******* ADMIN EDIT *******

Lev. 4 is about the sin offering during the year for:

1. the priest that is anointed (a young bullock)
2. the whole congregation of Israel (a young bullock)
3. a ruler (a male kid of the goats)
4. any one of the common people (a female kid of the goats/sheep)

BUT on the Day of Atonement, which the book of Hebrews is about, it is written:



"Paul" is drawing the parallel between the Levitical High Priestly ministry ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT with that of the life of Jesus Christ as High Priest Himself, albeit one after the order of Melchisedec.

What do you believe, "dedication"; that you're going to perform a sleigh of hand with the word of God and expect people to believe you? Come, come, now! Speak the truth honestly and it will go well with you.

...
..

It's the day for a year principle. The ONLY time the HIGH PRIEST offers sacrifices "first for his own sins and then for those of the people" was on THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, every year.



BUT Christ came as HIGH PRIEST to offer a sacrifice ONCE in fulfilment of the Levitical High Priestly ministry on the Day of Atonement, which was ONCE towards the end of the year. Paul says this clearly in in Heb 9:7-8.



1. I want you to listen to yourself for a while; and really ask yourself if you make any sense at all. What do you mean, "the earth cannot be at the same time the court and the most holy place"? Jesus NEVER took his blood to heaven. It seeped into the ground. "Paul" says plainly (Heb 12:24), "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

2. Calvary is not only the Day of Atonement. It is the Passover. It is also the morning and evening sacrifices. It is not only the feast day at the beginning of the year, or at its end, but also continually throughout its days, every day, morning and evening. And you are worried about Pentecost!??

******* ADMIN EDIT ******* You do have strange methods to push your agenda on people.

I quote scripture showing that the priest takes the blood of a bullock into the Holy Place on days other than the day of Atonement and you say that's...... ******* ADMIN EDIT *******


Yes, Hebrews 9:3 is the ONLY time the writer of Hebrews uses the term "Holiest of All". All other times its a form of the plural "holy places" which is best translated as "sanctuary", for it includes the WHOLE sanctuary service.

It's true that on the day of Atonement the Priest enters the Most Holy Place with blood.
But that is not the issue in this discuss.

The issue is that Christ entered first into the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place.

The very fact that the writer of Hebrews only speaks of the MOST HOLY (holiest of all) in that one verse to me shows that there is a two phase ministry of Christ, it does not prove that Christ entered the Most Holy from the time of His ascension at all.

I don't believe the author of Hebrews is dealing with prophetic time in his epistle.

Also I quoted scripture showing that sacrifices were made by the PRIEST for his own sins and for the congregation OTHER THAN on the day of atonement and you said I was lying. Incredible!

Those scriptures show that during the year the blood was taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil, signifying that the sins (covered by blood) were carried into the sanctuary.

It wasn't until the day of Atonement that they were removed.

Of course if you only think on this from concrete reasoning ability of a child, you try to argue that sin would have to be a concrete thing and real blood would have to be poured over it, but that's not the theological concept. Sin is real enough and the sacrifice of Christ and shed blood is real, and because of that spilled blood our confessed sins are covered and won't stand against us in the judgement.

I came across a good study on this issue. very interesting...

"in the New International Version (NIV): {9:11} "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation."

{9:12} "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." This particular translation states that He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. Obviously this is AD 31.

But, let us now look at the King James Version:

{9:11} "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"

{9:12} "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

According to this version, in this particular verse, he entered the Holy Place not the Most Holy Place as stated in the New International Version. Again, this is AD 31, but not the same place. Which is right the NIV or the KJV? This gets even more confusing when we compare the NIV and the KJV in the following verses:

NIV {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence." {9:25} "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."

KJV {9:24} "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" {9:25} "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;"

The NIV in verse 24 uses the word "sanctuary" and the KJV uses the word holy places. In verse 25, the NIV uses the words "Most Holy Place" and the KJV uses the words "holy place". As we can see these two Bible versions do not agree with each other. However, in Hebrews 9:8, they do:

NIV {9:8} "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing."

KJV {9:8} "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing". In this case "The Holiest of all" and the "Most Holy Place" are the same thing. But is the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy" place, also the same thing? or the same place? Let us ask the question again, which is right? The NIV or the KJV?

What if we use another version. Let us try the New American Standard Heb-Greek Key Study Bible 1977 in Hebrews 9: 24, 25 and 8:

NASB {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" {9:25} "nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own." {9:8} "The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing."

According to the NASB (New-American Standard) Hebrew-Greek Study Bible, Jesus entered the holy place, not the Most Holy Place in AD 31! Once more, let us ask the question: Which Bible version is right? The NIV, the KJV or NASB?

To determine which is right, we need to determine the meaning of the Greek words in the Bible manuscripts for the words: "sanctuary", "holy place" and the "most holy place". We find the words "hagion", "hagia" and "hagia-hagion", are used in the original language in which the book of Hebrews was written.

We will start our investigation of the meaning of these three words by looking Abingdon"s Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Let's see how it defines the word hagion:

39. hagion {hag'-ee-on} neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):---holiest (of all), holy place, sanctuary.

According to the above definition (s), the word can mean 'holiest', 'holy place' or 'sanctuary'. This is where the problem begins. This is the reason why many Bibles, (particularly modern translations) use one of the three terms to define 'hagia' or 'hagion' or 'hagia hagion' as the same thing. The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews) defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter 9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place' {9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the 'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent. When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc.

The author of Hebrews used 'hagia' in the following chapters and verses: 8:2; 9:2, 8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11, which means Holy Place. He did not use 'hagia hagion' (Most Holy).

Let us see another definition of the same word under the number:

(hagia, hagion): The interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding 'spiritual holy place,' perhaps regarded as being in heaven - 'the holy place'...'a tent was constructed, the outer one...which was called the Holy Place' He 9:2; 'he entered once and for all into the Holy Place' He 9:12. The inner room was more specifically identified by the phrase [hagia hagion] literally 'holy of holies He 9:3, a Hebrew idiom indicating superlative degree" The Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains-Second Edition. United Bible Societies, New York, 1989 Volume 1 - Under the number 7.35.

So we can see accordingly, that Jesus entered the Holy Place in AD 31, not the Most Holy (Holy of Holies). Personally I have studied quite a few other different Bible versions in the Spanish and English languages, compared text by text, using several standard Hebrew-Greek Study Bibles and Bible concordances. My conclusions are simply as follows:

1. Different Bible versions have been translated by different men or groups of men with different backgrounds and in many instances, these men give "tradition" equal force or equal inspiration as the Bible Inspired Text, making both one distinctive source of revelation. One example of this we find in the New American Bible (NAB)-Catholic Bible Press - Thomas Nelson Publishers. The NAB states under the section titled: "Purpose of the Bible" pg. IX:

"...the Bible and Tradition go hand in hand: they are not two distinct sources of revelations. As the Fathers of Vatican II put it. "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God which is committed to the church" (Dei Verbum, #10). In a sense, Tradition is Scripture lived in the Church."

Another interesting statement found in the same page states:

"He reveals himself in the Church through the Councils, through what Catholics call the magisterium, or "teaching authority of the Popes and Bishops," and through the lives of our people. In the Catholic faith this has been called "Tradition."

We can see then, that "tradition" plays a mayor role in what is determined as "bible truth" and / or "bible doctrine". This "tradition" placed as equal or above inspired scripture, allow for certain words to be admitted in some old bible translations and more so in the new modern ecumenical translations as the "true original Hebrew and / or Greek words", in spite of the real meaning given by the original bible authors, as we have seen and will further see in the case of Hebrews nine.

In many modern Bible translations words have been omitted, changed, substituted or modified. For example Philip Mauro {a Greek scholar} has recorded no fewer than 7, 578 verbal divergences in the gospels alone between the Textus Receptus and the Codex Vaticanus. These consist of the omission of 2,877 words, the addition of 536 words, the substitution of 935 words, the transposition of 2,098 words and the modification of 1,132 words (Philip Mauro, Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, quoted in D.O. fuller, op. cit., pg. 78. Also quoted in Modern Bible-Translations Unmasked, Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish pg. 10)

2. With the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) and with the directive of Pope Pius XII, new modern bible translations have been made with the approval of the Catholic Church in cooperation with the "separated brethren". This fact is evidenced in the New American Bible (NAB) cited earlier. This Bible states:

"...the translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference from the original texts of the sacred books,' and that 'with approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren' so that 'all 'Christians may be able to use them."....http://www.bibleministry.org/sanctuary2.html

Finding the best is much better than lamenting the worst. How else can we let our light shine in the world?

Good to see you back, Rosangela!

We do not half realize what the Lord is willing to do for His people.... Our petitions, mingled with faith and contrition, should go up to God for an understanding of the mysteries that God would make known to His saints.... An angel’s pen could not portray all the glory of the revealed plan of redemption. The Bible tells how Christ bore our sins and carried our sorrows. Here is revealed how mercy and truth have met together at the cross of Calvary, how righteousness and peace have kissed each other, how the righteousness of Christ may be imparted to fallen man. There infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy, and infinite love were displayed. Depths, heights, lengths, and breadths of love and wisdom, all passing knowledge, are made known in the plan of salvation. {TMK 10.3}