To be honest, I do not doubt his study and knowledge,but it is human study and knowledge and human conclusions and theology…
Once yu take a source as absolute, you cannot dispute it, even if the percieved result is something that others might percieve as immoral, or ungodly or anything else I might claim.
It aall bils down to what Scripture is, and, unfortunately you seem to fall into the same trap but with different bias and conclusions.
My problem is thatg I canot just refute and claim something wrong and in the same bereath claim that person to be arogant and sure of themselves. It is an impossible couundrum. How do I caim librralism and still reject any specific viewpoint?
And for completeness, the oldest fairly complete one dates from around 900 AD. From Wikipedia:
The Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex(c. 1008 CE) were once the oldest known manuscripts of the Tanakh in Hebrew. In 1947, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from such codices.
So what are we trying to prove here? The fallibility of Scripture? The lack of a definitive text? Is there a consnesus between them or is each one different?
The problem of translation is not news, neither is the lack of a definitive text.
This would all point to a devaluation rather than encourage assertions.of accuracy or even perfection.
Basically, truth. Adam’s post implies we have thousands of copies of ancient Hebrew Bibles, when the reality is that most of the manuscripts he alludes to are fairly modern (AD dates) and most are also just fragments of a sentence or two, or at most 1 book (as in the case of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, from about 70 BC). The casual reader might come away with a false impression, when the reality is much more complicated. It is best to be forthright about some of the ambiguity and struggles rather than present a false front that erodes the faith of many when they learn the truth, and find that they have been intentionally misled about scripture by people they trusted. That applies to many issues, not just the evolution of our current Bible.
As a person of faith, I am sure you accept God’s providence in preserving his revelation for humanity in the process, despite the messy process. A lot that can be seen as analogous to biological evolution, as you imply in your sarcasm.
I find “humour” to be a great release as well as a great teacher. I wonder how many realise the irony in the Heavenly Host singing to a bunch of shepherds?
Wow – this is the first relevant thing in your post.
And it’s wrong: I don’t agree with your definition of sin because it is not the only one that scripture gives.
BTW, I do understand the OT sanctuary service, and I know that it was all fulfilled by Christ. You make Christ subsidiary to the sanctuary service, which is idolatry.
Challenge yourself – you have yet to show that the scriptures anywhere claim to be scientifically accurate as you demand.
And I think it was last year they finally got it all online in readable form (despite a cadre of scholars who objected to making it publicly available – something I cannot understand at all).
And there is mounting evidence that the Masoretes tampered with the text in places.
Why are we still here living in sin and, the book of revelation, written 60 year AFTER Christs death, foretells a new heavens and a new earth and a New Jerusalem where God can dwell with His people?
Revelation 21:3-4 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
The above text, written by the apostle John on the isle of Patmos 60 years after Christs death is predicting a future event…not past…its clear that your understanding there is way off.
So, given you are a man who absolutely loves the apostle Pauls writings…i will help your next response there…
Romans 14:17 ESV / 7 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Now i could just say nothing and wait for you to take on this verse as a defense and fall down a theological rabbit warren, but ill be upfront and honest and just point out the problem withat that text…
If we read the entire context of Romans 14…note it explains itself in that Paul is not talking about eating unclean foods (as some Christians think it infers)…
the text is about the law of love and righteousness. It is using the statement that if what we do is a stumbling block to others, then we should not do anything that causes another to stumble (such as teach false doctrine and lead them astray for starters!). Certainly our eating habits could definitely do that as well…its more than just food though (this text is part of the reason why i don’t drink alcohol btw)
Anyway, Romans 14, is not about God establishing a spiritual earthly kingdom 2000 years ago!
You’re right, Adam - if I understood you correctly - the kingdom of God (and Romans 14) is about love.
If God’s kingdom was not already established (inaugurated) by Jesus himself - what he taught, how he lived, how he died - then somebody probably should have told Jesus! (as Luke reports it (Luke 17:21).
20 Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.
Or Matthew (4:12-17).
Or John (in his chapter 3 discourse with Nicodemus) - one doesn’t get the impression that there will be no kingdom until thousands of years in the future by means of political intrigue or war, but that the kingdom Jesus brings (present tense) is of an entirely different sort - only available (in the present tense) to those who have been born again.
Or Paul - in your very own reference (Romans 14) Paul speaks of Kingdom matters (what it is and what it is not) in the present tense!
So … what about Revelation then! You’re right that it does also use future tense for some events. How can we understand Revelation in the light of Christ? It does speak of both present and future events - many events which came to pass in that generation already as John is warning his readers about what empires will do and how they behave (that was Rome in his day - but empires are no different now). And John contrasts what worldly kingdoms are like (they are idolatrous whores) as opposed to God’s kingdom. And all those principalities and powers have been conquered (past tense!) - not by a roaring lion (which would just be another empire doing all the same things empires have always done) - no - but instead by a slaughtered lamb! The “Lion of Judah” that John expects to see when he turns and looks, turns out to be … wait for it … a lamb bearing the marks of slaughter on itself!. This is what brought empires down - the joke is on them. And the conquering lamb (not the Lion) is mentioned 28 times in Revelation! It is the way of the cross, and not the way of empires with their swords and guns and nuclear bombs that finally prevails and reveals Rome (and all empires to follow) for what they really are. And yet Christians today still want to turn God’s kingdom back into the worldly one again - they try desperately to re-insert the roaring Lion back into their theology and scorn the cross - chasing after empire all over again even though Jesus revealed the futility of those ways. Armageddon is not the “end of war” or the “beginning of God’s kingdom”. No - armageddon is endless war, and the way of Satan fighting hard against the lamb and his Kingdom. But Christ and his followers are not conquered by that. They refuse Satan’s temptation to bow down to Satan in an attempt to “win” the world by using the violent and coercive ways of empire. Jesus emphatically put down that temptation in the desert when Satan offered. He emphatically put it down again, calling out Peter’s spirit for what it was when Peter suggested that the way of the cross should never happen to any messiah. And nor will Jesus be changing his mind at some final judgment day and saying … “well, all my sermon on the mount stuff didn’t work out after all - I guess I was wrong, and Satan was right; let’s come back and do it his way now with guns and force, and this time I’ll have no mercy on my enemies!” Nope. That only happens in the satanically deluded imaginations of Christians today who want to twist and distort books like Revelation to pit them against everything else Christ taught and lived. Hint … any time we intepret a book (in either testament) in such a way as to undo what Jesus taught or lived, then we are no longer on team Jesus despite how much we may want to try to spin it as if we are. The day will come when Christians (even here in the U.S.) will come to realize that he who taught that those who live by the gun will die by the gun … that teacher actually knew what he was talking about! Violence is never the end of violence except in the satanically deluded American imagination. It is always just the prelude to yet more violence in an endless infernal cycle. But it isn’t endless. Love is the only eternal thing that actually conquers with finality. The eternally forgiving and merciful Lamb who never changes is the one who showed us this. His “sword” is the convicting message from his mouth (not a weapon in his hand where the world’s conquerors always have it). His blood on his robe is his own that he willingly sacrificed - not the blood of his victims that he is slaughtering. Slaughter is what Satan does, and what we do when we worship satan instead of God.
And yes - it is an “already but not yet” kind of paradox. You are right that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized (obviously). Still much work to be done. But that kingdom is here! Been here for over two thousand years now, for those who have eyes to see.
Lord, help me live into and up to my own words above! May the outpost of your kingdom in my mind and heart grow and prevail over the many larger idolatries where I find it so tempting and reasonable to join in with the ways of the world. May those principalities and powers decrease and be relegated to their proper places, and may you increase … for me and for all of us.
Perhaps what is missing here is the definition of “the Kingdom of God” Like many titles it is ambiguous and therefore could be (and is) interpreted in many ways.
There seems an assumption theat the “kingdom” will be worldwide. WHy should itt/ Even Revelation points to a holy mountain, not the whole earth.
Perhaps Jesus is instigating a view of how beleivers should be looked on, or as? An individual can dwell in the kingom with God while the person next to them lives alone outside of it?
IOW what Christ established was the foundations of the Kingdom on earth rather than the completion of it.
Christ’s kingdom was established the moment He cried out, “It is finished!” That was the moment of the defeat of the powers of Hell. It had arrived the moment He was conceived; when He said, “The kingdom of heaven is in your midst” He was referring to Himself, the King, standing there among them.
Your conception of the Kingdom is materialistic.
That’s when nothing but the Kingdom remains.
Oh – so you think it’s saying that when we get to heaven we won’t eat or drink?
You’re reducing the Kingdom to something material.
The matter is simple: Jesus is King, now; He has been King since He was crowned at the Crucifixion, and His Kingdom is in and with us. His kingdom is already an everlasting kingdom, and Paul is writing about our membership in it. If the Kingdom was not established by Jesus back then, we cannot belong to it now.
SDA theology has the sanctuary service at the center of their theology, though – not the Cross. That’s why Adam always appeals to the sanctuary service and hardly ever even mentions the Cross.
And expecting there to be no sin (or sinners) anyway in order to have the Kingdom established buys into Satan’s lie that Jesus rejected thrice: once in the wilderness, once when the two brothers wanted to sit on His right and left, and once when He rebuked Peter for rejecting the idea that He would die. Like you wrote–
That streak of triumphalism has led to all the great abuses in Christian history.
Amen!
As Luther wrote in his great hymn A Mighty Fortress, “one little word shall fell him”.
That is true Mervin, however, note what Luke goes on to say in verse 26-28!
26Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28It was the same in the days of Lot: People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But on the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
Jesus answered, “Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.”
Wo what is Christ actually talking about there?
Clearly, this passage has at least two applications.
is the oncoming destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, which Christ foresaw in Luke 19:41-44
Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem
41 And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. 43 For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, 44 and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
The Second Coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven
25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
We know that Luke 21 is talking about the second coming…for a start because bibles have that as the title of that passage of scripture!
Christ then returns to the destruction of Jerusalem in verse 29 with the parable of the fig tree. However it has a metaphorical application for the end of time as well… hence the statement this generation will not pass away until all has taken palace" that is talking about the generation alive just prior to the Second Coming event itself!
In reading the remainder of your post there, i suspect that you believe that Christs kingdom will be an evolutionary process of morality of the world we currently live in. That is not the biblical model that i see in the internal theology of the bible. The bible preaches that a consequence of sin also requires the complete erradication of any traces of it from existence (with the exception of the scars in Christs hands and side). Note that in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service on the day of atonement, the scapegoat is cast out of the camp never to be seen again! when the bible talks about cleansing…its purification. To me this is consistent with a complete removal of the dirt…the Christian cleansing is the wiping away of sin…not covering it up. We are only clothed in the cloak of Christs righteousness because that process of cleansing is not complete at that point in time…sin has not been cast out, it has not been eradicated from existence yet.
Revelation describes a New Heavens and a New Earth…when you buy a new car, do you usually view that as a repainted second hand one? I doubt it, so why attempt to put that spin on Revelation 21?You say that you are a man of science and that what you observe in the world around is scientific evidence of Evolutionary Creationism. If the scientific observations method is true, and you follow it, how do you manage to conclude that “new” is repainted second hand when it comes to Revelation 21…especially in light of the flood account in Genesis 6 and 7?
Well - perhaps two. But one of those applications is pretty much beyond dispute as far as historians and scholars are concerned: The impending destruction of Rome. And that application goes along a lot more with what Christ is recorded as teaching there (later added captions and passage headings notwithstanding - those are the additions of modern editors, and not part of the actual text.) Some have tried to read rapture-style apocalypse into this (one was taken but the other was left.) When you read on in the passage, though, Christ isn’t talking about somebody getting whisked off to heavenly paradise while the other poor soul is left to suffer. No … it becomes clear that it was the unfortunate one that was taken! (Hence Jesus answer to the disciples’ query: “Where, Lord?” - with the ominous words: “well - if you wanna find the bodies, just look where the carrion fowl have gathered!”. People are being led away to their executions. Armed rebellion against Rome just means more violence, and not the freedom that you keep hoping that it would bring. It also echoes Jesus’ teachings elsewhere (chapter 13 I think) - “So you think those who died when the tower fell on them or those whose blood Pilate mixed in with their sacrifices were worse sinners than you lot?! …You’re gonna perish just like they did if you keep pursuing things your way!” (words to that effect). Jesus is gives pretty direct warnings in these cases. And indeed - it did happen to them - before that very generation had passed away!
So does that kind of stuff keep happening now? You bet. We never learn. The myth of redemptive violence lives on. And again and again we learn the hard way that Christ knew what he was talking about. So I agree with you that it has future application. What I don’t agree about is that it is all code for some special date - some special set of nations that modern conspiracists can decode for us - outwitting even Jesus (who said that wouldn’t be doable). Hal Lindsey and all his forebears and heirs to that eschatalogical looney bin have been adept at one thing and one thing only: massively missing nearly all the major points.
