I used to be a fundamentalist Christian who held that the Bible did not contain any errors. Over the past year I have looked high and low at a lot of the supposed “errors” skeptics find in Scripture and most of them have plausible alternative explanations which fundamentalists enjoy reiterating.
Having been an inerrantist myself, I was trained to look at the context and to resolve apparent errors within the pages of the Bible. The problem with inerrancy is that it only takes one error to debunk the entire thing.
So below you will find my one error. Can you solve it?
~
Ezekiel prophecies a temple (Ezekiel 40) with animal sacrifices (43:13-27) where God will dwell with Israel forever (Ezekiel 43:7)
In the New Testament, we are told that Christ is the final sacrifice (Hebrews 10:14).
The temple spoken about in Ezekiel was not built.
If the Ezekiel prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, and cannot ever be fulfilled without reinstating sacrifices and a temple where God will dwell forever (thereby contradicting Revelations 21:22), then does this not mean that the Ezekiel temple prophecy is a failure?
Inerrantists, please provide a plausible explanation as to how God can fulfill the temple prophecy in Ezekiel without contradicting any other portion of Scripture.
First of all let’s cover the question of animal sacrifices. One may well ask, if Ezekiel’s temple is indeed literal, future, and millenial in nature, what purpose the temple sacrifices (44:15) serve. Since Christ has already provided a once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sin (Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26-27), is it not blasphemy to suggest that in His earthly kingdom any blood sacrifices would be necessary? Does the presence of sacrifices therefore not point so a symbolic or historical interpretation of the passage? The answer to both questions is no. There is no reason to believe that a future sacrificial system could not be perfectly within the will of God for His people. Firstly, the emphasis in Ezekiel’s temple is on holiness. By faithfully following the Lord’s commandments regarding worship and sacrifice, the nation of Israel will demonstrate to the world the transforming power of God in their once-stubborn and idolatrous hearts, and their unique relationship to Him. Secondly, the sacrifices offered are symbolic. This was also true even of the Mosaic sacrifices (Heb. 9:9, 10:1-4) — the only difference here is that the millenium looks back at Christ’s death as a historical reality, whereas the Israelites of the Old Testament economy looked forward to a Messianic promise of cleansing and atonement in the shadowy future. The reference given in Hebrews 10:14 is not harmed by the previous truth given. It is true that we are perfected by Jesus sacrifice. Only His sacrifice took away sin. In the Old Testament men were forgiven of their sins, but they were not redeemed. Redemption speaks of the total price being paid. Redemption only comes through the blood of Christ (Col. 1:14). (This is also why those in the Old Testament could not yet enter into Heaven. Their abode was Paradise in the center of the earth. They had to first believe in the redemptive work of Christ before they could be saved. John 11:25 speaks of the dead believing. That is reference to the Old Testament saints in paradise.)
If at first the suggestion that the blood sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple serve a purely commemorative purpose seems bizarre, one may well consider the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. At this present time the church, composed of Jew and Gentile united in Christ, is in focus. Though the reality — the suffering and death of Christ — has already taken place, the church today still partakes of bread and wine in remembrance of His past work (1 Cor. 11:23-26). This institution was set up by the Lord Jesus Himself. However, in the millenial kingdom restored Israel, not the church, is the focus. In keeping with the Mosaic covenant unique to Israel, animal sacrifices will remind the believing Jews of Christ’s finished work. Note, however, that in the millenium there is no Day of Atonement, and numerous other distinctions serve to remind us that Christ’s death forever altered God’s dealings with mankind. Also, Ezekiel’s temple and its unique sacrificial system come into play after Israel has recognized Jesus as the Messiah they pierced (Zech. 12:9). There can be no danger that these Jews will forget His death on their behalf.
The next portion of the question is concerning the temple. The scripture verse cited (Ezekiel 43:7) says nothing about the Temple lasting forever. It says the PLACE OF MY THRONE and THE PLACE OF THE SOLES OF MY FEET where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. God will dwell in this place forever, but there will not always be a temple in this place. The temple vision in Ezekiel is during the millinial reign of Jesus Christ. The reference in Revelation 21:22 is after the millinial reign. The former earth has been destroyed and God and His people will dwell together through-out eternity. So, basically this is two separate times that have been confused into one.
The timeline goes Rapture-Tribulation-Second Coming-Millinial Reign-Great White Throne Judgment-Eternity.
Ok, that’s one “possible” explanation. Rather than go into an in-depth critique of the dozens of problems I already see, I’ll just ask one simple question:
Is that the truth or did you make that up?
That is the truth.
If you do not want to go into an in-depth debate on your page, would you let me know what the “dozens of problems” are. I entered my e-mail address you can contact me there. And, if you do not believe me that that is the truth, get a King James Bible and find out. I did not post any messages to be offensive or malicious. I just wanted to show that there is an answer.
Would you change your mind if I went to all that trouble?
If the answer is no, then what’s the point?
And quite honestly, doesn’t it seem a little arrogant for you to assert that your interpretation is the truth?
And yes, if you can demonstrate conclusively that this is not an error, I would change my mind.
“I just wanted to show that there is an answer.”
Right, and the problem I have discovered is that there is always at least one “answer”. In fact, there are often dozens of answers – each with their nuances. People are creative beings and can invent explanations for just about anything.
This does not mean it is true.
I have an answer to this passage too, but it does not assume that it is inerrant. I like my answer better. It’s simpler, it explains more of Ezekiel, and does not involve making Ezekiel say the exact same thing that someone who lived hundreds of years after him said.
Oh, and it doesn’t involve punishment from a deity if anyone disagrees with me either :) In my worldview, someone is free to disagree, but in yours… well… lets just say I’m really glad you aren’t right!
All that said, I do appreciate the time you took to sit down and write up a response. So for that you do have my thanks :)
You would change your mind if I could prove this one simple passage was not an error?
I will put it this way, I would be a fool to immediatly turn from something that I love so much, but if you could prove to me that this is an error and I could not prove otherwise I would have to consider.
As for you, it would be unwise for you to “turn back to Christ” just because of one passage. I say that because the next time a verse came along that you could not figure out after a day or two, it would put you right back where you are now. I did not answer to convert you.
I have taken the time to answer your question. Would you take the time to answer mine? And as for these passages being an error, unless you know some deep biblical truth that I do not, I have demonstrated that this is not. Again, I say that I do not intend to be hurtful. I do want to know what these “dozens” of errors are. I will gladly put all post on this page, but if you decide otherwise you can e-mail me.
“Right, and the problem I have discovered is that there is always at least one “answer”. In fact, there are often dozens of answers – each with their nuances. People are creative beings and can invent explanations for just about anything.”
If you have an answer to the passage, why would you still call the passage an error? Unless your answer is not right. Joshua, you have every right in the world to disagree with me. But, the fact of the matter is one of us is wrong. If truth is absolute in earthly things, what makes a person think that it is not in spiritual things? And, it is not arrogance to assert that my opinion is right. It is the ability to read that makes my opinion right. All that I have done is shown you what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is right, then I am right. If what the Bible says is wrong, then I am wrong. I can take you no farther than that. You have already decided that it is wrong. Would it not be arrogance for you to say that I am wrong because you think I am? I have a whole book that I base my authority upon. What do you have? Critical Thinking? I am giving credit to a “higher being” for truth revealed to me. Who do you give credit to? Your own thought? Would that not be more arrogant?
The reason that there are so many different interpretations is because men interpret the Bible by their theology. Our theology should in fact be interpreted by the Scripture. Sola Scriptura.
By the way, I appreciate your thanks. Unless I see something that is concerning this passage I am finished with this debate. I have given my answer, and that is where I stand. If you can prove to me that this passage is indeed in error I will definatly consider that path that you have taken. Otherwise, I stand firm in my belief.
-And, why not Ezekiel being in agreement with the rest of the Bible? It was all “supposedly” written by the same person.
“If you have an answer to the passage, why would you still call the passage an error?”
Well the simple answer is that my “answer” to this passage only makes sense if the prophecy is unfulfillable.
I just don’t start with the assumption that Ezekiel is accurate, that’s all.
“I will put it this way, I would be a fool to immediatly turn from something that I love so much, but if you could prove to me that this is an error and I could not prove otherwise I would have to consider.”
I actually do agree. It would be foolish for either of us, so I can appreciate that.
“And, it is not arrogance to assert that my opinion is right.”
Ok, now I’m just getting lost. At first you state its “the truth”. Now you say its your opinion. Which is it?
As for the dozens of problems. I’m not even sure where to start. Let’s just start here:
What makes you think this prophecy is millennial? I haven’t seen anything about the millennium in Ezekiel. And I just does not seem like proper interpretation to take a book written hundreds of years later and impose its contents onto this book. Ezekiel is prophesying a resurrection and restoration of Israel. That’s it. No millennium, no abolition of the sacrificial system.
I mean, think about it. Jesus is not only the final sacrifice, but he is the Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. So then why does Ezekiel say the priests of this temple will be Levites descended from Zadok (40:46)? Why would God abolish the Aaronic priesthood in favor of the Melchizedek priesthood (under Jesus Christ), and then someday reestablish the Aaronic priesthood through a contemporary of Ezekiel?
Furthermore, Ezekiel specifically prophecies that there will be sin and guilt offerings taking place at this temple (42:13, 43:21). Sin and guilt offerings? After Christ already atoned for everything? And no declaration in the least that these will be symbolic.
And Ezekiel 43:7 says “this [the temple] is the place of my throne… where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel forever.” This refers to the temple, because in verse 5, Ezekiel specifically says that the Spirit of God brought him inside the temple (“inner court”) where the glory of the Lord was seen. The voice came out of the temple.
In KJV it says:
“And I heard [him] speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, [neither] they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places. ”
So he is speaking out of the house (temple) when he says that. What else could this refer to? If it is just referring to the land, then what’s the point of the temple? If we do not need a temple now, why would we need a temple in the future? What’s the point? If Revelation says that we do not need a temple after the millennium, what’s the point of a temple in the millennium? And if we don’t need sacrifices now as symbols, why would we need them then? And if they are symbols, why doesn’t Ezekiel says so? He seems to clearly indicate they are for sin and guilt. And doesn’t making a ton of sacrifices seem contradictory to the notion that the lion will lie down with the lamb in the millennium?
Not only that, but under the New Covenant supposedly gentiles (foreigners in flesh) are allowed completely and unconditionally into the fold of believers without the need for circumcision. Yet Ezekiel 44:9 explicitly says:
“Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that [is] among the children of Israel.”
Acts 7:48 says that God does not dwell in temples made by hands. But Ezekiel makes it clear (in KJV) that God says this is “my sanctuary”. What?
To make things more confusing, Ezekiel says there will be a host of priests who minister before the Lord (Ezekiel 44:15). But in Hebrews, Christ is the one who has gone before us so that there is no longer a need of a priesthood to minister for the people.
And what about the Sabbath? Apparently there is supposed to be a reinstatement of the Sabbath(s) when this temple is built.
“And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; [and] they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.”
The priests are also supposed to offer a sin offering if they go near a dead person (44:25). A sin offering? Dead people? After the resurrection?
And in the New Testament, apparently Peter has a vision where God has made all animals clean. But in Ezekiel 44:31 there is a reinstatement of food restrictions.
And according to the New Testament, Christ has entered the Holy of Holies for us. But oddly enough, there will be a new Most Holy Place (45:3) in this land – again.
Why would God reinstate the entire sacrificial system, the old priesthood, old laws about dead bodies, old weights and measures (45:10), laws about restrictions on eating habits, the sin and guilt offering, a Most Holy Place, the Passover (45:21)…
… after Christ came?
I mean, this just makes so much more sense if you interpret it to be a completely different prophecy from anything about the millennium post-Christ. Don’t you think?
The more I think about – and study – this error, the more massive and comprehensive it becomes. Here is an error that spans entire chapters of the book of Ezekiel, making a prophecy that nullifies entire sections of New Testament theology. The entire thing makes so much sense if one realizes that its a failed – and unfulfillable – prophecy that was made before Jesus came onto the scene.
Completely and utterly irreconcilable without inventing new reasons why God would reinstate an entire sacrificial and temple system post-Christ.
Please note: I said I would be a fool, but I did not say that I would not convert. If I do not have the truth, then I do not have the truth. Might as well not waste my life on a lie. Even though this suppossed lie has brought peace to my life, happiness to my home, a purpose to my existance, and love to my heart.
If you do not mind my asking I was wondering what religion that you were raised in. If you do not want to tell me I understand that that might me a little personal.
The reason I used the word opinion is because of it’s definition, “A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.” If some one has a correct opinion it is the truth. I hope that that did not confuse too much as stated in your last post.
“Ok, now I’m just getting lost. At first you state its “the truth”. Now you say its your opinion. Which is it?”
Enough of that, we will now take each objection and answer them according to the Bible.
I will be posting complete verses and not just references because it is very obvious that you did not read mine in the first post. If you had it would have eliminated a few of your rebuttles. The other problem that you have is that you are not “rightly deviding” these passages. You pull verses out of context to try to prove a point. The other thing is that these arguments do not equal up to dozens. That would at least be 24. If you can find a few more to add to the list I will be glad to provide an explaination for those too.
1) You asked, “What makes you think this prophecy is millennial . . . Ezekiel is prophesying a resurrection and restoration of Israel.”
When do you think the Jews will be completely restored to their land? You can not pick and choose verses that seem to disagree. You have to look at the whole Bible. The Jews began to go back to their land May 14, 1948. This is the first “ressurection” of dead nation in history, thus fulfilling prophecy. That was a good guess for those guys who wrote the Bible wasn’t it.
Jeremiah 29:14, “And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.”
Isaiah 11:11, “And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
This has already begun but it has not been completed. The Jews are going to go back to Israel so quickly during the tribulation that they will not have time to build walls for their cities.
Ezekiel 38:11, “And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates.”
Do you remember the timeline? The timeline goes Rapture-Tribulation-Second Coming-Millinial Reign-Great White Throne Judgment-Eternity.
So Israel is regathered before the Millinial. Not in eternity. That also shows when the temple will be rebuilt.
Amos 9:11-15, “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.”
A more definate timing can be set by refering to the book of Acts.
Acts15:16-17, “After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.”
Back to the timeline again. The timeline goes Rapture-Tribulation-Second Coming-Millinial Reign-Great White Throne Judgment-Eternity. After He returns at the second coming, He will rebuild the temple after His second coming during the Millinial reign. I will give more scripture if that is not proof enough.
2) You asked, “Why would God abolish the Aaronic priesthood in favor of the Melchizedek priesthood (under Jesus Christ), and then someday reestablish the Aaronic priesthood through a contemporary of Ezekiel?”
The reason is because of the duties that the Aaronic priesthood fulfills. These which you obviously see are two different priesthoods with two different acts. The Melchizedek priesthood has nothing to do with the service of the tabernacle/ temple.
3) You said, “Furthermore, Ezekiel specifically prophecies that there will be sin and guilt offerings taking place at this temple (42:13, 43:21). Sin and guilt offerings? After Christ already atoned for everything? And no declaration in the least that these will be symbolic.”
All you had to do was read my first post. Here are my references.
Hebrew 9:9, “Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.”
Hebrews 10:1-4, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
ALL SACRIFICES are symbolic. Sin and guilt offerings included. It is called a sin offering not because of what it takes away, but because of what it is for. Again I quote my first post concerning another reason for reinstated sacrifice, “Firstly, the emphasis in Ezekiel’s temple is on holiness. By faithfully following the Lord’s commandments regarding worship and sacrifice, the nation of Israel will demonstrate to the world the transforming power of God in their once-stubborn and idolatrous hearts, and their unique relationship to Him.” We do not sacrifice as the church. Israel is not the church. We take the Lord’s supper for rememberance. Israel has something special that separates them from all other people. That is the animal sacrifice. In the millenial kingdom restored Israel, not the church, is the focus
4) You said, “So he is speaking out of the house (temple) when he says that. What else could this refer to? If it is just referring to the land, then what’s the point of the temple? If we do not need a temple now, why would we need a temple in the future? What’s the point? If Revelation says that we do not need a temple after the millennium, what’s the point of a temple in the millennium? And if we don’t need sacrifices now as symbols, why would we need them then? And if they are symbols, why doesn’t Ezekiel says so? He seems to clearly indicate they are for sin and guilt. And doesn’t making a ton of sacrifices seem contradictory to the notion that the lion will lie down with the lamb in the millennium?”
If you would read the Bible properly you would know how important that land is.We see this all the way from Genesis 12 to Revelation 20. That is what all the fighting is over right now. The land. The point of the temple is for the sacrifices. Sacrifices must be preformed in the temple. The reinstated sacrifices will be preformed in the temple. (Ezekiel does not have to say they were symbols. All sacrifices are symbols according to Hebrews.) We do have symbols now. Read my first post.
5) You said, “Not only that, but under the New Covenant supposedly gentiles (foreigners in flesh) are allowed completely and unconditionally into the fold of believers without the need for circumcision.”
This is true when Christ is dealing with the church as He does in the dispensation of grace. As I have already said, He is not dealing with the church, He is dealing with the Jew. The mistake of the modern fundamentalist is that he thinks every verse in the Bible applies to him when it in fact does not.
6)You quoted, “Acts 7:48 says that God does not dwell in temples made by hands. But Ezekiel makes it clear (in KJV) that God says this is “my sanctuary”. What?”
My question is not what, but why? Why didn’t you finish the verses context.
Acts 7:48-50, “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet. Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?”
In the context it speaks of God’s incredable greatness. Someone as large as God cannot be contained only in a temple. His presence can fill a temple, but that is not the only place He will be. Man cannot create a large enough enclosure to “box God in.”
7) You said, “And what about the Sabbath? Apparently there is supposed to be a reinstatement of the Sabbath(s) when this temple is built.”
Mark 2:7, “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”
8) You said, “The priests are also supposed to offer a sin offering if they go near a dead person (44:25). A sin offering? Dead people? After the resurrection?”
Revelation 20:5, “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.”
9)You said, “And in the New Testament, apparently Peter has a vision where God has made all animals clean. But in Ezekiel 44:31 there is a reinstatement of food restrictions.”
This restriction is imposed for health reasons as were all. It is probably never a good idea to eat something that has been torn or died of itself. Agree? Peter’s vision said not to call that which God has called clean unclean. Again, we see that a verse is misused or misunderstood.
10) You stated, “And according to the New Testament, Christ has entered the Holy of Holies for us. But oddly enough, there will be a new Most Holy Place (45:3) in this land – again.”
Where do think that the Antichrist is going to sit in the temple(tribulation temple not Ezekiel’s) showing himself as God? In the holy of holies. That is where the shekinah glory of God has always dwelt. The difference Ezekiel’s temple and every other one is that there is no vail. There are a few others, but I would say that that is one of the biggest. The vail was the separation from God.
You hit around a dozen questions.
A little short of dozens, but that’s OK. As I said I do not expect you to convert over one verse. You should have every right to expect that of me though. If I ever convert over a passage in error it will not be this one. In it’s study I found to much to reinforce it’s truth. I hope I have communicated it well, and I enjoyed the debate. Since it is your site I will give you the final say. Thanks for the good polite conversation. Even though I find enough evidence to prove this verse true, you have done very well at showing why you are opposed to it.
“Enough of that, we will now take each objection and answer them according to the Bible.”
And there lies the fatal flaw…
“This restriction is imposed for health reasons as were all.”
Where do you get this stuff? The text doesn’t say this.
Stop imposing things on the text.
“ALL SACRIFICES are symbolic.”
Umm… right. Only if you believe the New Testament and the Old Testament are saying the same thing.
Are they?
“Where do think that the Antichrist is going to sit in the temple(tribulation temple not Ezekiel’s) showing himself as God? In the holy of holies. That is where the shekinah glory of God has always dwelt. The difference Ezekiel’s temple and every other one is that there is no vail. There are a few others, but I would say that that is one of the biggest. The vail was the separation from God.
You hit around a dozen questions. ”
First you say the temple is the millennial temple.
Now you imply it is pre-millennial (when the anti-Christ comes).
Which is it?
It can’t be both.
“If you would read the Bible properly you would know how important that land is.”
You completely ignored me and the text. So what about the importance of the land? The text is talking about the temple, and God is talking from the temple when he says that this will be where he will dwell forever.
That’s the point. Its really simple.
I only answer because more questions were asked. Why else would God tell a man not to eat something? I know in your world veiw it is because He is a big mean deity, but He actually had reasons. Think about it. Shellfish, pork, things that die of themselves, not the healthiest food in the world. A lot of the given laws were associated with health.
As far as the sacrifices, they were symbolic. All that you had to do was read my references. I even went to all the trouble to post the full passage.
The Antichrist will sit in the third temple. The one built by the Jews during the tribulation. God/ Jesus will sit in the forth temple, Ezekiel’s. I was just showing the comparison of the Holy Place. According to the Bible there will be four temples, five if you include the tabernacle. 1) Tabernacle, 2)Solomon’s Temple, 3) Herod’s Temple, 4) The Tribulation Temple, 5) Ezekiel’s Temple. Sorry if I was unclear.
God is speaking out of temple, but He does not refer to it. He says the place of His throne, and the place of the soles of His feet. All you have to do is read my previous post. When God first gave the land to Abraham. The condition was anywhere that the “soles of his feet” touched was his and his descendant’s land. Wouldn’t you think that there was some connection. It is about the land. If you took it out of context and looked at it that it was not. You would end up thinking something crazy like this was an error.
Good debate.
“I know in your world veiw it is because He is a big mean deity, but He actually had reasons.”
This is not my worldview.
And you got the number of temple’s wrong. There are actually at least 6:
1) Tabernacle
2) Solomon’s
3) Herod’s
4) Ezekiel’s Temple
5) Temple that was invented to fix the problem that the one in A.D. 70 was destroyed so that the Antichrist has a place to sit.
6) Temple in heaven after which the pattern was given to the prophets.
“If you took it out of context and looked at it that it was not.”
My guess is you would assume that any disagreement we had was due to me “taking it out of context” – and that, of course, you are right because you are taking it “in context”.
This will not work here :) Let’s discuss context.
I do not hold that, say, Revelation and Hebrews are a proper context by which to interpret Ezekiel because they were written by completely different people hundreds of years later whose theology had changed remarkably due to the events that occurred in the interim.
What right do you have to assume that Ezekiel, Revelation, and Hebrews are all saying the same thing? Why not throw in the Book of Enoch and the assumption of Moses while you are at it as well? Jude quotes both.
“As far as the sacrifices, they were symbolic. All that you had to do was read my references. I even went to all the trouble to post the full passage.”
This is only true if a person who lived hundreds of years after is an accurate source to interpret a sacrificial system that was invented / revealed in a completely different time and place.
You can quote the passage, but what right or authority does a completely unknown and unidentifiable New Testament author (of Hebrews) have to properly interpret an Old Testament system? How does he / she know they were symbolic?
Why do you believe the author of Hebrews? How do you know he wasn’t just making the best judgment he could at the time – but was wrong?
You are correct about the number of temple’s. I did not name the one in Heaven. I was only speaking of those on earth. I still should have mentioned it. My apologies.
Were they (Hebrews, Revelation, Ezekiel.) written by different people? I Peter1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.” Do you have some other means to describe the harmony of the scriptures? Maybe different human authors, but only one instructing what to write. If in fact they were written by the same author we can compare these books. What better commentary can we find on the law and newly established covenant than the book of Hebrews?
Anyway, don’t you think it is a little one sided that you can use a verse from the above stated books to try to prove that this passage is in error, and I cannot use verses outside of Ezekiel to state my case?
I am sorry that I stated your worldview in error. I was going off the previous statement you made, “Oh, and it doesn’t involve punishment from a deity if anyone disagrees with me either :) In my worldview, someone is free to disagree, but in yours… well… lets just say I’m really glad you aren’t right!”
And the reason I believe the author of Hebrews is because I believe the author of every book in the cannon of scriptures.
Anyway, if I am wrong about all this, I can still say that I have had one of the most enjoyable lives of anyone who has ever lived. If I am wrong I will just rot in the ground. I just have not found any evidence to prove that I am wrong yet. But, I honestly say that all of “my eggs are in one basket.” I am trusting in Christ completely for the redemptive work that He has done.
“Do you have some other means to describe the harmony of the scriptures?”
Absolutely!
Once dogma is established as orthodox, it is extremely hard to contradict it. So, as a religion evolves over time, one would expect that any new “developments” would be in line with previous claims – even in major religious shifts.
Why else can the Catholic church be so massive and yet when looked at from a “big picture” perspective contain so much harmony?
I’m sure you don’t “see” the harmony in the Catholic church, but I can. Just as I also can actually “see” harmony in the Bible. But I don’t think the ability to point out any harmony is a sign of design by a deity. It is better explained by the fact that humans were restricted from creating any extremely unharmonious teachings or writings by the nature of their beliefs.
Once, for example, the idea of a single deity established itself firmly in the Judaic teachings, it was extremely hard to introduce any new concept – especially polytheism. This is why introduction of the Trinity into people’s minds was so difficult – especially for those who were more strictly orthodox. It “looked” like three deities. Over time it was firmly established it was three-in-one.
So theology had to be adapted to new information (New Testament teachings about deity of Christ and Holy Spirit coming from the Father) AND had to make sure this did not contradict any previous teachings.
I believe you are doing the exact same thing with this Ezekiel passage. You have newer information (Hebrews and Revelation) and you are intentionally and intelligently harmonizing the new information with older concepts so that they do not contradict each other.
In other words, you are inventing a new eschatology that neither of the original authors meant. Because, after all, if they really meant what you think they would have written it all out in the first place and there would have been no need for any “new” revelation.
“You are intentionally and ‘intelligently’ harmonizing the new information with older concepts so that they do not contradict each other.”
I guess I can take that as a compliment?
Anyway, As far as Catholocism, I have debated (as we are) with several Catholics and have shown them error within their own doctrines. Error that cannot be reconciled. But, I can say that I do see a harmony. Not as the Scriptures though.
If the Bible is the largest scam in human history, I have to give them credit. They fooled me. I guess the prophecies that have been fulfilled were good guesses? There are also the many “scientific” proofs of the Bible. There are scriptures that record what we now know as scientific accuracies (Some were recorded thousands of years before their discovery). Good guesses too?
I will also say that you can see trinity in the Old Testament. You should know having been a fundamentalist that it is not three Gods, it is one God manifest in three persons.
“It “looked” like three deities. Over time it was firmly established it was three-in-one.”
Sorry I misread your statement.
“I guess I can take that as a compliment?”
Absolutely. I don’t think this is an issue of intelligence at all :)
“Anyway, As far as Catholocism, I have debated (as we are) with several Catholics and have shown them error within their own doctrines. Error that cannot be reconciled.”
Right, so in their mind, the doctrines probably can be reconciled – in some way.
In my mind, this Ezekiel passage cannot be reconciled. Sure, someone can probably come up with a way in which it could be possible. But can’t anyone do that?
I’m not interested in whether something “can” be harmonized. I’m interested in whether the harmonization is the truth.
“If the Bible is the largest scam in human history, I have to give them credit. They fooled me.”
I think they fooled themselves, honestly. Just because someone writes something that is wrong does not mean they were intentionally trying to fool others. Sometimes it does and sometimes it means they are fooled themselves.
So I don’t really think of the Bible as a scam. It is just a large collection of organized misconceptions. That’s how I see it now, anyway.
“I guess the prophecies that have been fulfilled were good guesses?”
Can you name a prophecy that – taken in its context in the Old Testament – was for sure fulfilled? I know a lot of prophecies that were taken out of context and applied to Jesus, but few (none actually) that – taken in context – were fulfilled. The virgin birth is probably the best example of a prophecy taken out of context and applied to Jesus.
“There are scriptures that record what we now know as scientific accuracies (Some were recorded thousands of years before their discovery). Good guesses too?”
I’d like to see some of these. I’ve never found one myself.
“I will also say that you can see trinity in the Old Testament.”
Sure. But I can even see a quadrinity in the New Testament if I want to.
John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
So now we have God (who dwells in the bosom of the Father), the Father, the son (who was begotten by the Father), and the Holy Spirit. That is four, not three.
“Sorry I misread your statement.”
I don’t mind at all :)
One can “see” anything if they are looking for it.
The references where God says “Let ‘us’ make man in our image…” are not references to the trinity, they are ancient ways of either referring to the heavenly court or they are speaking of God in a plurality (which was a way of ascribing majesty). As for the man in the lions den, that could just be an angel, etc.
“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
I just realized the King James completely interprets that verse differently. Crazy. Yeah, my mistake!
So, out of sheer curiosity, let me try to get this straight.
Your argument is that:
God instituted the Melchizedek priesthood.
God never stopped the Melchizedek priesthood.
God began the Aaronic priesthood.
God has the Israelites build the tabernacle
Tabernacle is lost (somehow, during Judges maybe?)
God has a new temple built under David.
God lets the new temple be destroyed.
God promises a new temple, reinstatement of sacrificial system, and reinstatement of Aaronic priesthood (Ezekiel).
God lets a new temple be built via Herod, but its not the temple promised in Ezekiel.
God sends Jesus under the order of Melchizedek.
God says that all sacrifices were actually precursors of Christ.
God says the believers body is actually now the temple.
God lets herod’s temple be destroyed.
~
God has to have a place for the anti-christ to sit during the tribulation, so a new temple will be built by the Jews.
That temple will be destroyed when Christ returns.
Christ’s landing in Jerusalem splits the city in two creating an entire new water system (the river in Ezekiel).
A new temple is built right on the source of this water (the temple in Ezekiel)
Christ rules for a thousand years overseeing the Aaronic priesthood as they perform symbolic blood and guilt sacrifices.
This temple is destroyed when the entire earth is destroyed.
God creates a new heavens and new earth where there won’t be any temples any more.
?
“Christ rules for a thousand years overseeing the Aaronic priesthood as they perform symbolic blood and guilt sacrifices.”
This is the part I find completely and utterly irreconcilable. Its just too weird. Really weird. It makes more sense to say its a failed prophecy.
Besides, I thought the whole point was that sacrifices looked forward to Christ’s death and communion looks back upon Christ’s death. Bringing back the sacrifices doesn’t make any sense then.
As far as prophecies, here are three:
Daniel’s sequence of empires. A remarkably accurate view of world history is recorded in the book of Daniel in the form of two dreams: Nebuchadnezzar’s in Daniel 2 and Daniel’s in Daniel 7. Both dreams predict the future history of the world as it will be influenced by four successive empires. These dreams have been remarkably fulfilled by the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires. Furthermore, more specific aspects of Daniel’s prophesies, as found throughout the book of Daniel, have been specifically fulfilled in these empires. For instance, Daniel 11 with its detailed accounts of the wars between “the kings of the North” and “the kings of the South” (fulfilled in the struggles between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids) has baffled the critics. It had to be written after the fact, they argue, ignoring all internal and external evidences for the traditional date of Daniel (i.e. around 530 B.C.).
Isaiah’s Prophecy of Cyrus. One of the most fascinating of the Bible’s many fulfilled prophesies is Isaiah’s prophesy naming Cyrus as the king who will permit the temple and the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1). At the time of Isaiah’s prediction (approximately 700 B.C.) the city and the temple didn’t need to be rebuilt because they were still standing (they were destroyed in 586 B.C by the Babylonians)! However, in approximately 539 B.C. a Persian king by the name of Cyrus conquered Babylon and decreed that the Jews could return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. So, in essence, Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, to be born over a hundred years later, would issue the command to rebuild the temple which would not be destroyed until over a hundred years later! Once again the odds of this prediction coming true by random chance are too astronomical to even consider.
And as I already stated, “The Jews began to go back to their land May 14, 1948. This is the first “ressurection” of dead nation in history, thus fulfilling prophecy. That was a good guess for those guys who wrote the Bible wasn’t it.”
Jeremiah 29:14, “And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.”
Isaiah 11:11, “And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
(More could be provided)
As far as the scientific accuracies:
1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms.
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day: Leviticus 12:3, “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”
3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22). Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later.
5. Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. Ecclesiastes 1:6, “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”
6. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
These are just a few. If you google in scientific accuracies of the Bible it will reveal a ton of information. Having gave these few accuracies I do want people to realize that the Bible is not a science text book, but where it speaks about science, it is accurate.
KJVPreacher, thank you for your response.
I have no intention of “debunking” each point you bring up, because some of those sure do look like good prophecies or scientific data.
The issue is not whether the Bible is ever right, the issue is whether the Bible is ever wrong. If it is is wrong at any point, then why should we trust it at any other point?
So you either have to show that every single point in the Bible is trustworthy or I have to show only one flaw.
It would be impossible for you to show that every point is trustworthy. And even if you could show some “trustworthy” points – like you have done – there is no guarantee that this makes the Bible trustworthy. As you have said, prophecies could be post hoc. Scientific facts could be good guesses or simply people exploring different ideas.
Let me give an example. You have said that the Bible predicts atomic structure. Well, Democritus theorized this as well. Does this mean Democritus was inspired – or just was thinking?
It is not unreasonable to think that Biblical writings would have truth statements in them. This does not back up the Biblical writings as inspired, only says that smart people were thinking back then and had some good ideas.
As for the prophecies, keep in mind that I have shown one prophecy that does not make sense. If I cannot trust this prophecy, why should I trust any of them?
Let me give you another example. Matthew says that the Old Testament passage in Isaiah predicts the virgin birth. If you study the context and the Hebrew word for “virgin” (which is actually young woman, when there very well was a better word for virgin in Hebrew) it says no such thing. I know this is a “classic” example which many scholars have “explained away”, but I think it is an extremely good one.
Or how about the fact that Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, which was rejected for inclusion with the canon and is known to be a 2nd century B.C. (approximately) fabrication? How can a book that was invented be quoted authoritatively in the New Testament as a trustworthy source? Remember, if one argues that the Old Testament books are canonical because the apostles and Jesus quoted from them, one must also conclude the same thing about the Book of Enoch. I can see no way around this without equivocating.
And to be honest, even if the Bible was not inspired, one would expect to find fulfilled prophecies. Why? Because most of the prophecies were vague enough (“this nation will be destroyed by this king”, “a child will be born to this woman”, etc.) to be fulfilled no matter what.
Think about it. The restoration of Israel was somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy. People in that area of the world are being displanted all the time for religious reasons and are always trying to get that land back. Given the ferver of the Jewish religion, they would want that land back and fight for it. This was entirely because of hard human effort – not because of fulfilled prophecy.
Now, if there was a prophecy in the New Testament which predicted the century in which the people would return and the name of their leader – that would be incredible. But it doesn’t. One just has to infer that they would get their nation back because some of the prophecies include Israel as a nation. But what is so incredible about that?
Jesus said that “all these things” would take place in “this generation”. Did they? Paul says “we who remain” Did Paul remain?
You can argue context and “proper interpretation” left and right but I do not see a way around these types of errors without inventing explanations which are not provided by the Bible itself. And if we invent explanations, why not just assume the original authors of the Bible were just doing the exact same thing themselves?
Thank you. This debate was very enjoyable. Maybe we will cross paths and have yet another discussion in the future.
I did as well :) Your posts were gracious and I appreciate it. I hope my posts were respectful as well.
Yes, very respectful. Thank you
Hmmm, apparently this contradiction is now “solved”:
http://www.thywordistrue.com/problems-problem-127.htm
And now I’m not allowed to submit any more contradictions to the site.
Hmmm….
This is still a serious contradiction.
Inerrantist view (above):
B.C: sacrifices, circumcision, and Aaronic priesthood.
A.C: no sacrifices, no circumcision, and Melchizedek priesthood through Christ.
A.C: fulfilment of B.C. prophecy in Ezekiel with reinstatement of sacrifices, circumcision, and Aaronic priesthood.
This is not a contradiction? What?
Its kind of creepy to think that Jesus will return of the Melchizedek priesthood and oversee Aaronic priests performing sacrifices symbolizing his death in a temple devoted to a God who is actually present in person and will only allow people who are circumcised to enter.
Will Jesus himself perform sacrifices to fulfill the requirements of the laws in Ezekiel? If he does not, won’t that mean he is not fulfilling all the requirements of righteousness?
Man, Jesus offering sacrifices symbolizing his death to himself so that he can fulfill all righteousness.
At least his resurrected body is already circumcised so he can enter his own temple.
And if KJV*** gets tired of this one contradiction, I can supply a half a dozen more quickly.
Hi Joshua,
For starters, check out G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission. It’s relatively cheap (currently ~$20 @ Amazon.com). Or, since your profile says you’re in the Chicago area, you can borrow it via a local seminary’s library (e.g. TEDS, Wheaton).
Patrick
patrick, I appreciate the reference. Before I spend $20 on yet another Christian book, I would like an answer to a simple question:
Does this book contain a fallible human interpretation of the passages in question?
If the answer is yes, how is it any close to the truth than my assessment that there is an error? If it is fallible, than it may very well not contain a valid answer.
Furthermore, did the authors of the book start out by assuming Ezekiel does not contain an error and then invent a harmony to make the apparent error go away (by the process of intelligent human invention), or did they honestly start without bias and work toward discovering the explanation that is least tedious?
I just threw away 100’s of dollars of Christian books – many of them containing commentary and interpretations that contradicted each other. How would this book differ?
I don’t want to find a resolution, I want to find the truth. There is a difference.