We recently attended a presentation organised by our ecclesia by Dr Garth Gilmour of Oxford University and he likewise said it was premature to talk of this as David's palace but was likely to be the remnants of the citadel he conquered.

 

D

All

 

I have been given a subject in which I am asked to demonstrate as 'fact' that Britain is mentioned in the Bible.  I will be making it clear that identification of names in prophecy with nations today should never be considered as 'fact'. However, I've always struggled to convince myself that there is enough evidence to clearly identify Tarshish with Britain.

 

At a stretch I can get as far as seeing Tarshish as a naval power that verbally resists a northern invader but doesn't have the ability to stop it (based on Ezek 38), in the current climate that might be US and allies.

 

I've got some decent commentaries (Word, NICOT, Expositors) and Anchor Bible dictionary none of which present anything conclusive. Can anyone point me in the direction of any good Christadelphian or non-Christadelphian resources on this?

 

[Note: I've also posted this query on the Berea forum]

 

Ta

D

latter-day gathering?

Thanks Fort

 

It was the AYBD entry on the Chedorlaomer texts which sent me off on the direction of names being inserted later, however on balance, the historical probability of Elam's strength at this time and that the names are typical of the regions they are supposed to belong to, leads me to conclude there is no reason to question their authenticity.

 

There obviously are all sorts of later glosses to the text in things like Ur (of the Chaldeans).

 

D

Has anyone done any research on the 5 kings and the 4 kings of Genesis 14 whose war resulted in Lot's captivity and rescue by Abram? Namely:

 

Amraphel (Shinar)

Arioch (Ellasar)

Chedorlaomer (Elam)

Tidal (Goiim)

 

v

 

Bera (Sodom)

Birsha (Gomorrah)

Shinab (Admah)

Shemeber (Zeboiim)

King of Zoar.

 

In particular info on the regions, historical confirmation of the relevant powers etc.  I'm pursuing investigation into some suggestions that they are names picked up from Babylonian history and added to the account during the exile/restoration period, possibly to emphasise the relevance of the Abram/Lot events to those returning from Babylon - not sure about it all yet, but if someone has some pre-canned work on it I will be more than willing to borrow it!

 

D

I have already posted two verses showing God forgiving sin through animal sacrifice sin atonement.

No, this does not prove your claim. Your extraordinary claim is that there was a change from blood-based to repentance-based forgiveness. Provide evidence of this change occurring and when or stop making claims with no evidence.

I have also asked you to show repentance was additionally required from the relevant verses which you haven't provided yet.

Done, please see earlier posts. Until you can provide evidence for the change you're claiming, the verses I provided prove my point. Last chance.

This has nothing to do with sin atonement given within the law of Moses

It illustrates that your claim of a change is bogus.

D

Yes I have, you just assumed I didn't think it was better, which is a strange assumption to make.

 

 

Well I can only go on what you've been saying.

 

Those are all after the change. I'm asking for earlier scripture that is related to the actual sacrifices and sin atonement obviously. Exodus through Deut. will suffice I think.

 

 

No, this is your claim. It is unusual, not supported by consensus commentary (of any theology) and therefore the onus is on you to prove there was a change and when it happened.  Please support your extraordinary claim or stop making it.
 
I can go earlier than Exodus - what about the difference between Cain and Abel's offerings? Was it just that one involved blood and the other didn't? No - consider the NT comment on them both. 
 
“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.” (Hebrews 11:4, ESV)  
 
“We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.” (1 John 3:12, ESV)
 
D

 

 

Yes, it was a BETTER replacement....of course it was but one thing did replace the other.

 

 

But that's not what you've been arguing.

 

Could you clarify please?

 

 

So you do think forgiveness only requires the shedding of some blood - extraordinary!

 

I am not aware of any OT scripture that requires repentance itself along with the sacrifice for sin atonement which is why I asked the question above.

 

 

Seriously!?  

 

Psa 51:16-17 (you seem to have forgotten I mentioned that already)

Hosea 6:6

Isaiah 66:2

Micah 6:8

1 Samuel 15:22

1 Kings 8:33,35,38,47,48

 

These show that God was not just interested in the blood but also the attitude and heart of the offerer. Then there are the times when God says he does not accept their offering because of their lack of a change of heart.

 

Isaiah 29:13

Hosea 8:13

Amos 5:22

Isaiah 1:11-17

 

D

Plural Elohim with a plural verb.

 

 

Yes, when plural gods (usually pagan idols but not always) are meant then the verb is plural. No problem there.

 

D

Slide 29 says "LORD God" appears 17 times in scripture but I stopped counting after 20. Looks to be closer to 50 maybe more, I just don't feel like counting them all.

 

 

You're right I think that search is flawed and that has been pointed out to me before on those slides.  I can't recall the exact search I used and with what tool so can't recreate it now, but the basic point was that most of the time when we see "LORD God" in the Bible it is in a phrase like LORD God of Abraham, LORD God of Israel etc etc. In that phrase the hebrew is not actually elohim but elohe. According to the Logos interlinear this is a construct form to link the word with what follows ie "God of....". This is why modern translations tend to show something like "the LORD, the God of Israel...etc" putting a separating comma between LORD and God and linking elohe to what follows. The search was intended to show that the number of times "Yahweh Elohim" occurs without that construct form is much fewer than you might imagine (and strangely concentrated in early chapters of Genesis).

 

I was pointing this out because for historic reasons there is a particular (inaccurate) significance attached to the combination Yahweh Elohim in the minds of many Christadelphians and some are in the habit of trying to say hebrew words instead of what is in the English translation when the read it and they invariably get it wrong.

 

D

No, it was to educate people that the old way of animal sacrifice had been replaced by a sacrifice by Christ for all time.

Just take a look at how many times in Hebrews the word "better" is used about Christ's sacrifice, based on better promises ie before the sacrificial law was introduced by Moses. It is not simply a replacement or a substitute, it is better because it's basis predates the sacrificial law (eg Heb 7).

Animal sacrifice hadn't been acceptable for a long time but that doesn't mean, nor did Paul say, it hadn't at one time been enough. The earlier parts of the OT show this to be true and those verses cannot be ignored or else you will have a partial, incomplete understanding of this issue.

I'm not ignoring the verses you've quoted, but they are not quite the complete picture. I'm simply arguing that true forgiveness has always been conditional upon repentance. Do you really disagree with that? Are you really arguing that at one time forgiveness was not conditional on repentance but was only conditional on the blood of an animal being shed? I don't think you are saying that and I don't want to assume you think that or push you into that position. Could you clarify please?

D

EWQ

 

Here's a link to something I did a few years back on Elohim - not perfect and forgive the Christadelphian specific references but it might given you something to work with. The screenshots are from a tool called the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (ISA) which I think is still available free. I was using it at the time to get clarity on the forms of hebrew nouns and verbs.

 

http://www.slideshar...re-presentation

 

D

Of course but it doesn't matter.

 

 

I agree.

 

The obvious point is the sacrifices did in fact atone for sin, allowing for true forgiveness. It is that fact which is being disputed. This is but one of many examples.

 

 

The book of Hebrews was written to counter this whole way of thinking. It repeatedly emphasises that it was never the ritual of shedding blood that dealt with sin. 

 

   “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can NEVER, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:1–4, ESV)  

 

   “And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:11, ESV)  

 

These verses are about the law generally, from its very beginning, not about some change in its status which came later.

 

You're taking one phrase from Leviticus and ignoring both the OT and NT comment which completes the picture.  Psa 51 plus the Hebrews repeated commentary shows that what God was always looking for was the repentance of the individual's conscience.  The law and its sacrifices were a framework God provided within which people could learn that. The prophets later commented that God did not accept their offerings precisely because they were not learning this point - read the whole of Isa 58.  

 

The Heb 9:22 statement that without shedding of blood is no remission is often mistakenly understood as some general divine principle that God needs to see some blood before he can forgive.  That verse is simply an observation on one of the features of the law of Moses (check any decent commentary). The verses which follow explain why this feature of the law was there - because God always knew that the bloodshed of an innocent man like Jesus would ultimately be the most powerful way to motivate people to change and be truly purified in their consciences and forgiven.

 

David's example again illustrates the mistake in your interpretation. In 2 Sam 12:13 David acknowledges his sin with Bathsheba (which is also the context of Psa 51) and he is told "The LORD also has put away your sin".  No blood, no sacrifice and yet David is forgiven - why? because he is truly remorseful. 

 

D

So you agree then that animal sacrifices were never effective in themselves, for the taking away of sin?

I've already posted OT scripture proving the sacrifice of animals did take away sin proving that Paul is speaking of a later time when the sacrifices were no longer acceptable.

When was that later time, after Jesus sacrifice? If so, was David wrong to say about God that he does not delight in sacrifice in Psa 51, ie before Jesus came along? You can't just ignore Psa 51 as though it doesn't count, it's an important part of the whole picture.
D

 
Since Israel constantly was disappointing God, then it happened sometime prior to David stating that.

Evidence?

It appears this "change" occurred even before David - see 1 Sam 15.22, maybe it was there right from the beginning of the nation?

D

I've already posted OT scripture proving the sacrifice of animals did take away sin proving that Paul is speaking of a later time when the sacrifices were no longer acceptable.

When was that later time, after Jesus sacrifice? If so, was David wrong to say about God that he does not delight in sacrifice in Psa 51, ie before Jesus came along? You can't just ignore Psa 51 as though it doesn't count, it's an important part of the whole picture.

D

It became that way but long ago the proper animal sacrifice did atone for sin:

So How and why did it atone for sin so it could be forgiven?

a) because God was delighted to see sheep's blood splattered on the altar or
b) because the offerer was truly sorry for their wrongdoing

Which is it a or b? Clue: the answer is in Psa 51:16-19

When you've answered that, then think about why Paul said the blood of bulls/goats could not take away sin

D

Jesus died because he was going to be the sin atonement like animals had before prior to his death. He had to shed his blood to be able to forgive us of our sins.

Still not making much sense, the blood of bulls and goats is not able to take away sin (Heb 10.4) if Jesus sacrifice was just like that of animals then it doesn't remove sins any more than the animal sacrifices did.

 D

Answered this multiple times, and in post 23 and 25. Answer is A but A is very brief and condensed.

 

 

This is not the usual idea of substitutionary atonement, although I see you've admitted that now.

 

It's more complex than that

 

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

People are naturally meant to die the first death so Jesus did not die the first death to spare us dying the first death

 

 

This makes no sense, now you're saying that Jesus did not die to spare us from dying. So how come Jesus died and how come we die?

 

The truth is actually very simple - look at Heb 9:13-14. The death/blood of Jesus is intended to affect our conscience, making us realise we must change (see Acts 2.37). Once we do God is gracious to forgive us.

 

D

EWQ

 

You started this thread under the heading "substitutionary atonement", but you've been inconsistent in explaining what you think is being substituted for what. Could you clarify by answering the following question please:

 

Did Christ die instead of :

 

a) the sheep/goats that would have been sacrificed had he not died

b) people like us

 

Which is it? a) or b)?  

 

D

Harry Whittaker plucks conclusions out of thin air. News at 11. Stay tuned for the sports update.

/>

His reputation precedes him - hence not taking it at face value! I did think point b) was valid though as there doesn't seem to have been a Jewish expectation of a virgin birth so no particular motive for Jewish translators into Greek to favour parthenos. Reasonable?

D

Looking into the background to the sign given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:11-14 and I came across this in The Christadelphian 1957 by a certain H. Whittaker.

MATT. 1 : 23 : IS ISA. 7 : 14 REALLY A PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH?

a. Objections are usually that the Hebrew word there translated “virgin” simply means “a young woman of marriageable age”; and that the context of Isaiah 7 : 14 is purely historical, and has nothing whatever to do with Christ: how, it is asked, could the birth of a child 700 years later be in any sense a sign of divine help to desperate Ahaz faced with threat of invasion?

b. The first of these points need not be argued against, even though the truth of the statement is by no means sure. It may, however, be observed that the Septuagint translators some 150 or more years before Christ chose the Greek word for virgin to represent the Hebrew word in Isa. 7 : 14, although they can have had little idea of this prophecy relating to Messiah. There seems to have been no expectation amongst the Jews that Messiah would be born of a virgin.

c. The second point is met in the first instance by agreeing that Isaiah’s words had a local and immediate reference to Ahaz’ problem, with a fuller Messianic significance (the real significance) in days to come. This is a normal feature of Old Testament prophecy.

d. But the main point to be insisted on is that the context of the prophecy requires a Messianic application. Faithless Ahaz, fearful for the safety of his kingdom, should have rested in confidence on God’s promise to David (2 Sam. 7). Hence the implied rebuke in Isaiah’s words: “Hear ye now, O house of David”. More pointedly still, Isaiah bade the king ask a sign, concerning the promised Messiah! This is the idiomatic meaning of the words: “ask it either in the depth, or in the height above” (verse 11). In one passage after another these expressions are used with reference to the Messiah. See Gen. 49 : 25; Prov. 30 : 4; Deut. 30 : 2 (Rom. 10 : 6); Isa. 45 : 8; Psa. 85 : 11; Gen. 22 : 17; Zech. 8 : 12; Deut. 33 : 13.

I couldn't find any other source to corroborate the claim highlighted in bold above, has anyone heard of this before or seen any evidence for it? The quotes given in support don't seem to prove the idiom either.

Thanks D

TrevorL

their authors have probably spent more time in thought and Bible study

This is a worry. How can we possibly know how 'thoughtful', 'sincere' or 'into Bible study' an author is? Does it have to be based on personal acquaintance? Even if it was, how do you measure the length or quality of someone's thinking-time or Bible study time?

You appear to be saying that the way we should research and select our sources is on a subjective feeling about how thoughtful or sincere we feel they are. Is that really what you would advise the next generation of Christadelphians to do? You must see how short a step it is from that approach to; 'I'll select only the sources that agree with my particular theory on this verse'. It's not surprising to see discussion going round and round if it's ok just to select a view on subjective preference. No one can ever challenge anyone else's view on that basis, one man's subjective preference is as good as another's!

Trevor, you must realise by now what Fort (and others) are likely to think about your comment, I have to conclude either you're deliberately winding him up or you haven't really understood yet why he keeps responding to you the way he does!

This might seem like an over reaction to your comment, but the integrity of how we reach our conclusions is as important as the conclusions themselves, particularly when presenting to people who are going through an education system which is teaching them to critically assess arguments.

D

Fort

Let me show you that Peter did not see any distinction between the words Christ used for 'love'.
...
Why does John say Jesus asked Peter a third time 'Do you love [phileo] me?', when in fact phileo is only used once? How does John get to a count of three, when phileo was only used once?

This is a really good point which I hadn't noted before. It's also strengthened by the observation that each time Peter answered he agreed with Jesus.

Q:Do you agape me?
A:Yes Lord, I phileo you

If Peter actually meant "No Lord I can't claim to agape you but I do phileo you" then he wouldn't have replied "yes Lord".

I did used to think there must be some significance in the different words (though never quite sure what), but this discussion and examining the passage itself confirms for me that it is better not to try to read too much into it.

D