icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

RC_NewProtestants · May 5, 2007

Onthedl wrote:

How does the book of Enoch have any reliability on a levitical rite?

It really doesn't, it is merely an indication of a later use of the word Azazel. Which is the problem with the objections listed in your post, they all fall upon the meaning however uncertain of the word Azazel. That is why I provided Bible texts to supply a broader understanding. Here is what the Expositor's Bible Commenatary says:

What is the "scapegoat" (v. 8)? The Hebrew word `aza'zel is used in the Bible only in this chapter. In later Jewish theology the Book of Enoch uses the word as a name for one of the fallen angels, Azazel. Enoch's extensive demonology is demonstrably late (c. 200 B.C.). It often uses late Aramaic forms for names of the demons, which suggests that they were of postbiblical invention. Enoch is dependent on Leviticus 16 rather than vice versa and is no guide to the interpretation of Leviticus.
Many modern scholars insist that Azazel is a name because it is used with the preposition "for" in exact parallel to the "lot for the LORD" (v. 8). This seems to press grammatical parallel too far. De Vaux (AIs, pp. 508-9) argues for this view and compares a ritual in the Babylonian New Year ceremony in which a sheep was decapitated in the temple, then carried away and thrown in a river. But there is no need to hold any relation between the Babylonian and Hebrew rituals, except that the Babylonian ritual may well also indicate that the human heart cries out for the removal of its sin. It will be remembered that one bird was let free in the ritual for cleansing a diseased person (14:7). There is no hint of demonology there or that the use of the Hebrew word "Azazel" as a proper noun is an erroneous and dangerous concession to the idea that Israel's religion shared the heathen demonology and other superstitious views of the surrounding nations.
A much simpler view is that of the KJV, followed by the NIV and NASB, going back to the LXX of 200 B.C. The first part (`az) can mean "goat" and the last part ('azel) is from a verb that means "go away." Compound nouns like this are rare in ancient Hebrew, but new evidence for them is turning up in Ugaritic. It is simply the designation of the goat to be taken away, the escape goat. In Numbers 29:11 the escape goat is called "the sin offering for atonement" (see further TWOT, #1593).

djconklin · May 5, 2007

In Numbers 29:11 the escape goat is called "the sin offering for atonement" (see further TWOT, #1593).

The text does not say that the goat for a sin offering was an escape goat.

OntheDL · May 5, 2007

djconklin said:
The text does not say that the goat for a sin offering was an escape goat.

Yeah, Number 29:11 say 'one kid of the goats for sin offering'. The word here is 'iziym, means goat. Not 'zaa'zeel (Azazel). The scapegoat can not be sin offering. The Lord's goat was the sin offering according to Lev 16.

DarylFawcett · May 5, 2007

Here is what EGW had to say about her own calling:

-----beginning of quote-----

While prayer was offered for me, that the Lord would give me strength and courage to bear the message, the thick darkness that had encompassed me rolled back, and a sudden light came upon me. Something that seemed to me like a ball of fire struck me right over the heart. My strength was taken away, and I fell to the floor. I seemed to be in the presence of the angels. One of these holy beings again repeated the words, "Make known to others what I have revealed to you." {CET 67.2}

Father Pearson, who could not kneel on account of his rheumatism, witnessed this occurrence. When 1 revived sufficiently to see and hear, he rose from his chair, and said: "I have seen a sight such as I never expected to see. A ball of fire came down from heaven, and struck Sister Ellen Harmon right on the heart. I saw it! I saw it! I can never forget it. It has changed my whole being. Sister Ellen, have courage in the Lord. After this night I will never doubt again. We will help you henceforth, and not discourage you." {CET 67.3}

-----end of quote-----

What is being said here against EGW is also being said elsewhere against the Bible itself, therefore, if I am going to hang on to the Bible, I am also going to hang onto EGW.

And why use the anti-SDA sites as a source against our beliefs? They seem to be kind of slanted to me.

djconklin · May 5, 2007

They seem to be kind of slanted to me.

"kind of"?!? Ya think?!?

Thanks for the quote--that was great!

RC_NewProtestants · May 5, 2007

Why is it I seem to always have to point out what the Bible actually says to skeptical people on this forum. The Expositor's Bible commentary is completely accurate in what it said. Numbers is indeed describing the animals used on the day of Atonement cerimonies.

(Lev 23:27 NIV) "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, and present an offering made to the LORD by fire.

(Num 29:7 NIV) "'On the tenth day of this seventh month hold a sacred assembly. You must deny yourselves and do no work.

(Num 29:8 NIV) Present as an aroma pleasing to the LORD a burnt offering of one young bull, one ram and seven male lambs a year old, all without defect.

(Num 29:9 NIV) With the bull prepare a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil; with the ram, two-tenths;

(Num 29:10 NIV) and with each of the seven lambs, one-tenth.

(Num 29:11 NIV) Include one male goat as a sin offering, in addition to the sin offering for atonement and the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, and their drink offerings.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The live goat was now brought forward. The high priest laid his hand upon its head and confessed "all the iniquities of the Israelites, and all their transgressions, even all their sins," which were thus placed upon the goat's head. Laden with the people's sins, the animal was sent away into the wilderness (verses 20-22). The high priest then took those portions that belonged on the altar out of the bodies of the bullock and the goat, and placed them temporarily in a vessel; the carcasses of the animals were sent away "to the place where the ashes are thrown out" (Lev. iv. 12) and burned there (verse 27; Yoma vi. 7). Clothed in his ordinary robes, the high priest offered another goat for a sin-offering (Num. xxix. 11), and two rams for a burnt offering, one of which was contributed by himself (verse 24). The altar portions of the bullock and goat were now burned on the altar (verse 25; Yoma l.c.; see Bertinoro), and the daily evening sacrifice was offered (Num. xxix. 11; Ex. xxix. 41).

Even Smith's Bible Dictionary which is closer to the Adventist idea of the scapegoat going to Satan notes that the Christian meaning is of one sacrifice:

The scapegoat. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 9:7-25) teaches us to apply the first two particulars. The high priest himself, with his person cleansed and dressed in white garments, was the best outward type which a living man could present in his own person of that pure and holy One who was to purify his people and to cleanse them from their sins. But respecting the meaning of the scapegoat we have no such light to guide us, and the subject is one of great doubt and difficulty. It has been generally considered that it was dismissed to signify the carrying away of the sins of the people, as it were, out of the sight of Jehovah. If we keep in view that the two goats are spoken of as parts of one and the same sin offering, we shall not have much difficulty in seeing that they form together but one symbolical expression; the slain goat setting forth the act of sacrifice, in giving up its own life for others "to Jehovah;" and the goat which carried off its load of sin "for complete removal" signifying the cleansing influence of faith in that sacrifice.

djconklin · May 5, 2007

There is no question that the slain goat is a sin offering. Note that the there two goats on the Day of Atonement, one for the Lord, one for Azazael. The scapegoat isn't slain. Therefore, the single goat of Num. 29:11 isn't the scapegoat.

Adventist Dissident · May 5, 2007

DarylFawcett said:
Here is what EGW had to say about her own calling:

-----beginning of quote-----

While prayer was offered for me, that the Lord would give me strength and courage to bear the message, the thick darkness that had encompassed me rolled back, and a sudden light came upon me. Something that seemed to me like a ball of fire struck me right over the heart. My strength was taken away, and I fell to the floor. I seemed to be in the presence of the angels. One of these holy beings again repeated the words, "Make known to others what I have revealed to you." {CET 67.2}

Father Pearson, who could not kneel on account of his rheumatism, witnessed this occurrence. When 1 revived sufficiently to see and hear, he rose from his chair, and said: "I have seen a sight such as I never expected to see. A ball of fire came down from heaven, and struck Sister Ellen Harmon right on the heart. I saw it! I saw it! I can never forget it. It has changed my whole being. Sister Ellen, have courage in the Lord. After this night I will never doubt again. We will help you henceforth, and not discourage you." {CET 67.3}

-----end of quote-----

What is being said here against EGW is also being said elsewhere against the Bible itself, therefore, if I am going to hang on to the Bible, I am also going to hang onto EGW.

And why use the anti-SDA sites as a source against our beliefs? They seem to be kind of slanted to me.

hi Daryl good to see you again.

I want to put out a challage to you and all the other Pro EGW people.

The challange:
Go and read only Denominatially listed book on SDA history. Books by Miller, BATEs, James white. all offical SDA material only. it might take a few months. then go back and read the anti-EGW web sites and see if they are false. I thought the same thing until i had a frame work to understand what they were saying. I suggest the list at the beginning of the thread. If you are going to say they are false and misleading it is the only honest thing to be able to point out where, not just invalidate them because they don't agree with you. you first have to know your history and then you will beable to decern. Might I also suggest Geroge Knights books, espically the one on the millerite movement. "Millennial Feaver" godd blace to start.

By the way how much SDA histoy do you know?

OntheDL · May 5, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
Why is it I seem to always have to point out what the Bible actually says to skeptical people on this forum. The Expositor's Bible commentary is completely accurate in what it said. Numbers is indeed describing the animals used on the day of Atonement cerimonies.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Even Smith's Bible Dictionary which is closer to the Adventist idea of the scapegoat going to Satan notes that the Christian meaning is of one sacrifice:

Please quote the exact verse that says the scapegoat was made a sin offering from the Bible.

Not even the commentaries you quoted said anything about the scapegoat was killed for sin offering. One of us is blind.

truthmagnet · May 6, 2007

Let me ask you all this. Ellen White asked people to NOT call her a prophet. If we respected her wishes, would this even be a debate? People put her on a pedestal. She did not put herself there.
Her writings brought me to the Lord. They taught me who Jesus was and that He was real and that he loved me more than anyone. The Bible could have done that but I didn't understand the Bible at that time. I was in darkness and she drew open the shades and showed me the light. She said she was the "lesser light" and wouldn't have been neccessary except the people, for lack of their own initiative to pray and understand the Scriptures, needed it. I know I did. Her writings are a great blessing to many like myself. If they are not a blessing to you, then don't read them. But don't tear down a loving woman who gave her life's work to the will of God just to be a blessing to His people. If people didn't insist on calling her a prophet even when she asked them not to, then this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
I don't beleive you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you are not blessed by her writings, then you are missing so much.

Adventist Dissident · May 6, 2007

truthmagnet said:
Let me ask you all this. Ellen White asked people to NOT call her a prophet. If we respected her wishes, would this even be a debate? People put her on a pedestal. She did not put herself there.
Her writings brought me to the Lord. They taught me who Jesus was and that He was real and that he loved me more than anyone. The Bible could have done that but I didn't understand the Bible at that time. I was in darkness and she drew open the shades and showed me the light. She said she was the "lesser light" and wouldn't have been neccessary except the people, for lack of their own initiative to pray and understand the Scriptures, needed it. I know I did. Her writings are a great blessing to many like myself. If they are not a blessing to you, then don't read them. But don't tear down a loving woman who gave her life's work to the will of God just to be a blessing to His people. If people didn't insist on calling her a prophet even when she asked them not to, then this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
I don't beleive you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you are not blessed by her writings, then you are missing so much.

if it were that simple it would be ok, but to do that would be to go agianst the SDA chruch offical postion. I agree with you there is much value in her writings, just like other christian writers. Thea is good and true. When the SDA chruch Says that she is no longer a prophet and that she has only devotional and pastoral value and is not a source of authority then all will be well.

RC_NewProtestants · May 6, 2007

Please quote the exact verse that says the scapegoat was made a sin offering from the Bible.

Not even the commentaries you quoted said anything about the scapegoat was killed for sin offering. One of us is blind.

I have quoted the verse, The Expositor's Bible commentary referenced the verse. It is the other "in addition" mentioned. I can't make the intentionally blind see however.

RC_NewProtestants · May 6, 2007

Truthmagnet wrote:

Let me ask you all this. Ellen White asked people to NOT call her a prophet.

I don't remember ever seeing a quote where Ellen White asked people to not call her a prophet. The only thing I know of is that she said she did not claim the title because see felt that her call was to be more then the word prophet implies. Please post the quote if you have one that says she asked people to not call her a prophet.

OntheDL · May 6, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
I have quoted the verse, The Expositor's Bible commentary referenced the verse. It is the other "in addition" mentioned. I can't make the intentionally blind see however.

No, you did not. You have proven yet again you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong.

RC_NewProtestants · May 6, 2007

Expositor's Bible Commenatary quote:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34514131&postcount=41

Text quoted:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34527288&postcount=46

It seems that some people when confronted with facts prefer to respond with ad hominem attacks.

djconklin · May 6, 2007

It seems that some people when confronted with facts prefer to respond with ad hominem {sic} attacks.

FACT: the text does NOT refer to the scape goat. I noted the reasons back in post #47 which you have skipped over.

RC_NewProtestants · May 6, 2007

No you did not note any reasons, you merely asserted your view and think that makes it a fact.

you wrote:

There is no question that the slain goat is a sin offering. Note that the there two goats on the Day of Atonement, one for the Lord, one for Azazael. The scapegoat isn't slain. Therefore, the single goat of Num. 29:11 isn't the scapegoat.

You simply ignore the implication of the additional offering in the text, which shows you are not paying much attention.

Number 29:11 Include one male goat as a sin offering, in addition to the sin offering for atonement and the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, and their drink offerings.

Now you may assume that in this recounting of the day of atonement sacrifices the additional goat in the ceremony is simply ignored but that is not really too logical. Your fact it appears is merely a gratuitous assertion, another of the logical fallacies you have recently used.

djconklin · May 6, 2007

I'll spell it out more simply this time:

Fact #1, not my view: there are two goats on the day of Atonement.
Fact #2, again not my view: one of the goats is slain, the other is not.
Fact #3, again not my view: one of the goats is for the Lord, the other is for Azazael.
Fact # 4, again not my view: the Lord's goat is slain, the one for Azazael is not.

THEREFORE: (going by the above facts and not anyone's "point of view") the goat that is the sin offering in Num. 29:11 is NOT the goat of Azazael (otherwise known as the scape goat).

Are we clear now? I'm only giving the facts and NOT my opinion or point of view.

RC_NewProtestants · May 6, 2007

You have not said anything different, you simply ignore the verse where it speaks of the additional atonement offering. You should give up, I gave you a host of material and your arguments are really not worth much.

OntheDL · May 6, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
You have not said anything different, you simply ignore the verse where it speaks of the additional atonement offering. You should give up, I gave you a host of material and your arguments are really not worth much.

RC, read Lev 16 again. The goat was made a (additional) sin offering is because the bull was first made a sin offering.

Lev 16
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

The plain scriptures prove you are wrong. Case closed.

icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

OntheDL

Guest

Ticket Support Manager

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

OntheDL

Guest

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

OntheDL

Guest

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

OntheDL

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency