This link

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Gallerie...rRXwG7S6fMj0.99

indicates that King James, who was fluent in Greek and Latin himself, had this new translation made primarily to glorify himself as the new king of Great Britain.

In spite of that God has throughout the history of mankind made use of the limited products feeble humans have produced - to give us a glimpse of His glory. And the KJV has made a tremendous impact on the proclamation of the Gospel, even though the purpose of King James was to unite the whole Christian world under his own headship.

None of the new translations are fully perfect yet, but through some of them we discover a greater God than ever before. May He give us humilty to search and understand, like the Bereans of old.

"And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Whose words were those, APL? Did God make a false prediction?

I believe God may well have fulfilled those words in the nation of Israel. They were a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Consider, for example, how they crossed the Jordan, how they conquered Jericho, and then possessed all of Canaan--the priests led the way, and the surrounding nations feared Israel, not for their weaponry, but for their God. If you say that they were not the fulfillment of this prophecy, then there is a secondary fulfillment which is yet future.

However, if you try to say that ancient Israel did NOT fulfill this prophecy, but that it was fulfilled in the "new dispensation," then I might ask why you do not believe in the church today having a priesthood. Jesus is not "priests" nor does He make us a "kingdom of priests." So while He is now our High Priest, this prophecy could not be rightly fulfilled in our time in the sense of the nation being a "kingdom of priests." There is nothing in scripture that ever once proclaims that every single person should be a priest. (I understand that you interpret differently, but to speak of a "kingdom of priests" or even to speak of "kings and priests" does not mean the fulfillment is happening now. It could either have been in the past, or it could still be future.)

Mrs. White appears to put the "kings and priests" of Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 into the future.



In the above passage, notice that use of past tense for those who have overcome sin upon earth (they are no longer upon earth) at the time the present tense is used for God making them "kings and priests."

Nor is that the only such statement. Look at the following:



Again, the becoming a prince and a king in the heavenly courts is yet future.

You will not find anywhere in either the Bible or Mrs. White which clearly says everyone should be a king and a priest in the here and now. As Mrs. White instructs, I must ask for a plain "thus saith the LORD." Not finding one, I must continue with what is and has been plain in what has been revealed thus far.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The declaration of Exodus 19:6 was a statement, you will be to me... That was then and now. The people said, "all that the LORD says, we will do." They promised to use their own righteousness to do what God commanded. Did they succeed? Nope. The Old Covenant was based on the promises of the people. Jeremiah tells us that from there they went backwards, not forwards.

But the declaration of God is still true. And it also true that only those that are Christ's will be in that group.

AMEN Dedication AMEN...
You ask:
Whatever the "head" believes -- his wife is supposed to believe?
Whatever the ordained "head" of the church teaches is the authority?
Whatever the ordained "head" says -- is to be regarded as the authority (in the place of Christ) voice.
Is that really God's will?

NO, NO, NO, NO.

The argument has been made that it was an all-male priesthood, but then ignore WHY there was an all-male priesthood. What this really God's will? NO!

Adventist do not believe in verbal inspiration, the Bible is not God's mode of thought or expression. God as an author is not on trial in the Bible. The words of the Bible are the words of men.

The words in the Bible may be the words of men, APL, but that cannot be taken to mean that there was no all-male priesthood in the Old Testament, nor that God did not command such. It cannot be taken to mean that circumcision was for women too, and not just men. And why just the men? If women truly want equality, do they want circumcision too?

In fact, the circumcision rite is further evidence of God's ordained headship order. Only the males (heads) were circumcised, and it counted for everyone. If the males were not circumcised, even the females among them were likewise counted as uncircumcised. Consider the Gentiles. We do not think of these "uncircumcised" as being only their menfolk. No, no. The women were also "uncircumcised."

Consider:



That text specifies in no uncertain terms (no vague usage of "man' for example) that it was the males who were to be circumcised on behalf of the entire group.

Consider also:



Samson is taking a wife from an uncircumcised group of people. But if women were never circumcised, and they were not subject to male headship, there should have been no issue with marrying any woman, especially any virgin woman. The fact that circumcision (or lack thereof) on the part of the menfolk counted against the status of a woman speaks volumes.



If the circumcised were to include only men, I guess the women get off scott free and escape God's punishment. While I am sure some would like to think that such would be the case, they will be disappointed.

Just as the term "circumcised," being true for a portion of the people, applied to the entire nation, so also might similar terms apply to the people as a whole.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The circumcision of the heart only apply to the male? Nope.

You still ignore the reason WHY the male priesthood.

The difference between the ceremonial system, which included the male priesthood, and the moral law is broad and clear. The 10C do not place men over women but indeed puts them on equal ground. We need to move away from the types and shadows to the truth as revealed in Christ.

Perhaps men and women are equal, but they are not the same, nor are they uniformly addressed in the Ten Commandments. There is no command, for example, for a woman not to covet her neighbor's husband. At this point, many would say we are nit-picking. Perhaps so, but considering that these are the "Big Ten," it seems the wording would be important to God. On this one, it IS God's own words on trial. He wrote these commands with His own finger.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Had Moses forgotten this by the time he wrote Deut. 5? Another cause for nit-picking?