1844 and the book of Hebrews...

Jon0388g said:

Then again, maybe Peter didn't imply that Jesus would return in his day per se;

"And it shall be in the last days.....that I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind...." Acts 2:17

This seems like Peter did believe that the Second Advent could take place. But - Peter goes on to quote;

"And I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come..." Acts 7:19-20

Possibly this could counter that Peter would have believed that Jesus would return, as these signs did not happen in Peter's day.

J

Click to expand...

woobadooba said:

But he very well could have believed that they could have happened at any point during his generation.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that in Acts 2, starting with verse 14, Peter was explaining what this whole Pentecost experience meant. The crowd that had gathered because of all the noise (the rushing wind and speaking in tongues) was confused about what was going on. Some even ridiculed the apostles and accused them of being drunk. Peter was telling the audience that what they were seeing was a fulfillment of the prophet Joel's message. It's pretty clear from the context that Peter was relating this to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit then and that he was referring to his time as the last days.

Sophia7 said:

Keep in mind that in Acts 2, starting with verse 14, Peter was explaining what this whole Pentecost experience meant. The crowd that had gathered because of all the noise (the rushing wind and speaking in tongues) was confused about what was going on. Some even ridiculed the apostles and accused them of being drunk. Peter was telling the audience that what they were seeing was a fulfillment of the prophet Joel's message. It's pretty clear from the context that Peter was relating this to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit then and that he was referring to his time as the last days.

Click to expand...

That's right

OntheDL said:

Lets look into the book of Hebrews on the instances of Most Holy Place and Holy Place:

Hebrews 9
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein [was] the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all (39 39);

39 39: Hagion hagion: holy of holy

Fine. No problem here.

7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (39) was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

39 Hagion: holy place.

Here the Greek is hagion. This is a serious problem. By its content, vs8 is clear the MHP, but the Greek text is HP. This is inconsistent.

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place (39), having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

39: hagion: holy place

Vs12 strongly suggests here the room is MHP. Another problem with the inconsistent Greek text.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (39) made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

39: hagion: holy place

Another problem here. The Greek text should have been hagion hagion.


25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place (39) every year with blood of others;

39: hagion: Holy Place

Again, the high priest enters the Most Holy Place. So Greek here should have been hagion hagion. Another textual problem.



Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest(39) by the blood of Jesus,

39: hagion

Here again the Greek is hagion while the text clearly shows the room is MHP. It should have been hagion hagio.


I checked other instance in the Greek where HP and MHP appeared.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (39), (whoso readeth, let him understand)

39: hagion: holy place.

No problems here.

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy (40) faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

40 hagios: most holy.

Interestingly here the strongs number is 40: hagios.

Unfortunately these two are not a large enough sample size to make a definitive conclusion to say about the usage of the word in Hebrews.

My theory for this inconsistency is that the book of Hebrews was originally written in Aramaic. There’re not enough evidence to strongly support this. However I think this is a possibility. My next step would be checking the Syriac Pershitta, the Aramaic New Testament to see what words where used in the book of Hebrews.

Let me give out my strongest caution here to those might consider it. There is no evidence that the Aramaic NT text is superior to the Greek. So only use this as a reference.

I remember Tall73 said we can not use word-for-word method to determine the precise translation. Then I’m lost with the grammar and what not. And I doubt we need to be experts of the original language to be able to understand the Bible.

While I can’t offer a definitive conclusion on the textual problems, I’m confident that Hebrews itself does not nullify the 1844 investigative judgment. In fact it confirms it.

Notice the author of Hebrews did not dismiss the annual atonement service where the high priest entered once a year into the MHP (Heb 9:1-7). It confirms and uses it as a type for the heavenly to be purified (vs 23).

However, we see clearly, the author of Hebrews was trying the persuade the new Hebrew Christians away from the earth sacrificial service and get them to focus on Jesus’ heavenly ministry which was ratified by His blood and inaugurated upon His ascension.


Hope this address some of the issues.

Click to expand...

Hagion:

I have recently been confronted with this issue so I went to the person who i knew that knows about this subject. It just happens to be one of the Experts in the Church on the sanctruary and a consultant on 2 different translantion, I believe they are the ESV and nasb, not exactaly sure on the the translations, but respected out side the sda chruch. His opinion helped change one of the translations to an adventist favored usage. This person is DR. sylvester Case of union college sycase@ucollege.edu
DR. Case said that hagion is plural and is translatied "holies" or "holy things" this phrase is usually associated with the sanctuary as a whole. the application is almost alway assoicated with the 1st apartment.

DR. Case said that hagion is plural and is translatied "holies" or "holy things" this phrase is usually associated with the sanctuary as a whole. the application is almost alway assoicated with the 1st apartment.

Click to expand...

But this same word also referes to the second apartment aswel. Look at verse 3 of Hebrews:

"And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;"

The context defines the word or meaning. There is no mention of the first apartment after verse 7.

Adventtruth.

Adventtruth said:

But this same word also referes to the second apartment aswel. Look at verse 3 of Hebrews:

"And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;"

The context defines the word or meaning. There is no mention of the first apartment after verse 7.

Adventtruth.

Click to expand...

If your are refering to "hagion hagion", then the problem is you don't know greek. in Greek repitation is a way of emphasizing the importance or surpriority of an Idea or person or thing. hagion then is translated holies and hagion hagion is holy of holies or most holy.

icedragon101 said:

If your are refering to "hagion hagion", then the problem is you don't know greek. in Greek repitation is a way of emphasizing the importance or surpriority of an Idea or person or thing. hagion then is translated holies and hagion hagion is holy of holies or most holy.

Click to expand...

I don't claim to know greek. Do you? But we have sources that will do it for us.

The problem with the greek here is that the accents where not place in the earlier manuscripts. But accordig to your views the text would read:

"And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holies"

As you can see it makes no sence...the tabernacle after the second veil is the most holy or holiest of all...not holies.

Adventtruth

Adventtruth said:

I don't claim to know greek. Do you? But we have sources that will do it for us.

The problem with the greek here is that the accents where not place in the earlier manuscripts. But accordig to your views the the text would read:

"And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holies"

As you can see it makes no sence...the tabernacle after the second veil is the most holy or holiest of all...not holies.

Adventtruth

Click to expand...

studied 2 years at union college of it

Adventtruth said:

I don't claim to know greek. Do you? But we have sources that will do it for us.

The problem with the greek here is that the accents where not place in the earlier manuscripts. But accordig to your views the text would read:

"And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holies"

As you can see it makes no sence...the tabernacle after the second veil is the most holy or holiest of all...not holies.

Adventtruth

Click to expand...

could you put a verse on it so can find where you are at. thank-you

icedragon101 said:

could you put a verse on it so can find where you are at. thank-you

Click to expand...

Sure thing...I will add multiple verses they all translate it the same way.

KJV
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Internationl Standard version
Heb 9:3 Behind the second curtain was the part of the tabernacle called the Holy of Holies,

Hebrew Names Version
Heb 9:3 After the second veil was the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

Goodnews Version
Heb 9:3 Behind the second curtain was the tent called the Most Holy Place.


1599 Geneva Version
Heb 9:3 And after the seconde vaile was the Tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all,


Analaytical-literal translation
Heb 9:3 and after the second veil [was] a tabernacle which is being called "Holy of Holies" [fig., the inner sanctuary],

Adventtruth said:

Sure thing...I will add multiple verses they all translate it the same way.

KJV
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Internationl Standard version
Heb 9:3 Behind the second curtain was the part of the tabernacle called the Holy of Holies,

Hebrew Names Version
Heb 9:3 After the second veil was the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

Goodnews Version
Heb 9:3 Behind the second curtain was the tent called the Most Holy Place.


1599 Geneva Version
Heb 9:3 And after the seconde vaile was the Tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all,


Analaytical-literal translation
Heb 9:3 and after the second veil [was] a tabernacle which is being called "Holy of Holies" [fig., the inner sanctuary],

Click to expand...

you misunder stand

hagion = holies

hagion hagion = holy of holies, or most holy

as it reads in the in the above quote.

icedragon101 said:

you misunder stand

hagion = holies

hagion hagion = holy of holies, or most holy

as it reads in the in the above quote.

Click to expand...

Ok help me out here...when I look up the word in the greek it all says hagion. So how do you interpret the greek hagion hagion from hagion?

Adventtruth

Adventtruth said:

Ok help me out here...when I look up the word in the greek it all says hagion. So how do you interpret the greek hagion hagion from hagion?

Adventtruth

Click to expand...

I'm not a Greek scholar; I've studied only a little bit of Greek, but I can look up stuff in my Greek Bible and read what Greek scholars write.

In Hebrews 9:3 the Greek term is αγια αγιων, a variant of τα αγια. The term τα αγια (and its variants) occurs 10 times in the NT, all of them in the book of Hebrews. Here is a list of all of the occurrences:
It is true that this term is usally associated with the sanctuary as a whole; however, I disagree with icedragon's assertion (citing Professor Case) that it is almost always associated with the first apartment. (See the first quote below and the numbers following it.)

I've been reading the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series publication Issues in the Book of Hebrews, and I'm going to quote a few portions from Appendix A, which deals with this subject of how τα αγια and its variants should be translated.

In view of the fact that the auctor ad Hebraeos leaned so heavily upon the LXX, it would seem that this is the logical place to look for evidence of his meaning in the use of τα αγια.1

Click to expand...

Here are the numbers that he cites:
He also says that the same general pattern is followed on a smaller scale in Hebrews. This is his conclusion:

The general conclusion reached from the study of the LXX use of τα αγια and the comparison with the use in Hebrews is that this expression refers basically to the sanctuary in general. The question remaining to be answered is the question of translation. How should it be translated in Hebrews? Should it be left in translation with the emphasis on the basic meaning and thus be translated "sanctuary" each time . . . ? Or should it be interpreted in the light of its context and the theology of the passage, and translated according to that specific part of the sanctuary which seems to be in the mind of the writer? It is the contention of the present writer that the basic meaning of the word should be uppermost in the mind of the translator and, provided it makes sense in the context, should be used for the translation. Thus "sanctuary" would be the translation throughout Hebrews except at 9:2, 3. It is then the work of the commentator, on the basis of his study of the context and the theology of the passage, to decide what specific part (if any) of the sanctuary was in the mind of the writer.2

Click to expand...

The author goes on to explain in more detail the usage in each of the occurrences of this term and how he thinks they should be translated. Here are a few quotes dealing with specific verses:

9:3 This is the most straightforward of the uses of τα αγια in Hebrews. The form Aγια Aγιων (both neuter and plural) is equivalent to the Hebrew superlative [term translated] ("Holiest") and thus refers to the inner compartment of the sanctuary. Like 9:2, the expression in this verse is anarthrous, and like 9:2, it refers to a specific part of the sanctuary. This, of course, is confirmed by the context (9:4) which describes the contents of this compartment.3

Click to expand...

9:12 The translations of the KJV, ERV, and ASV ("the holy place") and of Moffatt ("the Holy place") and the RSV ("the Holy Place") are definitely misleading. The characteristic service of the Day of Atonement here referred to (cf. vs. 7), was located in the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary. However, inasmuch as the high priest had to pass through the outer compartment, it could be said that he "employed" . . . the whole sanctuary in this service. . . . It is suggested, then, that τα αγια once more be rendered "sanctuary," referring to the heavenly sanctuary.4

Click to expand...

9:24 If in 9:12 τα αγια is to be translated "sanctuary," clearly it should be the same in 9:24, for the same locale is described. It is not a specific part of the heavenly sanctuary that is in the mind of the author. . . . Commentators are almost unanimous in considering this use of αγια a reference to the heavenly sanctuary in general.5

Click to expand...

9:25 As in 9:12, the translation "Holy Place" (and variants) is misleading. The reference in the context of the Day of Atonement service of the earthly high priest is not to the outer compartment of the sanctuary. His characteristic service on that day was carried on in the inner compartment. However, once more, because the whole sanctuary is involved in these services, "sanctuary" is to be preferred as the translation, thus emphasizing the basic meaning of the expression. This leaves the commentator the task of pointing out that the inner compartment was the place where the significance of that day resided.6

Click to expand...

Thus, the meaning of these texts in Hebrews really lies in the context, not in the translation. An understanding of the Greek textual issues doesn't settle all of the controversies over biblical interpretation. A person does not even have to be a Greek scholar to understand the Bible. It's up to the Greek scholars to translate the New Testament and tell us how good a translation is. Commentators (who may or may not be Greek scholars) can give us their educated opinions about how Bible passages should be interpreted. However, the average Christian is quite capable of comprehending the book of Hebrews by reading it in context and applying basic hermeneutical principles, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In this case, the textual and contextual evidence strongly favors a reading of sanctuary, as in the whole sanctuary, which would encompass both the HP and MHP, in almost all of the occurrences of this term in Hebrews. This does not rule out the interpretation that Hebrews uses Day of Atonement references (as well as references to the whole OT sacrificial system) that indicate that Jesus entered the MHP of heaven itself at His ascension.
____________________________________________________________

1 Alwyn P. Salom, "Appendix A: Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989) 221.
2 Ibid. 224.
3 Ibid. 226.
4 Ibid. 226-7.
5 Ibid. 227.
6 Ibid. 227.

Sophia7 said:

I'm not a Greek scholar; I've studied only a little bit of Greek, but I can look up stuff in my Greek Bible and read what Greek scholars write.

In Hebrews 9:3 the Greek term is αγια αγιων, a variant of τα αγια. The term τα αγια (and its variants) occurs 10 times in the NT, all of them in the book of Hebrews. Here is a list of all of the occurrences:

8:2 των αγιων​

9:1 το τε αγιον​

9:2 Aγια​

9:3 Aγια Aγιων​

9:8 των αγιων​

9:12 τα αγια​

9:24 αγια​

9:25 τα αγια​

10:19 των αγιων​

13:11 τα αγια​

​

It is true that this term is usally associated with the sanctuary as a whole; however, I disagree with icedragon's assertion (citing Professor Case) that it is almost always associated with the first apartment. (See the first quote below and the numbers following it.)

I've been reading the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series publication Issues in the Book of Hebrews, and I'm going to quote a few portions from Appendix A, which deals with this subject of how τα αγια and its variants should be translated.

Here are the numbers that he cites:

Occurrences of τα αγια in the LXX (170):​

Total uses referring to the sanctuary in general: 142​

Total uses referring to the outer compartment: 19​

Total uses referring to the inner compartment: 9​

​

He also says that the same general pattern is followed on a smaller scale in Hebrews. This is his conclusion:



The author goes on to explain in more detail the usage in each of the occurrences of this term and how he thinks they should be translated. Here are a few quotes dealing with specific verses:







Thus, the meaning of these texts in Hebrews really lies in the context, not in the translation. An understanding of the Greek textual issues doesn't settle all of the controversies over biblical interpretation. A person does not even have to be a Greek scholar to understand the Bible. It's up to the Greek scholars to translate the New Testament and tell us how good a translation is. Commentators (who may or may not be Greek scholars) can give us their educated opinions about how Bible passages should be interpreted. However, the average Christian is quite capable of comprehending the book of Hebrews by reading it in context and applying basic hermeneutical principles, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In this case, the textual and contextual evidence strongly favors a reading of sanctuary, as in the whole sanctuary, which would encompass both the HP and MHP, in almost all of the occurrences of this term in Hebrews. This does not rule out the interpretation that Hebrews uses Day of Atonement references (as well as references to the whole OT sacrificial system) that indicate that Jesus entered the MHP of heaven itself at His ascension.
____________________________________________________________

1 Alwyn P. Salom, "Appendix A: Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989) 221.
2 Ibid. 224.
3 Ibid. 226.
4 Ibid. 226-7.
5 Ibid. 227.
6 Ibid. 227.

Click to expand...

I believed the Adventist interpretation for years. I read all the passages through the eyes of Adventist scholars. I then begain to hear the bad reports from Walter Martin, and I then did a study on the problem from the pioneers perspective, seeing many of them rejected it...Even James White rejected it at first, and the man who discovered it later rejected it and then later changed his mine. I then decided to make it all objective to see more clearly.

When I did that, those passages made more sence to me in light of a good study on sin and salvation. I am convenced that the greek really does not settle it in this case. For years I listen to Goldstien debate the issues from the greek and SOP and I believed him. But a solid reading of Hebrews with a good understanding of sin and salvation did it for me. And besides, there are to many other text in the bible that just don't mesh with 1844. I know many have trouble with the feast days, but I just can't go on trying to make Hebrews fit 1844. Even the Adventist scholars go a great distance to try and discredit Hebrews by making some outrages claims... when you read the stuff, you can tell they are grasping at straws and many of them do set up straw men and don't even notice it.

When I was ready to face the fact that some of the things I learned was not true, then thats when I begain to see Hebrews for what It was and not what they say it was.

Adventtruth said:

I believed the Adventist interpretation for years. I read all the passages through the eyes of Adventist scholars. I then begain to hear the bad reports from Walter Martin, and I then did a study on the problem from the pioneers perspective, seeing many of them rejected it...Even James White rejected it at first, and the man who discovered it later rejected it and then later changed his mine. I then decided to make it all objective to see more clearly.

When I did that, those passages made more sence to me in light of a good study on sin and salvation. I am convenced that the greek really does not settle it in this case. For years I listen to Goldstien debate the issues from the greek and SOP and I believed him. But a solid reading of Hebrews with a good understanding of sin and salvation did it for me. And besides, there are to many other text in the bible that just don't mesh with 1844. I know many have trouble with the feast days, but I just can't go on trying to make Hebrews fit 1844. Even the Adventist scholars go a great distance to try and discredit Hebrews by making some outrages claims... when you read the stuff, you can tell they are grasping at straws and many of them do set up straw men and don't even notice it.

When I was ready to face the fact that some of the things I learned was not true, then thats when I begain to see Hebrews for what It was and not what they say it was.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. That was my point in posting all of that, to show that the Greek doesn't settle it. It doesn't prove or disprove the traditional Adventist position. Even Adventist scholars admit that if they are being intellectually honest.

I disagree with many of the arguments in Issues in the Book of Hebrews. Some of the articles are good, and some are not. Obviously, they had an agenda to uphold the traditional Adventist view of the IJ and 1844, and they rejected any articles that were submitted to the committee that they thought would not further that goal. Some of the statements in the book seem to contradict each other, though; even traditional Adventist scholars disagree with each other on some of the fine points of biblical interpretation.

Those scholars who argue that Jesus entered only the HP of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension or that He entered the MHP but only to inaugurate the heavenly sanctuary are most definitely not convincing to me. I don't believe that their views fit the biblical context. I don't believe that the context supports traditional Adventist views at all. However, I do like the article that I quoted from above, which they placed in the appendix. It gives a fair treatment of Greek textual issues, with the realization that this does not resolve the controversies over interpretation.

I am also not a Greek scholar (lol), so I need to rely on greek translations especially when studying this issue in Hebrews.

The interpretations quoted by Sophia7 seem to me pretty ambiguous, and no doubt will leave a lot of people confused (I was) - I couldn't quite see any real conclusions or assertions.

I have come across an interpretation which I am currently looking into; I am not [yet] declaring it watertight - just giving another slant on it before we all neglect our Sanctuary message because Hebrews seems to clash with it.

Here goes:


Hebrews 9:1 starts off with a general definition of the earthly sanctuary as a whole; the greek word here being hagion; meaning 'holy' as a nominative singular - thus translated literally as 'holy place'.

Hebrews 9:2 then moves into a description of the first compartment of the sanctuary; the Holy Place (as we call it). The authour uses a peculiar term to define this compartment - 'hagia' - meaning 'holies' - in the plural. Thus, it is translated literally as 'holy places' in most accurate translations.

Hebrews 9:3, following the progression, moves into the Most Holy Place, as we call it. Note the author emphasises that we are now behind the second veil. The term used here for the second compartment is 'hagia hagiOn' - meaning 'holies of holies' - translated literally as 'holiest of all'. Again, this a strange way of terming the compartment, again, in the plural.

An important point must be clarified here. 'Hagion' of vs 1 is nominative singular, meaning 'holy' - whereas the 'HagiOn' of vs 3 is in genetive plural (the capital O being the greek letter omega) - meaning 'of holies'. Thus a distinct contrast is defined by the author to the two terms.



Now, the author has obviously chosen to meticulously define each compartment with a certain term, for a reason. We can now see that the author repeatedly says Jesus entered the first compartment by the definition he has given us in vs 2; in vs 8, 12, 14, 24, and 10:19, where 'ta hagia' is always used. This is the important point to note.


Why would the author of Hebrews use such weird ways to describe the compartments? He uses 'holy' for the sanctuary as a whole, the plural 'holies' for the first compartment, and the plural 'holies of holies' for the second.

Possibly because of only one (but significant) anomoly in the OT - where in Leviticus 16, Moses refers to the MHP as 'the holy place' - see Lev 16:2. Knowing that readers of Hebrews may confuse the two compartments in light of this, the author may have chosen this unique terminology so that there could be no ambiguity.

I think I have mentioned this before; only in two places is the MHP of the sanctuary mentioned in the whole of Hebrews! Hebrews 9:4-5, and 9:7, where the contents and its services are briefly described in its earthly setting. In 9:8 the author interrupts the flow by beginning the actual description of Christ's ministry in 'ta hagia' - the first compartment. The really interesting point is the fact that the author even says in 9:5, after describing the long list of contents of the MHP, 'Concerning (peri) which (hon) it is not time (ouk estin) now (nun) to speak (legein) in detail (kata meros)'.

Could it be that the author was getting the readers of the time to focus on Christ's first-compartment ministry that was then supposedly taking place? It 'was not time' for them to concern themselves with the MHP services?


Consider these points and let me know what you think.

J

Sophia7 said:

I'm not a Greek scholar; I've studied only a little bit of Greek, but I can look up stuff in my Greek Bible and read what Greek scholars write.

In Hebrews 9:3 the Greek term is αγια αγιων, a variant of τα αγια. The term τα αγια (and its variants) occurs 10 times in the NT, all of them in the book of Hebrews. Here is a list of all of the occurrences:

8:2 των αγιων​

9:1 το τε αγιον​

9:2 Aγια​

9:3 Aγια Aγιων​

9:8 των αγιων​

9:12 τα αγια​

9:24 αγια​

9:25 τα αγια​

10:19 των αγιων​

13:11 τα αγια​

​

It is true that this term is usally associated with the sanctuary as a whole; however, I disagree with icedragon's assertion (citing Professor Case) that it is almost always associated with the first apartment. (See the first quote below and the numbers following it.)

I've been reading the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series publication Issues in the Book of Hebrews, and I'm going to quote a few portions from Appendix A, which deals with this subject of how τα αγια and its variants should be translated.

Here are the numbers that he cites:

Occurrences of τα αγια in the LXX (170):​

Total uses referring to the sanctuary in general: 142​

Total uses referring to the outer compartment: 19​

Total uses referring to the inner compartment: 9​

​

He also says that the same general pattern is followed on a smaller scale in Hebrews. This is his conclusion:



The author goes on to explain in more detail the usage in each of the occurrences of this term and how he thinks they should be translated. Here are a few quotes dealing with specific verses:







Thus, the meaning of these texts in Hebrews really lies in the context, not in the translation. An understanding of the Greek textual issues doesn't settle all of the controversies over biblical interpretation. A person does not even have to be a Greek scholar to understand the Bible. It's up to the Greek scholars to translate the New Testament and tell us how good a translation is. Commentators (who may or may not be Greek scholars) can give us their educated opinions about how Bible passages should be interpreted. However, the average Christian is quite capable of comprehending the book of Hebrews by reading it in context and applying basic hermeneutical principles, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In this case, the textual and contextual evidence strongly favors a reading of sanctuary, as in the whole sanctuary, which would encompass both the HP and MHP, in almost all of the occurrences of this term in Hebrews. This does not rule out the interpretation that Hebrews uses Day of Atonement references (as well as references to the whole OT sacrificial system) that indicate that Jesus entered the MHP of heaven itself at His ascension.
____________________________________________________________

1 Alwyn P. Salom, "Appendix A: Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989) 221.
2 Ibid. 224.
3 Ibid. 226.
4 Ibid. 226-7.
5 Ibid. 227.
6 Ibid. 227.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the intellegent post very nice, but I cannot figure out what you are objecting to? Hagion, hagion, you objected to me citing "Dr Case" then you go and prove my point 170 uses 142 refereing to the sanctuary in general that is the majority of references 80%. so I don't get it. The refence in 9:3 is refering to the most holy place. not the sanctuary. the refences in the rest of the chapter refer to the sanctruary in general or "holies" not the holy of holies, or most holy. still confused on what you don't get.

icedragon101 said:

I appreciate the intellegent post very nice, but I cannot figure out what you are objecting to? Hagion, hagion, you objected to me citing "Dr Case" then you go and prove my point 170 uses 142 refereing to the sanctuary in general that is the majority of references 80%. so I don't get it. The refence in 9:3 is refering to the most holy place. not the sanctuary. the refences in the rest of the chapter refer to the sanctruary in general or "holies" not the holy of holies, or most holy. still confused on what you don't get.

Click to expand...

Here is what you said in post #23:

DR. Case said that hagion is plural and is translatied "holies" or "holy things" this phrase is usually associated with the sanctuary as a whole. the application is almost alway assoicated with the 1st apartment.

Click to expand...

First of all, hagion (αγιο&#957 is not plural; it's neuter singular. Some of the other forms of the term used in Hebrews (Aγια Aγιων in 9:3, for example) are plural. My main point on this, though, is that I disagree with Case's assertion that this term is almost always associated with the first apartment. The textual evidence, especially from the LXX, doesn't support that conclusion. It does give evidence to show that τα αγια and its variants almost always refer to the sanctuary in general. I agree with that part of what he said.

Jon0388g said:

I am also not a Greek scholar (lol), so I need to rely on greek translations especially when studying this issue in Hebrews.

The interpretations quoted by Sophia7 seem to me pretty ambiguous, and no doubt will leave a lot of people confused (I was) - I couldn't quite see any real conclusions or assertions.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of why I posted that. Yes, the interpretations are ambiguous. That's because the author's concern in that article is not with which interpretation is correct but with how the term τα αγια should be translated. The article shows that a knowledge of the Greek textual issues in the book of Hebrews doesn't settle the questions of interpretation.

My point is that complicated explanations of what this or that Greek word means don't prove anything one way or the other as far as whether these verses in Hebrews support the traditional Adventist views of the IJ and the heavenly sanctuary. We have to look at the context to determine the meaning.

We have to look at the context to determine the meaning.

Click to expand...

And this is my point 100%.

After looking at the greek for a while on these text in Hebrews, scholars of different faiths seems to be further apart than you would think. Even Adventist scholars who accept 1844 can't agree on what the greek says concerning Hebrew 9.

This is one of those cases where the only logical thing that makes sence that gives real understanding is to let the context determine the meaning of the word.

Adventtruth

bump for study purposes