Ben C Smith

I cannot imagine what you are missing here.

Yes, of course there were two parts to the tabernacle. That is not in dispute.

But Exodus calls those two parts the holy and the holy of holies, while Hebrews calls those two parts the holies and the holies of holies.

If you do not see how this nullifies the distinctions your chart was making, I cannot help you; in order to prove that the sky is blue, all I can do is point.



Yes. And Exodus calls this holy place the holy, while Hebrews calls it the holies.

Yes. And Exodus calls this place the holy of holies, while Hebrews calls it the holies of holies.

Ben.

TonyN

My very Dear Ben,
In my Analytical Key to the Old Testament by Owens which is based upon "the best complete Ben Asher text available (K. Ellinger and W. Rudolph. eds., Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia [Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1977]" in which it states for Exodus 26:33,34 it has:
33: "the holy place" noun, masculine, singular, and "from the most holy" noun, masculine, plural.
For verse 34: "in the most holy place" which is noun, masculine, plural.

So it is:
Exo 26:33 and you will put the curtain under the links. Then you will bring there, inside the curtain, the coffer of the testimony. The curtain will separate for you between the holy place (singular) and the holy (singular) of holies (plural);"
Exo 26:34 and you will put the propitiatory shelter on the coffer of the testimony in the holy (singular) of holies (plural).

Therefore, they are not one and the same.

by the way, the sky is not always blue. It is black at night and sometimes red in the morning.

Ben C Smith

Again, this is not in dispute. Yes, the Hebrew of Exodus has the singular noun holy. Yes, that noun is masculine. Of what relevance is this?

The epistle to the Hebrews is in Greek. It is Hebrews that has the neuter plurals (in Greek!), not Exodus. It is the Greek that does not describe the holy place or the holy of holies with the feminine.

Ben.

TonyN

Ben, I think you are confused.

Did you not write this just recently:
"But Exodus calls those two parts the holy and the holy of holies, while Hebrews calls those two parts the holies and the holies of holies."



And did I not disprove that?
Heb 9:2 For the tabernacle is constructed, the front part (in which was, besides the lampstand, the table also, and the showbread), which is termed the holy place." Hebrews has this as SINGLE, not "HOLIES" as you state.
Heb 9:3 Now after the second curtain is a tabernacle which is termed the holy of holies." You state that Hebrews calls these two parts ". . . the holies of holies." That is incorrect according to my Greek texts and translation of the Concordant Literal New Testament.

Exo 26:33 and you will put the curtain under the links. Then you will bring there, inside the curtain, the coffer of the testimony. The curtain will separate for you between the holy place and the holy of holies;"
Exo 26:34 and you will put the propitiatory shelter on the coffer of the testimony in the holy of holies.

Both Hebrews and Exodus agree, at least in my texts and translation.

The problem is on your end, not mine!

Ben C Smith

Yes, I wrote that.

No. You used an incorrectly parsed text, and I explained why it was incorrect.

Incorrectly parsed electronic texts are not uncommon; in this case, the parsing is a matter of interpretation, but you have yet to even understand my argument (on how the word in question is used in Greek for the chambers of the tabernacle), let alone offer counterevidence.

Your parsed texts had a choice between a feminine singular, which is not otherwise used of the chambers of the tabernacle, and a neuter plural, which is used frequently. They simply made the wrong choice.

Ben.

jgibson000

No. The problem is most definitely on your end.

You seem to be unaware not only of what the morphology of the neuter plural of hAGIOS is; but of the rules of Greek grammar concerning agreement in gender and number between nouns and adjectives.

Given these, hAGIA in Heb. 9:3 is not only neuter plural; it could not be anything else.

Perhaps, Tony, it's time you stopped relying on parsing tools and supposedly literal translations, and actually learned Greek. Consulting an authoritative Greek Grammar (BDF, Smyth, etc.) wouldn't hurt either.

JG

TonyN

Dear JG,

All one need do is to look at Hebrews 9:3 and see that [h]agia (singular, feminine) agrees with "tabernacle" (singular feminine).

Heb 9:2 For the tabernacle (feminine, singular) is constructed, the front part (singular feminine) (in which was, besides the lampstand (singular feminine), the table (singular feminine) also, and the showbread (plural, masculine)), which is termed the holy place (singular, feminine)."

And here:
All one need do is to look at Hebrews 9:3 and see that [h]agia (singular, feminine) agrees with "tabernacle" (singular feminine).
Heb 9:3 Now after the second curtain is a tabernacle (singular, feminine) which is termed the holy (singular, feminine) of holies (plural noun),

The singular, feminine "holy place" agrees with the gender and number of "tabernacle" and "the front part" therof which is being spoken of.

Perhaps, JG, it's time you stopped relying on an authoritative Greek Grammar (BDF, Smyth, etc.). Maybe you should start using parsing tools and literal translations, and actually learned Greek wouldn't hurt either.

DBT

Isn't that stated clearly as being "the King of kings and Lord of lords?" Really, it would not matter who the subject was, as it's the given attributes of immortality and eternity that's central to our issue.

TonyN

Dear DBT,
Thanks for replying. Yes, you are correct that the issue of immortality and eternity is important.
But equally important, and I intend to show this, is we can't just take a couple of verses and assume that passage is about someone we think it is. We need to be very careful to first define Who is being written about. And then we can determine the context to see if "eternal" is really meant if context allows that. Otherwise we will need to go to other scriptures and determine if said passage will allow eternity or not.

So, getting back to the passage Matt Slick brought up, we see FOUR beings being spoken of:

• you (Timothy)
• God
• Jesus Christ
• Pontius Pilate
• our Lord, Christ Jesus

First of all, we know that neither Timothy, nor Pilate nor Jesus are going to vivify all mankind by bringing them back to life. That is talking about God. Therefore (13a) is talking about God and (13b) is talking about Jesus Christ.

Secondly, by process of elimination we know that God was never called King of kings and Lord of lords, nor was Timothy nor Pilate. That just leaves ____________

Thirdly, we know that neither Timothy nor God nor Pilate are spoken of in the Bible as having a coming advent. That just leaves ____________

Fourthly, we know neither Timothy nor Pilate have immortality and that they do not make their home in light innacessable. That just leaves ____________

As to who is our Lord, Paul proclaimed:
nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him" (1Cor. 8:6) thus showing a very clear distinction between God and the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Since we know this is speaking of our Lord and His advent, we know this is speaking of Christ Jesus.

Why did I have "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" above in the list? Good question. In the New Testament, the title Christ Jesus is always used of the ascended Christ. Jesus Christ is almost always used of the Jesus Christ that walked the earth and died for all mankind. In the letter to Timothy (specifically 1 Tim.6:13-16), Paul again brings this out. Please, if you will, take note of "Jesus Christ" and when He was before Pontius Pilate. That is using Jesus Christ when He was on the earth. Now notice Paul changes it to "Christ Jesus" Who will come again, thus showing it is Christ Jesus who is above, in light inaccessable.

Now that we have done this process of elimination we can clearly see that it is Christ Jesus that is to have "honor and might eonian! Amen!"

Matt Slick just assumed the passage is speaking of "God." But it truly is about "Christ Jesus".

Do you see this, DBT?

Ben C Smith

Tony, the terms holies and holies of holies in Hebrews 9.2-3 are subject complements. Their agreement with the subject in gender and number is irrelevant.

These terms, when applied to the tabernacle areas, are always neuter; even in the rest of Hebrews they are always neuter. You wish to rely on parsing tools? Well, the BibleWorks 5 parsing tool has these terms as neuter plurals, as they should be. Your parsed texts are mistaken, unless somebody somewhere can rationalize why, in this case only, these terms should be feminine.

Ben.