scriptural evidence for the records of sins in the sanctuary

[tall73]

The bible never speaks about anything pagan sacrifices in connection with the horns of the pagan altars.

I am not sure who you are replying to. But I already posted one case where it did:

Amo 3:14 That in the day that I shall visit the transgressions of Israel upon him I will also visit the altars of Bethel: and the horns of the altar shall be cut off, and fall to the ground. '

It's reasonable to speculate the Jer 17:1 text might refer to the pagan altars. But it's still speculation. There is still only one thing in the bible that's graven on the horns of altars: the bloody finger prints of the priests from the offerings to the Lord.

Graven: cut out or impressed.

They certainly didn't use a pen of iron or diamond. It is an illustration. An illustration of the indelible nature of their sin of idolatry.

 

[OntheDL]

I am not sure who you are replying to. But I already posted one case where it did:

Amo 3:14 That in the day that I shall visit the transgressions of Israel upon him I will also visit the altars of Bethel: and the horns of the altar shall be cut off, and fall to the ground. '

ok, what the bible says about the connection of the horns of the idol altars with the sacrifice? Nothing.

The mere appearance of the word horns doesn't help your theory here.

They certainly didn't use a pen of iron or diamond. It is an illustration. An illustration of the indelible nature of their sin of idolatry.

Read Jer 17:1 again. Was pen or diamond used to write on the hearts? Why are you only looking at one side of the story?

Haven't even seen a pretzel twisting and turning so much.

 

[tall73]

ok, what the bible says about the connection of the horns of the idol altars with the sacrifice? Nothing.

The mere appearance of the word horns doesn't help your theory here.

Just as the fact that you NEVER see a transfer mentioned by sacrifice, but atonement doesn't help you.

The altar at the pagan shrines had sacrifices. They had horns.

You have no evidence that offereings defiled the Lord's sanctuary, and positive evidence against it that

A. says sins at commission defiled (which makes pointless defiling by sacrifice)

B. Says blood atones.

Read Jer 17:1 again. Was pen or diamond used to write on the hearts? Why are you only looking at one side of the story?

Haven't even seen a pretzel twisting and turning so much.

You must be joking. I have given you plain texts about how the sin gets there and you say I am twisting. Of course pen and diamond didn't write on hearts. that is the whole point. It is an ILLUSTRATION.

You are the one trying to twist a text to give evidence for what you freely admit there is no evidence of--transfer of sin by confession.

You use a sin which was not atoned for by sacrifice to prove it, and then you say I am twisting.


So, let's review.

- Their sin was written--it was idolatry, long, determined willful sin. God was going to drive them out. yet you say setting up idols and worshipping false gods is not accidental. That doesn't make any sense.
-The Scriptures say that idolatry leaves a defilement in the sanctuary (if it even is God's sanctuary) AT COMMISSION. You say it is at the time of confession--which not only does the Bible not say but it says that the blood ATONES, not leaves a record.
- There is no sacrifice for willful idolatry. If it was not willfull it would already be forgiven and God would not be punishing them. Therefore it is clearly a record of ongoing willfull sin for which God is punishing them.
-Idolatry was a capitol crime--they would kill them, not forgive them through atonement at the sanctuary.
- There is no reason for sins to exist once Christ DIED for them, removing them.
-the pagan altars also had "horns" and you cannot prove this is even talkiing about the Lord's altar, especially since pagan high places, idols and altars are mentioned throughout the text.

And you say I am twisting?

Hardly. You have no texts, as you admitted in your first post, to show that confessed sins defile the temple.

 

[OntheDL]

Just as the fact that you NEVER see a transfer mentioned by sacrifice, but atonement doesn't help you.

Transfer of sin is not mentioned explicitly the bible. But the act of the transfer is illustrated by the ceremonies. I'm sorry you can't see it.

The altar at the pagan shrines had sacrifices. They had horns.

Yes, however there is nothing in the bible on what was done to the horns by the idolatrous Israelites.

You have no evidence that offereings defiled the Lord's sanctuary, and positive evidence against it that

A. says sins at commission defiled (which makes pointless defiling by sacrifice)

B. Says blood atones.

When did I ever say the offerings defile the sanctuary?

You have yet to produce a quote from EGW that says blood defiled the sanctuary. That was your point one from your other post.

You must be joking. I have given you plain texts about how the sin gets there and you say I am twisting. Of course pen and diamond didn't write on hearts. that is the whole point. It is an ILLUSTRATION.

You are the one trying to twist a text to give evidence for what you freely admit there is no evidence of--transfer of sin by confession.

You use a sin which was not atoned for by sacrifice to prove it, and then you say I am twisting.

LOL Danielson, breath in, breath out.

1. Jer 17:1 does not say which altars.

2. Amos 3:14 does not say what Israelites did to the horns of the pagan altars.

There is no connection between the two.

 

[OntheDL]

And you say I am twisting?

Hardly. You have no texts, as you admitted in your first post, to show that confessed sins defile the temple.

Here is the clear evidence of twisting.

From the begining I said there is no text of the transfer. I never said only the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. All sins defile the sanctuary. I said only the confessed sins are recorded in the sanctuary. I will not keep having conversations with you going over what was said, what was not.

 

[tall73]

Here is the clear evidence of twisting.

From the begining I said there is no text of the transfer. I never said only the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. All sins defile the sanctuary. I said only the confessed sins are recorded in the sanctuary. I will not keep having conversations with you going over what was said, what was not.

You don't have a text for EITHER a record or defilement of CONFESSED sin. You say I am twisting for reviewing the evidence. Part of the evidence is how the sins DID get there. You say you don't have "evidence of a transfer." In other words you still think they are there, but just can't find a text. My point is there is no text because it says how they get there. And it never says the blood leaves a record.

In this text we have no indication of blood but an illustration of record on hearts and altars.

Show me the text that says that confessed sins leave a record.

The sins in Jer. 17 do NOT say they are confessed. You don't have a text that says confessed sins are recorded, yet you keep saying they are.

I showed above how idolaters were killed, not allowed to confess and sacrifice. So you tell me how those are confessed sins, when that simply couldn't happen.

To continually say these are confessed sins when He is driving them out of the land for them, when they couldn't sacrifice for that crime, and the text never says they are confessed IS twisting.

So do you have a place in that text where it says they are confessed?

 

[tall73]

Transfer of sin is not mentioned explicitly the bible. But the act of the transfer is illustrated by the ceremonies. I'm sorry you can't see it.

I can't see it because it says what is illustrated, atonement, and it particularly says the sin offering is holy, the flesh makes things holy. That completely rules out the view that the sin offering transfers sins to the priest by eating it, and the fact that the blood makes atonement rules out the idea that it transfers sin. You can talk about your implications all day but a non-text going against plain texts is never going to convince me. I don't know why you keep expecting it to.


The only reason you do see it is because Ellen White told you it was there.

Yes, however there is nothing in the bible on what was done to the horns by the idolatrous Israelites.

So let's review. We have three references to pagan altars, which did have horns, but you completely rule out that it could be that. But you have plain texts that say what the symbolism is for the blood, and you not only ignore that but you postulate something else the Bible doesn't say. You don't see a double standard there?

You also ignore texts that say that the crime of idolatry was punished by death.

You also try to say that confessed sins would cause the Lord to drive them out, which makes no sense. If God forgave them and atoned (two thing you admit the ceremony does say) then why would He be driving them out for it?

When did I ever say the offerings defile the sanctuary?

To transfer unholy sins is to defile. You can use whatever terms you want. You say the sins transfer, but you admit you have no evidence.

If there was sin being put on a most holy think that is defiling.

You have yet to produce a quote from EGW that says blood defiled the sanctuary. That was your point one from your other post.

Indeed, I have. To put sins into a holy thing defiles it. And there are plenty of EGW comments that speak of that.

You even admit the term defile is used of what happens with sin at commission when being in the camp of a sinful people defiles. So how could transferring sins to accumulate all year not defile? The term is the biblical term and you simply want to play a word game.

LOL Danielson, breath in, breath out.

Thanks, quote a nice movie to imply that I am out of control because you don't like my response?

1. Jer 17:1 does not say which altars.

It mentions three times pagan high places, idols and altars around this text.

2. Amos 3:14 does not say what Israelites did to the horns of the pagan altars.

It says it had them. But I don't need to prove these are pagan altars. You need to prove that these were confessed sins which is impossible given the penalty for idolatry and the fact that God was destroying them for the sins.

There is no connection between the two.

Just as there is no connection between confessed sins and sins in the temple.

Jesus died for the sins, they are no more. Unless you think He died for nothing.

 

[OntheDL]

You don't have a text for EITHER a record or defilement. You say I am twisting for reviewing the evidence. Part of the evidence is how the sins DID get there. You say you don't have "evidence of a transfer." In other words you still think they are there, but just can't find a text. My point is there is no text because it says how they get there. And it never says the blood leaves a record.

In this text we have no indication of blood but an illustration of record on hearts and altars.

Show me the text that says that confessed sins leave a record.

The sins in Jer. 17 do NOT say they are confessed. You don't have a text that says confessed sins are recorded, yet you keep saying they are.

I showed above how idolaters were killed, not allowed to confess and sacrifice. So you tell me how those are confessed sins, when that simply couldn't happen.

To continually say these are confessed sins when He is driving them out of the land for them, when they couldn't sacrifice for that crime, and the text never says they are confessed IS twisting.

So do you have a place in that text where it says they are confessed?

Lev 4 clearly covers ALL sins as long as at the time of commission they were unknown, or without premeditation.

Lev 4
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

I guess if the bible says sin against ANY of the commandments, that covers ALL of the commandments.

You are saying there are sins that there is no forgiveness. The only sin without forgiveness is the sin against the holy spirit because the sinner does not repent.

The bible says Jesus who was prefigured in the sacrificial lamb takes away the sin of the world. Now you manufactoried a theory that says the sin of idolatry can not be forgiven. Who's correct? The bible or you?

The reason they are to be driven off is because they commit those sins repeatedly. There is no forgiveness for any sin that's committed repeatedly to the end, not just idolatry.

The only person you have to convince is yourself. So keep changing the word for your liking. I'm signing off.

 

[tall73]

Lev 4 clearly covers ALL sins as long as at the time of commission they were unknown, or without premeditation.

Lev 4
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

I guess if the bible says sin against ANY of the commandments, that covers ALL of the commandments.

DL, I am saying they killed them. The text said show them no mercy. Do you admit the text says that? How do you address it.

You are saying there are sins that there is no forgiveness. The only sin without forgiveness is the sin against the holy spirit because the sinner does not repent.

No, I already pointed out that God has at times forgiven it. But in Moses' law they killed them, not offered sacrifice for them, and in the case of David for murder, a similar capitol crime, when David was spared he did not offer sacrifice.

The bible says Jesus who was prefigured in the sacrificial lamb takes away the sin of the world. Now you manufactoried a theory that says the sin of idolatry can not be forgiven. Who's correct? The bible or you?

Indeed we agree. I already cited the example of Mannasseh and David in capitol crimes, and yet they were forgiven-but it does not say they sactrificed, and it says that David would have brought sacrifices but God was not pleased with those.


But what you say is that the blood of Jesus does not cleanse but just moves sins around. Yet the Scriptures say that Jesus paid our debt to sin. It is paid. There is no more sin when Jesus dies for it.

The reason they are to be driven off is because they commit those sins repeatedly. There is no forgiveness for any sin that's committed repeatedly to the end, not just idolatry.

So

a. there is nothing, not one word, that says the sins they committed were in ignorance.

b. you admit they went on for some time doing them.

yet you inexplicably insist that is how the record got there, ignoring the death penalty issue, ignoring the total lack of evidence that the sins were confessed, ignoring the fact that sins defiled the sanctuary at commission, so if a record was to be there it would be there from that, not from the blood.

In fact, according to you the sins that are confessed must be there twice? Once from commission and once transferred by blood. Do you want to explain that?

The only person you have to convince is yourself. So keep changing the word for your liking. I'm signing off.

You didn't give me a word to change.

You gave me

a. an admission you had no text about transfer of confessed sin. Therefore you infer.
b. a text you want to mean there was a record but never says they were confessed sins, therefore you infer.
c. a text that never says it was an altar of the Lord, and in fact mentions asheras, high places and pagan idols and altars, therefore you infer.
d a text that never says they sacrificed for these sins, therefore you infer.

And
a. I gave you a text that says they get the death penalty for this crime, and you say no they don't.
b. I gave you a text that shows the sin defiling at commission, you admit it does, but then say it transfers again later.
c. I gave you a text that says that blood atones and forgives, and you infer that means it records sins.
d. I showed that the illustration was not of blood but of a pen showing how deep the sin was and how hard to remove, and you state that it must be blood, when nowhere did it say that.
e. I showed you in your own text where it says that they are being driven from the land for their sin of idolatry and you say that it was forgiven and not willfull, though the text nowhere says that.


Who then is changing the word?

 

[truthmagnet]

Lev 4 clearly covers ALL sins as long as at the time of commission they were unknown, or without premeditation.

Lev 4
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

I guess if the bible says sin against ANY of the commandments, that covers ALL of the commandments.

You are saying there are sins that there is no forgiveness. The only sin without forgiveness is the sin against the holy spirit because the sinner does not repent.

The bible says Jesus who was prefigured in the sacrificial lamb takes away the sin of the world. Now you manufactoried a theory that says the sin of idolatry can not be forgiven. Who's correct? The bible or you?

The reason they are to be driven off is because they commit those sins repeatedly. There is no forgiveness for any sin that's committed repeatedly to the end, not just idolatry.

The only person you have to convince is yourself. So keep changing the word for your liking. I'm signing off.

since the commandment to make a sacrifice for sin was given, if one sinned and did not make a sacrifice would not their sin be "recorded without a sacrifice"? therefore no forgiveness for said sinner?

 

[OntheDL]

since the commandment to make a sacrifice for sin was given, if one sinned and did not make a sacrifice would not their sin be "recorded without a sacrifice"? therefore no forgiveness for said sinner?

That's correct. But throughout the bible, we see the Israelites constantly backslide, and then repent before the Lord but afterwards going right back to what they were doing before.