Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Bible Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think/hope we are approaching understanding, if not agreement :)

 

I have read and re read all the Major Prophets and though God did historically punish and scatter Israel he has still not brought them back in Peace to dwell in unfenced/unwalled cities, in perfect peace forever as it states in almost everyone of those books. 

Agreed - the repeated unfaithfulness of Israel that we read about is prophesied to end:

e.g.

Jer. 23:Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

 

So it is clear, if it was not fulfilled in the past then it must be in the future. Israel was brought back into the land and not once in 2450 years has there been a peaceful free Israel with a descendant of David on the throne. 

Like the Emmaus couple, we expect Jesus, now risen, ascended & glorified, to be the one to implement the old covenant promises by  the new covenant in his blood. The generation that rejected their Messiah was swept away, leaving many thousands of Jewish believers. Certainly enough to be the basis for a renewed nation in the promised land, if that were God's intention. They were scattered by persecution by unbelieving Jews, but God could have brought them back. The land & nation promises were fulfilled, as testified by Joshua & Solomon. Is it possible that the prophecies of peace in the promised land were ultimately to be fulfilled in a heavenly land, as Abraham was given to expect? (Heb. 11) We all expect the NH&NE to be the pefect realisation of ALL God's promises & purposes.   

 

And would be no reason for God to give revelation to John about past events that have already taken place, so it will be future.

That's good reason for an pre-70 date for Revelation. John's visions in Revelation were of events to take place shortly .... for the time is at hand.

     

I never said we, the body of Christ, don't suffer at the hands of unbelievers, I was talking about the WRATH of God which is punishment, which is both during the time of JacOB's trouble(the great tribulation) against unbelieving mankind including Israel and after the GWT in the lake of fire.   The body of Christ suffering at the hands of unbelievers is not the Great tribulation of JacOB's trouble.  So therefore the tribulation Paul speaks of is not the same as the Great Tribulation/JacOB's Trouble/the day of the Lord/the Lord's day/the day of Great darkness that is the wrath of GOD against the unbelievers bot Jew and Gentile, nor is it what takes place after the GWT the wrath of God for all eternity for those sent to the lake of fire.

We basically agree regarding tribulation of believers & wrath against unbelievers, aka great tribulation, though we disagree about the timing & events.

 

Jesus Christ took the wrath of God upon himself on the cross so the Body of Christ will not go through the wrath of God at any time period or eternity.  for it is finished.

Agreed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Coventant, the book of Revelation is believed not to be written until after 70AD.  I believe that is true and I believed it was written after 90AD.  And I believe only the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written after 90AD.

 

His three letters on the other hand could very well have been written earlier.

 

And I believe the AV says it is the NEW TESTAMENT in HIS BLOOD not NEW COVENANT.  To make it covenant is to change the English word and indicates you do not believe that the AV word of God is inerrant and preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Coventant, the book of Revelation is believed not to be written until after 70AD.  I believe that is true and I believed it was written after 90AD.  And I believe only the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written after 90AD.

 

His three letters on the other hand could very well have been written earlier.

 

And I believe the AV says it is the NEW TESTAMENT in HIS BLOOD not NEW COVENANT.  To make it covenant is to change the English word and indicates you do not believe that the AV word of God is inerrant and preserved.

The New Testament and New Covenant are not the same thing. The words don't even mean the same thing. This is a case where the English is superior to the Greek because the Greek doesn't make a distinction between the two words while the English does. Of course, all the new version muck up the word in Hebrews so they can force the New Covenant strictly upon the church while leaving the future nation of Israel whom God makes his new covenant with out of the picture. The Calvinists love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Coventant, the book of Revelation is believed not to be written until after 70AD.  I believe that is true and I believed it was written after 90AD.  And I believe only the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written after 90AD.

 

His three letters on the other hand could very well have been written earlier.

 

And I believe the AV says it is the NEW TESTAMENT in HIS BLOOD not NEW COVENANT.  To make it covenant is to change the English word and indicates you do not believe that the AV word of God is inerrant and preserved.

 

 

The New Testament and New Covenant are not the same thing. The words don't even mean the same thing. This is a case where the English is superior to the Greek because the Greek doesn't make a distinction between the two words while the English does. Of course, all the new version muck up the word in Hebrews so they can force the New Covenant strictly upon the church while leaving the future nation of Israel whom God makes his new covenant with out of the picture. The Calvinists love it!

 

Actually they are largely synonymous in both languages. You have to limit the English definition to support your point above. I'll use only the English Webster's 1828 for "testament" to demonstrate since you don't like Greek:

 

"the name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New Testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually they are largely synonymous in both languages. You have to limit the English definition to support your point above. I'll use only the English Webster's 1828 for "testament" to demonstrate since you don't like Greek:

 

"the name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New Testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ."

The KJV limits the definition. A testament requires the death of the testator (Hebrews 9) while a covenant does not.

 

The new covenant is dependent upon the new testament but they are NOT the same thing.

 

You sure can get things muddled up messing with the Greek. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The KJV limits the definition. A testament requires the death of the testator (Hebrews 9) while a covenant does not.

 

The new covenant is dependent upon the new testament but they are NOT the same thing.

 

You sure can get things muddled up messing with the Greek. 

 

Not really. If you keep reading down in vv. 18-20 you'll see that the first testament did not involve the death of the testator (God) but rather of calves and goats and should realize that v. 17 is an illustration in that particular instance that in order for a will to take effect the person who wrote it must be dead. If you stick too close to the "last will" definition of "testament" you have to explain why it remains in effect if the testator is no longer dead, but lives. Also, if testament is not the same as covenant, then you need to be able to explain what the first testament was because the first occurrence of "testament" is found in Matthew 26:28. In ALL languages, the context it's used in determines meaning, not a presupposition of what you want it to mean.

 

You sure can get things muddled up with a poor understanding of English...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is a "covenant" & what is a "testament" in Biblical usage?

 

Is the any significance in the AV translators using "testament" in Hebrews 9, when they quote from Exodus 24 where "covenant" is used?

 

How does the "ark of the covenant" of the OT become "the ark of his testament" in Rev. 11? Are they the same?

 

Why in the Lord's supper does Jesus speak of "my blood of the new testament" when the is no OT prophecy of a "new testament"?

 

Why in Hebrews is "testament" used in Heb. 9, but "covenant" used elsewhere in the letter & throughout the OT?

 

If we are to understand Scripture we need to consider these questions. The easy answer is that in AV usage, "covenant" & "testament" are synonyms, but that where the force of a legacy is intended, "testament" is used.

 

We need to look at the OT usage in order to understand "covenant" & why that normally involved a divided sacrifice or shared meal. e.g. Gen. 8/9, 15, Jer. 34. Then look at the Lord's supper ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is a "covenant" & what is a "testament" in Biblical usage?

Is the any significance in the AV translators using "testament" in Hebrews 9, when they quote from Exodus 24 where "covenant" is used?

How does the "ark of the covenant" of the OT become "the ark of his testament" in Rev. 11? Are they the same?

Why in the Lord's supper does Jesus speak of "my blood of the new testament" when the is no OT prophecy of a "new testament"?

Why in Hebrews is "testament" used in Heb. 9, but "covenant" used elsewhere in the letter & throughout the OT?

If we are to understand Scripture we need to consider these questions. The easy answer is that in AV usage, "covenant" & "testament" are synonyms, but that where the force of a legacy is intended, "testament" is used.

We need to look at the OT usage in order to understand "covenant" & why that normally involved a divided sacrifice or shared meal. e.g. Gen. 8/9, 15, Jer. 34. Then look at the Lord's supper ....

Isn't a covenant an agreement between 2 or more parties?
Isn't a testament an official declaration of a testimony, covenant, Will, etc?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is a "covenant" & what is a "testament" in Biblical usage?

 

Is the any significance in the AV translators using "testament" in Hebrews 9, when they quote from Exodus 24 where "covenant" is used?

 

How does the "ark of the covenant" of the OT become "the ark of his testament" in Rev. 11? Are they the same?

 

Why in the Lord's supper does Jesus speak of "my blood of the new testament" when the is no OT prophecy of a "new testament"?

 

Why in Hebrews is "testament" used in Heb. 9, but "covenant" used elsewhere in the letter & throughout the OT?

 

If we are to understand Scripture we need to consider these questions. The easy answer is that in AV usage, "covenant" & "testament" are synonyms, but that where the force of a legacy is intended, "testament" is used.

 

We need to look at the OT usage in order to understand "covenant" & why that normally involved a divided sacrifice or shared meal. e.g. Gen. 8/9, 15, Jer. 34. Then look at the Lord's supper ....

 

If I remember correctly, the KLV was translated by various committees, some doing one part and others doing another.  These were then reviewed by others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I remember correctly, the KLV was translated by various committees, some doing one part and others doing another.  These were then reviewed by others. 

Fantastic! A 400 year memory - Iknow you are older than me, but really .... :)

 

But that may account for the selection of words, & "covenant" & "testament" being used synonymously for direct quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Be careful!

Anishinaabe

Actually there is no prOBlem here:

"Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:" (Ex 12:5)

 A goat kid and a lamb were used interchangably as the Pesach sacrifice, so He could just as properly be considered the Kid of God, though of course the Bible DOES use the term Lamb when referring to Christ, so its better. But there would be no disresepect in calling Him otherwise, unless, of course, it was meant as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is plenty to study, before we argue :)

What is a "covenant" & what is a "testament" in Biblical usage?

Basically a covenant is made by a stronger party with a weaker party - particularly God with man.

1. It may be unconditional, such as the rainbow covenant, whereby no disOBedience by man can stop either the seasonal cycle or bring about another glOBal flood.

2. It may be conditional on OBedience, as with Adam in the garden, where he would live in a perfect situation except he ate the forbidden fruit.

3. In Gen. 15, God makes a covenant with Abraham to give his descendants the promised land. That was unconditional. It shows a feature of many covenants in that a sacrifice was made & divided. God passed between the pieces to guarantee the covenant - if I break it, I die.

4. Gen. 17 - circumcision was given as an everlasting covenant sign that required OBedience - circumcision. Neglect of circumcision broke the covenant, & such were cut off from his people. 

5. God remembers his covenant promises & undertakes to deliver his people. The Passover was a form of conditional covenant - requiring OBedience to the details of the sacrifice - or death for disOBedience.

6. Ex. 19 Now Israel is a nation, & Moses is given promises & laws for the people. God declares his love in the deliverance, & calls for a promise of OBedience to his covenant - details as yet unspecified. Of course they respond. Note that those covenant blessings are taken up by Peter for the church - of Jew & Gentile as one redeemed people of God.

7. Ex. 24 The requirements of the Law have been stated & the covenant is ratified by the blood of sacrifice. The people have heard the Law & declare their commitment to OBedience. The blood of sacrifice is sprinkled on them, & God's acceptance is shown by a vision of his heavenly glory. That "blood of the (old) covenant" is contrasted with the final sacricial blood of Jesus, & Heb. 13 speaks of "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The "new covenant" of Jer. 31 & Heb. 8 is seen as the "everlasting covenant." Salvation throughout history is only through the blod of Jesus. The death & resurrection & ascension of is indeed & in fact the death for the broken covenant suffered by Jesus as the Son of man.

8. Lev. 26 restates the old covenant - requiring OBedience - & includes a special feature taken up throughout Scripture. "I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people." Your God - my people is a statement of our special relationship that continues with the redeemed throughout time & eternity. See 2 Cor. 6 & Rev. 21 as well as Jer. 31, & Ez. 36 & 37

 

I hope that is a useful start to understanding covenant theology - from the Bible only. There must be a book somewhere - I could write a lot more - there are 300 refs. to Covenant in Scripture, before we get on to testament.  

There is a "slant" to the use of "testament" rather than covenant & I suggest it is with an implied will (legacy) where believers benefit from Jesus' death, inheriting all the promises to Abraham. (Gal. 3)         

 

Is the any significance in the AV translators using "testament" in Hebrews 9, when they quote from Exodus 24 where "covenant" is used?

Heb. argument is the "will" aspect of the death of Jesus, compared with the will of a man - requiring death to take effect. Without the death of Jesus, all the covenant promises would fail - we are all law/covenant breakers. Translating "covenant" would need more explanation, but would not change the meaning.

 

How does the "ark of the covenant" of the OT become "the ark of his testament" in Rev. 11? Are they the same?

The ark in the tabernacle was made according to the heavenly pattern. I don't think they are the same, but the words used are not significant.   

 

Why in the Lord's supper does Jesus speak of "my blood of the new testament" when the is no OT prophecy of a "new testament"?

Again, it is the "will" aspect, but if "covenant" were used, it doesn't change the significance of the Lord's supper. There is so much to say about that precious time of remembrance.

 

Why in Hebrews is "testament" used in Heb. 9, but "covenant" used elsewhere in the letter & throughout the OT?

See above.

 

If we are to understand Scripture we need to consider these questions. The easy answer is that in AV usage, "covenant" & "testament" are synonyms, but that where the force of a legacy is intended, "testament" is used.

 

We need to look at the OT usage in order to understand "covenant" & why that normally involved a divided sacrifice or shared meal. e.g. Gen. 8/9, 15, Jer. 34. Then look at the Lord's supper ....

There are a number of human covenants - normally involving agreement & a sacrifice or shared meal (JacOB & Laban, the Gibeonites & Joshua, the Jewish slave-owners (Jer. 34))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...