Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

Translation is not a precise science. (Trust me, I've been doing it long enough.)

I would encourage you to find all the verses that speak of the Word of God (rhema) to know what the Word of God is. Just telling somebody about it is truly an act of unkindness. Rather like telling little kids about bike riding but never letting them experience riding a bicycle because the parent fears it. Paul aledges to have heard the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus. That was a direct experience of the Word of God. THAT was the Word of God. Itself. That event. Written accounts of that event are NOT the event. A written account about the Word of God is Not the Word of God. The written accounts are edification and encouragement for others to seek the Word of God (Rhema) by which God speaks to you directly. Fall into the hands of the living God, if you can handle the fear. It is a Pearl of Great Price. Most Christians never experience God, but only experience stories about God.

I am reluctantly Pentecostal in this matter. I have laid hands on the sick and they have recovered. When the Spirit of the Lord overtakes my voice and speaks through it ... THAT is the Rhema Word of God. In Ephesians, the Koine describes the Rhema/Word of God as prayer, specifically praying in tongues. It's a transcendent state where God prays through you. That God speaks though you. But this is not some metaphorical slight of hand whereby one's testimony for the Lord is considered "God speaking through you." No. That's you speaking through you about God. But when the Spirit comes to speak Rhema through you, you will know it. It's a glory of the Lord, and a power beyond measure that actually transforms the world. But be careful, one can release faith against the things of God and the suffering God would have abated through his disciple remains, and the world stays in its darkness. Consider Luke 6:12.

A number of folks on here are familiar with the languages. Some of us can read a bit or are fluent. I understand what you are saying here. Logos is often used in place of the Lord Jesus Christ. Rhema isn't. When it comes to the 'word of God' as far as I remember my studies, both rhema and logos are interchanged. I agree, about translation. I disagree regarding Pentecostal interpretations AND the way you interpret this.

I have seen miracles. All God. While the Lord did say 'we' would do even more than He, John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17. I 'think' taking credit for it can and does lead to false pride. Conduits and clay are but that. Romans 9:21 I don't believe the 'gift' of healing is extent today. God still does His work.

(Luk 6:12 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

No, He did not continue in prayer to God. Rather, και ην διανυκτερευων εν τη προσευχη του θεου ... "in prayer of God."

But both 'of' and 'in' aren't there in the Greek text. They are both translation helpers "of" doesn't make sense. The verb prayer is aorist infinitive.
Do you concur?

PS: Not sure if this answers your question.

I suppose there is a 'little' heat there, but not much. Thanks for answering.

PPS: John defines the logos as Jesus Himself. Jesus is the Word of God(Logos) not the Bible.
the Holy Spirit is the Word of God(Rhema) not the Bible. The Bible speaks about these things as a testimony to them, but it ISN'T itself these things.

:nono: For instance Matthew 4:4 "...every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" is rhema.

Matthew 8:8 "speak the word and my servant will be healed" is logos. We obviously disagree and I suppose that's again a bit of heat.

PPPS:No. the text isn't you at all. It is a representation of you - your thoughts, but it isn't YOU.

I said most would understand my point, I didn't say everybody would but let me try another way: RING RING RING "Hello, Zenn? This is Lon."
It really isn't me, but my voice. Same with ANY way we communicate. The representation is of us. I realize splitting hairs is important when the end is talking about the word of God in the being of our Lord Jesus Christ, but THAT is why it is important. The Lord Jesus Christ IS God.

PPPPS: Tell me the best way to destroy faith. Or the best way to destroy the Word of God.

We can't. Even my words on TOL you can't destroy. They are here for posterity.

Interesting that he does not write "book". Is it not?

(... my words which I have put in thy book ...)

Zenn

An audio bible vs a written one? Both is my understanding from those written scriptures.

 

[Lon]

The part in bold is a big part of the problem.

The Bible says Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy, not God.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae:


The Bible says Ephesians was written by Paul, not God.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus


So you have rejected what the Bible actually says, and this is part of what has led you to the inerrancy error.

The Bible contradicts your claim that God wrote it.

No. It doesn't. Sorry about that. Again, you are playing parlor tricks and simpleton. Sorry about that too

 

[Lon]

People sometimes get frustrated when no one will give a straight answer to a simple question.

Hebrews has a simple, insignificant error. The writer said the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That was a mistake.

It is insignificant for the gospel and for the authority and validity of scripture.

It is significant for the doctrine of inerrancy, which is proved wrong by this and the other errors that have been detailed on this thread.

Ask Watchman. If I'm reading correctly, he 'no longer' believes this is an error like you do. Daqq, imho, put this supposed error to rest. I believe he did a good job burying this one. :deadhorse:

(I realize you've posted disagreement, but the fact that he 'can' reconcile casts 'reasonable' doubt that produces an innocent verdict. You HAVE to prove otherwise and you can't, you are left appealing to a higher court).

 

[daqq]

And yet, you being so quick to believe of yourself that you would (mention or give credit to God), haven't raised anyone from the dead.

That should give You pause for reflection.

(Joh 14:12 KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Please note that Jesus said he shall do, and that is what I did. It is not written "and greater works shall God do through him; because I go unto my Father." One should always be cautious when re-writing scripture up inside one's head. No? :AMR:

You remind me of the superstitious person who after reading James 4:15 adopts an OCD about always saying "if it be the Lord's will" lest the sky fall down on his head.

(Jas 4:15 KJV) For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

You being quick to judge me, ... do you faithfully follow James magic thinking in each and every instance of your life? Is God a child to be petulant if the magic words aren't said? Coins and crosses never know their fruitless worth, and rosary beads are a poor substitution for a living relationship with a living God.

Zenn

Lol, you know nothing about me or what things the Master has done through me to the glory of the Father. Neither would I tell you because then it would only be about myself. Your boasting about raising people from the dead and not giving Elohim the glory only reveals your ignorance for the logos-reasoning of what the scripture and the Master is truly speaking about in the passages you cite. And that is precisely what you get for your staunch physical-literalism: strong delusion for rejecting the Word, and for having no love of the truth, which very thing is proven by the contents of your posts right here in this thread denying the validity of the written Word so you can make up your own "stuff".

 

[2003cobra]

No. It doesn't. Sorry about that. Again, you are playing parlor tricks and simpleton. Sorry about that too

I know that you must claim that or face a rejection of your past positions, but the Bible is very clear that men wrote Ephesians and Colossians. It names the men: Paul and Timothy.

To claim God wrote them is in direct contradiction of the Bible itself.

That is not a parlor trick. It is the clear and concise statement of scripture, which you reject in favor of your tradition.

So my position honors what the Bible says, and your position contradicts the Bible.

The Bible says Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy, not God:
Colossians 1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae:


The Bible says Ephesians was written by Paul, not God:
Ephesians 1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus

 

[2003cobra]

Ask Watchman. If I'm reading correctly, he 'no longer' believes this is an error like you do. Daqq, imho, put this supposed error to rest. I believe he did a good job burying this one. :deadhorse:

(I realize you've posted disagreement, but the fact that he 'can' reconcile casts 'reasonable' doubt that produces an innocent verdict. You HAVE to prove otherwise and you can't, you are left appealing to a higher court).

Prove otherwise?

I have not appealed to a higher court. I have simply provided the scriptures that rebuke your position.

Again you deny what the scriptures say to support your man-made tradition.

Hebrews clearly says the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That is an error.

If you adopt whatever ‘spiritualizing’ (that is, rewriting and denying) of the text daqq has done to pretend an error does not exist, that is another failure.

 

[2003cobra]

Lol, you know nothing about me or what things the Master has done through me to the glory of the Father. Neither would I tell you because then it would only be about myself. Your boasting about raising people from the dead and not giving Elohim the glory only reveals your ignorance for the logos-reasoning of what the scripture and the Master is truly speaking about in the passages you cite. And that is precisely what you get for your staunch physical-literalism: strong delusion for rejecting the Word, and for having no love of the truth, which very thing is proven by the contents of your posts right here in this thread denying the validity of the written Word so you can make up your own "stuff".

I think I know why you won’t tell us.

As for a love for the truth, I see that in Zenn but not in you. You can’t even accept what the historical books clearly say.

And you can’t even give an opinion on the error with Jairus. Total silence, so you don’t have to face the fact that inerrancy is a false doctrine, a man-made tradition not found in scripture and contradicted by scripture.

 

[daqq]

Yep, and then to quibble over the word "had" as if the golden censer was never in the Holy of Holies. The sign in front of a drug store is the property of the drug store....not the street, although it can be seen from the street. The point of the censer was to carry incense into the presence of the Lord...which would indeed be the Holy of Holies.

I'd like to have you talk about the Mercy Seat, and this thread of denial would be the perfect place to do so.

Messiah is not just the propitiation but the Propitiator, (perhaps like in the same place the KJV calls him our Advocate, and in other places related, Mediator of the new covenant, and Minister of the circumcision), it therefore is only natural that the Father would be seated over-upon him, (ιλαστηριον, Rom 3:25). Moreover the Cherubim are one with the propitiatory-seat, (but I would not say to the right and to the left, rather, at the two extremities, one extremity to the other with wings overshadowing).

 

[daqq]

I think I know why you won’t tell us.

Yes, indeed, you do pretend to read minds.
You need not remind me as you have made it abundantly clear throughout.

 

[Lon]

Prove otherwise?
I have simply

Yep.

provided the scriptures that rebuke your position.

Nope. That you tried so 'simply,' yes. Your mind works this way.

Again you deny what the scriptures say to support your man-made tradition.

We hold to that assessment mutually. For a guy that says he doesn't stoop to name-calling, you sure aren't above implying it all over this thread.
You are not a nice guy.

Hebrews clearly says the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That is an error.

Yeah, I know what you 'think.' I also know you have demonstrable inability to read for comprehension of writing including the scriptures in this very thread. EVERYBODY saw it. A slam? NO! An assessment! We cannot TRUST your ability, Cobra. ALL you are doing is asserting things. You've proven none of them AND we very much doubt your prowess. In a nutshell, this conversation shouldn't be carried on by you. Another and better man will have to take it up. That man is not you.

If you adopt whatever ‘spiritualizing’ (that is, rewriting and denying) of the text daqq has done to pretend an error does not exist, that is another failure.

You cannot strong-arm people or brow beat them into submission. This is all naught but your assertion. You are prone to such and it is without foundation nor in your ability skill set to deliver on. You've nothing left but to 'claim' and 'assert.' It is all very much the mind of indoctrination, Cobra. I've no doubt you believe what you say BUT you don't have the where-with-all to believe it. Strong-arming and brow-beating isn't the way this is done. Me? I'm happy to leave you in God's hands. I don't have to prove anything to you. I DO think you are not SUPPOSED to be reading scripture this way nor casting the accusation. It is NOT your job. You are, in fact, attempting to stand in the way of the Holy Spirit. You cannot be another person's holy spirit. Matthew 23:9 Hebrews 8:11

 

[Lon]

I know

Spoiler

that you must claim that or face a rejection of your past positions, but the Bible is very clear that men wrote Ephesians and Colossians. It names the men: Paul and Timothy.

To claim God wrote them is in direct contradiction of the Bible itself.

That is not a parlor trick. It is the clear and concise statement of scripture, which you reject in favor of your tradition.

So my position honors what the Bible says, and your position contradicts the Bible.

The Bible says Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy, not God:
Colossians 1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae:


The Bible says Ephesians was written by Paul, not God:
Ephesians 1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus

2 Peter 1:21 Deuteronomy 6:1-11 :yawn:

 

[2003cobra]

2 Peter 1:21 Deuteronomy 6:1-11 :yawn:

2 Peter is about spoken prophecy, not the Bible, so you again have failed to make a point.

Pretending the passages in Deuteronomy written to the Jews in a theocracy about the Law apply to the entire Bible is also a failure.

Lon, you attended seminary. You should know better than this. You may. In that case, you should do better.

 

[Lon]

This is a hard thing to do, and when I raised Walter from the dead, I was flat out exhausted in bed for two days.

Oopsy daisy, you said that you raised someone from the dead and did not even think to mention God or give Him the credit. :shut: :chuckle:

And yet, you being so quick to believe of yourself that you would (mention or give credit to God), haven't raised anyone from the dead.

That should give You pause for reflection.


Zenn

Thanks for sharing.

One of the side-effects of taking a full dose of the doctrine of inerrancy seems to be the mistaken belief that God doesn’t communicate with people anymore. There are no more tongues and interpretation or prophecy. Sometimes they add that miracles no longer occur. They seem to think God put a perfect book on the podium and left the building.

Praise God that it is not so! He is the same yesterday, today, and forever and has not abandoned His people.

Had no idea you were both this charismatic but now I realize why this conversation is going the direction it is.

I'm outta here fellas and fellowettes. I know where this goes from here on out. :wave:

 

[2003cobra]

Had no idea you were both this charismatic but now I realize why this conversation is going the direction it is.

I'm outta here fellas and fellowettes. I know where this goes from here on out. :wave:

Reminds me of the movie “Monte Python and the Holy Grail,” when the killer rabbit was victorious.

 

[daqq]

People sometimes get frustrated when no one will give a straight answer to a simple question.

Hebrews has a simple, insignificant error. The writer said the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That was a mistake.

It is insignificant for the gospel and for the authority and validity of scripture.

It is significant for the doctrine of inerrancy, which is proved wrong by this and the other errors that have been detailed on this thread.

Hebrew 9:3-5 NRSV
Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

The writer of Hebrews inaccurately wrote that the Most Holy Place, or the Holy Of Holies, had or held the golden altar of incense.

That was a mistake, an error. It is an insignificant error for matters of the gospel and the authority and validity of the scriptures. It is significant in considering the doctrine of inerrancy, because this error shows that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

The golden altar of incense was used everyday, twice a day, to burn incense. It could not have been held in the Holy Of Holies, as that was entered only once a year.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2192 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
eco including an alternate form scheo {skheh'-o}, used in certain tenses only), a primary verb
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Echo 2:816,286
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ekh'-o Verb
Definition
to have, i.e. to hold
to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
to have i.e. own, possess
external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
to be closely joined to a person or a thing
NAS Word Usage - Total: 648
ability 1, able 1, accompany 1, acknowledge* 1, am 2, become 1, been 3, being 1, being under 1, bringing 1, conceived* 1, consider 2, considered 2, could 2, derive 1, deriving 1, devoid* 1, enjoyed 1, experiencing 1, felt 1, following 1, get 2, gripped 1, had 80, has 134, have 283, have had 2, having 50, held 1, hold 5, holding 7, holds 2, ill* 5, incurring 1, involves 1, keep 3, keeping 3, kept 1, maintain 1, maintained 1, maintaining 1, meets 1, nearby 1, next 2, obliged* 1, obtain 2, obtained 1, owned 3, possess 2, possessed 4, possesses 1, receive 1, received 1, recover* 1, regard 2, regarded 1, reigns* 1, remember* 1, retain 1, seize 1, show 1, think* 1, unable* 1, under 1, under* 1, use 1, without* 3

You are now just repeating your own errors after they have been proven to be false and which makes you a lair and false accuser:

Here is an account from Chapter 16, (The Day of Atonement), of "THE TEMPLE - ITS MINISTRY AND SERVICE", (Alfred Edersheim), which goes into some detail about the duties if the chief priest in the great day. There is another account I am aware of but cannot remember where it comes from, (perhaps Josephus?), where it was said that the most difficult duty of the chief priest in this day was carrying the incense and the censer into the Most Holy place because he actually had to have two hands, (plural), full of incense and therefore was required to carry the censer under his armpit into the Most Holy place, (a task so difficult that the potential fill-ins and those who might be chief priest one day had to rigorously train for this duty). However when I went back to this account it was not the one I thought it was, but it makes the point concerning the censer clear enough, for it states that the one used in the great day, (Yom Kippurim), was larger and therefore different from a regular censer.

---

THE TEMPLE - ITS MINISTRY AND SERVICE, excerpt Ch. 16 (Alfred Edersheim)
The Confession of Sin and the Sacrifice
With this presentation of the scape-goat before the people commenced the third and most solemn part of the expiatory services of the day. The high-priest now once more returned towards the sanctuary, and a second time laid his two hands on the bullock, which still stood between the porch and the altar, to confess over him, not only as before, his own and his household's sins, but also those of the priesthood. The formula used was precisely the same as before, with the addition of the words, 'the seed of Aaron, Thy holy people,' both in the confession and in the petition for atonement. Then the high-priest killed the bullock, caught up his blood in a vessel, and gave it to an attendant to keep it stirring, lest it should coagulate. Advancing to the altar of burnt-offering, he next filled the censer with burning coals, and then ranged a handful of frankincense in the dish destined to hold it. Ordinarily, everything brought in actual ministry unto God must be carried in the right hand- the incense in the right and the censer in the left. But on this occasion, as the censer for the Day of Atonement was larger and heavier than usual, the high-priest was allowed to reverse the common order. Every eye was strained towards the sanctuary as, slowly bearing the censer and the incense, the figure of the white-robed high-priest was seen to disappear within the Holy Place. After that nothing further could be seen of his movements.

The Mercy-seat
The curtain of the Most Holy Place was folded back, and the high-priest stood alone and separated from all the people in the awful gloom of the Holiest of All, only lit up by the red glow of the coals in the priest's censer. In the first Temple the ark of God had stood there with the 'mercy-seat' over-shadowing it; above it, the visible presence of Jehovah in the cloud of the Shechinah, and on either side the outspread wings of the cherubim; and the high-priest had placed the censer between the staves of the ark. But in the Temple of Herod there was neither Shechinah nor ark- was empty; and the high-priest rested his censer on a large stone, called the 'foundation-stone.' He now most carefully emptied the incense into his hand, and threw it on the coals of the censer, as far from himself as possible, and so waited till the smoke had filled the Most Holy Place.

---

It very well could be that this censer was not kept in the Most Holy place until after the events of 2Chr 26:19, when king Uzziah went into the secondary sanctuary to burn incense with it in his hand. He may have picked it up from inside the secondary sanctuary as it may have been kept by the altar of incense, (we simply do not know because the text never tells us, at least as far as I know). If this is the case then it seems only logical that this very event and this very time would be when and why they began to keep it behind the veil in the Most Holy place. You probably do not need me to expound those passages I quoted from the Septuagint, (they surely speak of the censer and use the same word as I highlighted), for you can get the meaning from pretty much any English translation but especially in that case from the Brenton English translation of the Septuagint, (bible.hub, etc.). I'll post the Brenton:

2 Chronicles 26:19 LXX Brenton English Translation
19 And Ozias was angry, and in his hand was the censer [το θυμιατηριον - G2369 - Heb 9:4] to burn incense in the temple: and when he was angry with the priests, then the leprosy rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, over the altar of incense [επανω του θυσιαστηριου των θυμιαματων].

"το θυμιατηριον" is most definitely "the censer", (not just "a censer"). Moreover what is used here for the altar of incense at the end of the statement is not the same word but the word for an altar, (G2379 θυσιαστηριον).

In the Ezekiel passage there can be no mistaking how the same word is used for censer: but this time it speaks not of "the censer" but the smaller common censers held by the priests and Levites, (showing even more positively that this word was indeed used for both censers and "the censer").

Ezekiel 8:11 LXX
11 και εβδομηκοντα ανδρες εκ των πρεσβυτερων οικου ισραηλ και ιεζονιας ο του σαφαν εν μεσω αυτων ειστηκει προ προσωπου αυτων και εκαστος θυμιατηριον αυτου ειχεν εν τη χειρι και η ατμις του θυμιαματος ανεβαινεν

Ezekiel 8:11 LXX Brenton English Translation
11 And seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, and Jechonias the son of Saphan stood in their presence in the midst of them, and each one held his censer [G2369 θυμιατηριον - Heb 9:4] in his hand; and the smoke of the incense went up.

Hebrews 9:4 T/R
4 χρυσουν εχουσα θυμιατηριον και την κιβωτον της διαθηκης περικεκαλυμμενην παντοθεν χρυσιω εν η σταμνος χρυση εχουσα το μαννα και η ραβδος ααρων η βλαστησασα και αι πλακες της διαθηκης

Hebrews 9:4 W/H
4 χρυσουν εχουσα θυμιατηριον και την κιβωτον της διαθηκης περικεκαλυμμενην παντοθεν χρυσιω εν η σταμνος χρυση εχουσα το μαννα και η ραβδος ααρων η βλαστησασα και αι πλακες της διαθηκης

2 Chronicles 26:19 LXX
19 και εθυμωθη οζιας και εν τη χειρι αυτου το θυμιατηριον του θυμιασαι εν τω ναω και εν τω θυμωθηναι αυτον προς τους ιερεις και η λεπρα ανετειλεν εν τω μετωπω αυτου εναντιον των ιερεων εν οικω κυριου επανω του θυσιαστηριου των θυμιαματων

Ezekiel 8:11 LXX
11 και εβδομηκοντα ανδρες εκ των πρεσβυτερων οικου ισραηλ και ιεζονιας ο του σαφαν εν μεσω αυτων ειστηκει προ προσωπου αυτων και εκαστος θυμιατηριον αυτου ειχεν εν τη χειρι και η ατμις του θυμιαματος ανεβαινεν

Boiyoiyoiyoiyoing . . . whah, whah, whah . . . you lose . . . :chuckle:

And again, as stated many times, it is nothing more than a translational issue but you purposely choose a translation which creates the surface illusion of an error which is only in the machinations of your own vain imagination:

Hebrew 9:3-5 NRSV
Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

The writer of Hebrews inaccurately wrote that the Most Holy Place, or the Holy Of Holies, had or held the golden altar of incense.

That was a mistake, an error. It is an insignificant error for matters of the gospel and the authority and validity of the scriptures. It is significant in considering the doctrine of inerrancy, because this error shows that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

Hebrews 9:3-4 KJV
3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Hebrews 9:3-4 YLT
3 and after the second vail a tabernacle that is called 'Holy of holies,'
4 having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which is the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant,

You prove nothing but your own malicious intentions against the written Word.

 

[daqq]

Had no idea you were both this charismatic but now I realize why this conversation is going the direction it is.

I'm outta here fellas and fellowettes. I know where this goes from here on out. :wave:

Yep, it provides the backdrop and the motive for the mindsets and the pair-a-dimes. :chuckle:

 

[2003cobra]

Daqq, if you think the altar of incense, a.k.a. the golden censer, was held in the Holy of Holies, then you need to go back and read the Old Testament.

 

[2003cobra]

Yep, it provides the backdrop and the motive for the mindsets and the pair-a-dimes. :chuckle:

You guys are that intimidated by people who believe God hasn’t changed, that His Spirit still is active with His people?

 

[daqq]

Daqq, if you think the altar of incense, a.k.a. the golden censer, was held in the Holy of Holies, then you need to go back and read the Old Testament.

No, you need to show us all where it is written otherwise or where the scripture proves that it was not. You are the accuser: again, make your case, for otherwise you lose, case dismissed.

 

[daqq]

Daqq, if you think the altar of incense, a.k.a. the golden censer, was held in the Holy of Holies, then you need to go back and read the Old Testament.

No, you need to show us all where it is written otherwise or where the scripture proves that it was not. You are the accuser: again, make your case, for otherwise you lose, case dismissed.

Leviticus 16:12-13 KJV
12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:
13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:

There is Ahron, commanded to take the censer full of burning coals into the Holy Holies, and (two)hands full of incense to put upon the burning coals inside the Holy Holies and produce the cloud so that he does not die. Thus we know that the censer was inside the Holy Holies at the very least once per year, in the day of Atonements.