ECT Heb 9 vs the "club"

T

Truster

New member
Interplanner said:
The new covenant in Hebrews 9 is:
>present tense
>deals with sin/justification from sin
>says nothing about a separate restoration of Israel as a nation.
The new covenant was Christ's performance that Israel failed to do. 'Sacrifices and offerings, you did not desire, but a body you have prepared.'--this was the 2nd party of this event explaining his role in it. Back in Isaiah, the Father had said of the Servant: 'I have made you a covenant for the nations...' That's it. If you can't see this taking shape in Hebrews 9, it's pretty hopeless.

The "club" is flat wrong in denying these. They claim to be champions of plain meaning, yet every time they get near Heb 9:
>They deny it is present tense by postponing it to the millenium. They are constantly saying it is not now--applicable now.
>they are so concerned with land promises that they don't exult in the victory over sin and guilt here
>they "see" (imagine) all kinds of reference to a separate restoration in Israel. Separate = Christians in heaven, Jews is Judea. There is one item back in the quote from Jer that shows the joining of Israel and Judah but this is far from a total land separation, which is debunked by the rest of Hebrews. Equally disturbing is the blatant rejection of any other ref to the new covenant in the synoptics or I Cor 11.
Click to expand...

What's the club?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Truster said:
What's the club?
Click to expand...



Right now it is: RD, STP, Danoh, Tamb, Must, maybe a few others. I don't know what flavor they are, I just know they champion evasion, not discussion. Ie, ask RD to say why Heb 10 interps Heb 8 and he'll send you cartoons. They think they are in charge of the Bible, mostly, instead of servants of it.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Right now it is: RD, STP, Danoh, Tamb, Must, maybe a few others. I don't know what flavor they are, I just know they champion evasion, not discussion. Ie, ask RD to say why Heb 10 interps Heb 8 and he'll send you cartoons. They think they are in charge of the Bible, mostly, instead of servants of it.
Click to expand...
This is HILARIOUS coming from a "grammar scholar" that wants to CHANGE the STILL WATERS to TOXIC WATERS in Psalm 23.

The word in question is:
H4496 מְנוּחָה mnuwchah (men-oo-chaw') n-f.​
מְנֻחָה mnuchah (men-oo-chaw') ​
1. repose.​
2. (adverbially) peacefully.​
3. (figuratively) consolation.​
4. (specifically) matrimony.​
5. (hence, concretely) an abode.​
[feminine of H4495]​
KJV: comfortable, ease, quiet, rest(-ing place), still. ​
Root(s): H4495 ​

Not a SINGLE translation of the Bible agrees with the "grammar scholar".

Yet this is the guy that is going to "teach" us all to understand the scripture. :rotfl:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
This is HILARIOUS coming from a "grammar scholar" that wants to CHANGE the STILL WATERS to TOXIC WATERS in Psalm 23.

The word in question is:
H4496 מְנוּחָה mnuwchah (men-oo-chaw') n-f.​
מְנֻחָה mnuchah (men-oo-chaw') ​
1. repose.​
2. (adverbially) peacefully.​
3. (figuratively) consolation.​
4. (specifically) matrimony.​
5. (hence, concretely) an abode.​
[feminine of H4495]​
KJV: comfortable, ease, quiet, rest(-ing place), still. ​
Root(s): H4495 ​

Not a SINGLE translation of the Bible agrees with the "grammar scholar".

Yet this is the guy that is going to "teach" us all to understand the scripture. :rotfl:
Click to expand...





Do Hebrew scholars raise sheep in deserts? That's who you have to ask.

Evasion of the passage in question for the 100th time.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Right now it is: RD, STP, Danoh, Tamb, Must, maybe a few others. I don't know what flavor they are, I just know they champion evasion, not discussion. Ie, ask RD to say why Heb 10 interps Heb 8 and he'll send you cartoons. They think they are in charge of the Bible, mostly, instead of servants of it.
Click to expand...

Evasion: putting STP, Danoh, saint john w, and Musterion on ignore
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Anyway, God is a good shepherd in either case; I'm not sure RD would know a good shepherd even if it saved his life from acrid water.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Hebrews 8
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


vs



Eph 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:



You love Hebrews, but do not believe it.
Click to expand...

:idunno:

Teach us, IP, please?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You win that way; I win both ways.

Now, back to Heb 9 and your total failure there... (see the OP)
Click to expand...




I guess you've forgot the other side of this: beside. You don't lead sheep beside water when you want them to drink it. That's why it is past or beyond. It supports the toxic rendering. He is the good shepherd and he gets them to good water.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nick M said:
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come
Click to expand...




Sorry, guys, you're not up to speed on the text.

1, it means 'to come' in the historic sense; for the person in the old covenant. It was the new thing that was coming for them, not us.

2, as you can see there are issues about the original text. See the NIV notes. I knew Dr. Goodrick and I know that when the NIV has such a note, it uses the top 5 originals:

Aleph
A
B
D
p46 (papyrus 46)

When you see that they (NIV) goes with 'good things already here' it means that at least 3 of the top 5 originals read that way (present tense). But since they are the top 5, 1 or 2 say 'good things to come.' So they have included the note. I know the NIV well enough, and the procedure, that I don't know any exception to this.

Even so, 'good things to come' is still meant in the historic sense; for those in the old covenant. That is the contextual sense.

It shows that the transition was being made then, at that time.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Sorry, guys, you're not up to speed on the text.

1, it means 'to come' in the historic sense; for the person in the old covenant. It was the new thing that was coming for them, not us.

2, as you can see there are issues about the original text. See the NIV notes. I knew Dr. Goodrick and I know that when the NIV has such a note, it uses the top 5 originals:

Aleph
A
B
D
p46 (papyrus 46)

When you see that they (NIV) goes with 'good things already here' it means that at least 3 of the top 5 originals read that way (present tense). But since they are the top 5, 1 or 2 say 'good things to come.' So they have included the note. I know the NIV well enough, and the procedure, that I don't know any exception to this.

Even so, 'good things to come' is still meant in the historic sense; for those in the old covenant. That is the contextual sense.

It shows that the transition was being made then, at that time.
Click to expand...

If you say so, bookworm.

KJV
Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

NIV
Hebrews 2:5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

KJV
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

NIV
Hebrews 6:5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,

KJV
Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

NIV
Hebrews 10:35 For, "In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay."

KJV
Hebrews 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

NIV
Hebrews 10:14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
The doctrine of Hebrews is for the Jews in tribulation, to encourage them to remain faithful unto the end, and to remind them of the kingdom and priesthood that awaits them if they endure.

On the other hand, if you're saved today, you're already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus as far as the Father is concerned.

Hey! But that's not fair. Why do they have to endure the tribulation and we do not? If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God...

Find out where you fit in, and where you do not.
Click to expand...

Bump for Danoh.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Hebrews 10
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.


vs



Eph 3
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:




You love Hebrews, but do not believe it.
Click to expand...

Bump for Danoh
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Bump for Danoh
Click to expand...

You don't need to prove that to me. You are complete in Christ, whether I accept you or not.

My point was more of those kinds of posts, and less of the mockery.

Even now some new person has just begun posting who might benefit from content rich answers to IP, or anyone else for that matter.

And believe me, STP, at this point I shake the dust off my feet at most within your group on here for their continued hypocrisy and projection of their bigotry into my words and or those of anyone who does not subscribe to their stupidity.

The last thing you need is to allow yourself needing to prove anything to me.

You have Christ; He is more than sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top