only go from my own experience…trust me, the egw detractors i know are all NIVers…
this is the same argument made against classical music…but as far as i’m concerned, the people flocking to pop and the NIV are making their own sad choices in life…the greatness of what they’re passing up is their own loss…
don’t be so sure, tony…all the fallen churches have kernels of truth scattered within them…we don’t have to think that these kernels of truth are exempt from satanic attack just because they exist outside the adventist church…if non-adventist churches are finding that the NIV is attacking what is good and noble in their traditions, this is a double red flag of warning, not a reason to dismiss the threat…you can’t make the case that a bible translation that erodes core truth isn’t a tool in satan’s arsenal…are you thinking that satan is only going to use something that features a clear pitch fork and fangs…doesn’t the bible in all translations teach that satan transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive…if voices within and even outside of our church are raising an alarm, isn’t it time to take a good look…
tony, no-one is insisting that everyone read only the KJV…the only point i’m making is that the NIV, not the KJV, has been used to assault our sanctuary doctrine and the authority of our prophet…it is a fact that the NIV disagrees with our sanctuary doctrine, while the KJV leaves it intact…i and others think this means something…
and not to put too fine a point on it, but what I believe is an SDABC excerpt you’ve cited is saying that translating ta hagia into sanctuary, or in terms of its basic meaning, is a CHOICE:
it’s all fine and well that you agree with that choice…but you can’t make the case that everyone else needs to accede to that choice, or that it isn’t a choice for which the opposite choice of context and theology isn’t at least equally valid…in the first place, in egw we have the holy spirit telling us what he inspired in the biblical text…with this advantage, why do we need to read anything in the bible in terms of it’s basic, which really means presumed, meaning, which no-one can verify because the biblical languages are long dead…but even if they were extant, isn’t it the case that in any language, the same word can mean different things, and different words can mean the same thing…i’m starting to think that you’re in danger of falling into the trap that says a scientific study of words is the way to understand the bible…but this is as hopeless as understanding earth origins through a study of evolution…it can’t happen…even if you don’t fall off the deep end in this ta hagia instance, what’s to prevent you from falling off of it in another instance…
Just a few things to consider Hewbrews 9:12 uses the expression ‘entering in Once for all’ as Hebrews 9:26, 28 also. This ‘once for all’ language is of course pointing to the Great Day of Atonement as anyHebrew would recognize.
Hebrews 9 Verse 26 - “He came once for all, at the end of the ages to do away with sin . . .” Here we find unmistakable allusion to the Day of Atonement.
When reading regarding the sanctuary in Heb. 8 and 9 one must keep in mind the monumental statement made regarding Christ and the sanctuary symbolism in Hebrews 6:19-20.
Where stated: Christ’s entering within the veil here is without question the Holy of Holies. The ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος – into the enter veil, refers to the second veil into the holy of holies. Many Adventist scholars are very open about this truth. This exact expression-- ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος – is used in the Old Testament translations ‘LXX’ in Greek exclusively, that is (ONLY) for the Holy of Holies–Ex.26:33, Lev. 16:2, 12, 15.
I’m not arguing theology, but rather, is it okay to use other translations outside of the KJV. Also, some modern versions agree with our SDBC by rendering it “holy places,” like the ESV and Young’s Literal Translation. The NASB on the other hand (seen as the most literal English translation) would go even further in favour of our SDA beliefs and renders it the way Jeremy prefers, “holy place” - singular, as does the Lexham Syntactic Greek NT.
Now I would argue that those translations I provided, and others, that don’t add the word “most” is not because they happen to agree with our doctrines, but rather due to the word “most” not being in the original. It’s supplied.
But as I wrote, I’m dealing with something else entirely: Can modern translations be trusted.
No, that’s not what it’s saying. And it’s not from the SDABC.
You obviously didn’t read, carefully, what I provided. And now for us to continue I have to go through this and show you what you’re getting wrong. No thanks.
Not going to work out in the real world.
I stand corrected.
I refuse to continue this dialogue after having spent well over 2 hours reading and looking up things to share with you, and in return to receive this.
Adios. I’m outta here.
tony, this is what it’s saying…read it again (I’m seeing now that it’s salom’s Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews):
salom is saying that in in his view, having looked at how ta hagia is used throughout the bible, and even outside of the bible, that the basic meaning of sanctuary should be used by a translator for ta hagia, if and whenever such a use makes sense from the context…he is offering this as a guideline to reduce confusion that has resulted from the various ways translators have translated this term in the various translations of the bible…
but however compelling salom’s contention is, the various translation committees behind the various translations of the bible that exist obviously haven’t followed his advice, which, to be fair, has come after the fact…we can say that it would be better had they done so, and that it would be better if we, as readers, do so…but the point is that salom isn’t the final word, even if he had existed before all biblical translations were made, although he is obviously a credible word worth considering…
this is ultimately where i disagree with you…in egw, we have the only known case of inspiration that the world has seen since bible times…the importance of egw therefore cannot be overstated…her visions, but even her personal views, shaped from 70 yrs of direct communication with heaven, contain an element that the most comprehensive study by scholars cannot claim, which is the imprimatur of heaven…
in the writings of every scholar, however fine, however thorough and comprehensive, we must always retain a certain amount of healthy doubt…but with egw, we don’t have to do this…when we read her visions of the heavenly sanctuary, we can rest assured that what she is describing is what the bible writers saw in their visions…
egw is therefore an incredibly important resource…she is what places our church in a category by itself…like the jews with its patriarchs and prophets, under the old covenant, and like the apostolic church with its apostles, in the early yrs of the new covenant, the seventh-day adventist church with our prophet is now the repository for the most advanced truth that exists…in egw, we have the most extensive unfolding of divine knowledge that heaven has ever revealed…
now if i were an adventist theologian, i would probably be irked, at least to some extent, that everything i have the potential to discover or piece together through yrs of painstaking research and study can be consigned to irrelevance if it ends up contradicting a plain statement from a 19th century woman who had no formal education - you can feel the frustration and impatience in some of the comments by some of our theologians…and the reality is that in some ways, the phenomenon of egw reduces the entire discipline of theology to irrelevance…there’s no other way to look at it…but this is the vantage ground occupied by the gift of prophecy, ranked second in the hierarchy of spiritual gifts enumerated by paul in 1 Cor 12, directly and only after the gift of apostleship…and let’s understand that the gift the apostles had ranks first only because it existed first, and because, in its time, was more comprehensive than the gift the prophets of that time had…
clearly, any prophet that emerges in the future, while he or she can never supersede either the bible or egw, will be incredibly important for the church…such an emergence could only mean that something momentous is about to occur, or is occurring, or has just occurred…we must always recall that the gift of prophecy is half of why the remnant church is the remnant church, Rev 12:17 (cf. Rev 19:10)…fortunately our current GC leaders get this…
but this is why the directly challenge that the NIV poses to egw in the matter of the sanctuary isn’t trivial…it can’t even be seen to be accidental or coincidental, given that we know that the dragon is wroth with the woman, and has engaged in a deadly war against her seed, using all means and every weapon at its disposal…all told, i think the criticism the NIV has received has an element of merit…
I’m not going to go through your comment and explain what I meant by certain things in my last post. Too much time has been spent on speculation (and what Satan’s doing with modern Bibles) and its worn me out. However, I will end with this: My whole purpose of sharing with you what I did was so that you would have an answer to those people who quote you the NIV and other Bibles that add the word “most” in passages such as in Heb. 9:12.
Sadly you could not see what I was trying to do, and well the rest is history as they say.
It’s basically impossible to discuss Hebrews with those who make EGW their main and superior source of information and doctrine, the Whiteists. If in reading Hebrews someone needs to “interpret” what is written, it’s already a bad start.
If they need extra-biblical sources to interpret Hebrews, they actually don’t want to understand what is written. No dialogue is possible in such circumstances.
we probably should have clarified what we were talking about…i think you were making the point that all translations have strengths and weaknesses, and that no one translation should necessarily be shunned…however, i had been making the point that in the specific case of Hebrews, the choices of the NIV could legitimately be viewed as an attack on one of our fundamental doctrines, and so definitely should be shunned in this context…
conversations never get anywhere when people are talking about different things…
Are there certain “words” that are used in the Hebrews NIV that you do not like???