[_ Old Earth _] Three cheers for Engineers.

[chessman]

"The passages from the Book of Leviticus, scholars say, offer the first physical evidence of what has long been believed: that the version of the Hebrew Bible used today goes back 2,000 years." [At least!]

"In 2,000 years, this text has not changed."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-09-21-14-09-14

 

[Milk-Drops]

This shows that Leviticus dates back. Most of the gospels can't be trace back until a minimum of roughly 200 CE/AD. The Old testament has older material, but the new testament is still pretty new.

 

[Jim Parker]

This shows that Leviticus dates back. Most of the gospels can't be trace back until a minimum of roughly 200 CE/AD. The Old testament has older material, but the new testament is still pretty new.

There are manuscripts from within a generation of the apostles.
So what?

 

[Milk-Drops]

There are manuscripts from within a generation of the apostles.
So what?

Which one? The earliest I can find is around 200 years. That's hardly a generation.

 

[Jim Parker]

Which one? The earliest I can find is around 200 years. That's hardly a generation.

"...the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years."
http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

 

[Milk-Drops]

"...the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years."
http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

Ok

 

[Jim Parker]

"The passages from the Book of Leviticus, scholars say, offer the first physical evidence of what has long been believed: that the version of the Hebrew Bible used today goes back 2,000 years." [At least!]

The dead sea scrolls brought us back another 300 years BC.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The dead sea scrolls brought us back another 300 years BC.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the New Testament. I want to make it clear that I really have no bone to pick with the Bible being old or new. It was more about differentiating the Old and New Testament.

 

[Edward]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the New Testament. I want to make it clear that I really have no bone to pick with the Bible being old or new. It was more about differentiating the Old and New Testament.

Do we really need to do that? It makes it seem like two covenants, two books...when in fact it would more accurately be said to be, old testament, modified testament (covenant).

None of the old has been obsoleted but rather fulfilled, i.e., modified.

 

[Jim Parker]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the New Testament. I want to make it clear that I really have no bone to pick with the Bible being old or new. It was more about differentiating the Old and New Testament.

I was responding to Chessman's comment: "The passages from the Book of Leviticus, scholars say, offer the first physical evidence of what has long been believed: that the version of the Hebrew Bible used today goes back 2,000 years.[At least!]"

 

[Milk-Drops]

Do we really need to do that?

Acknowledge that the Bible is multiple books? Yes, because it was written by multiple people over thousands of years.

It makes it seem like two covenants, two books...when in fact it would more accurately be said to be, old testament, modified testament (covenant).

This isn't a covenant argument and the old and new testaments aren't singular books. There are 39 books in the Old Testament alone. 27 in the New Testament.

None of the old has been obsoleted but rather fulfilled, i.e., modified.

Thats not what I'm saying. The OP talks about finding a younger copy of Leviticus, that moves back in time the dates for the earliest known transcript for the book of Leviticus. However there Gospel ( some of the most contested parts of the Bible) Still are at least a century younger than the stated Death of Jesus.

 

[Edward]

Acknowledge that the Bible is multiple books? Yes, because it was written by multiple people over thousands of years.

This isn't a covenant argument and the old and new testaments aren't singular books. There are 39 books in the Old Testament alone. 27 in the New Testament.

Thats not what I'm saying. The OP talks about finding a younger copy of Leviticus, that moves back in time the dates for the earliest known transcript for the book of Leviticus. However there Gospel ( some of the most contested parts of the Bible) Still are at least a century younger than the stated Death of Jesus.

Oh ok.

But even so, it can be trusted. It was God's responsibility to get His Word to us...and I think He did it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Do we really need to do that? It makes it seem like two covenants, two books

That's because there are two major covenants; the "Old Covenant" which was in the form of a treaty between God and Israel and which contained the Law of Moses, and the "New Covenant", which is between God and anyone who will believe in Jesus (Jew or not) and which does not contain the Law of Moses.

in fact it would more accurately be said to be, old testament, modified testament (covenant).

No. It would not.
The purpose of the Old Covenant was to make us aware of sin and to lead us to Jesus.
The purpose of the New Covenant was to open the gates of heaven to whoever would believe in Jesus.

None of the old has been obsoleted but rather fulfilled, i.e., modified.

That is incorrect.
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The Old Covenant was not "modified" to be reissued as the "New Covenant."
Jesus fulfilled all the sacrificial, ceremonial, and defilement requirements of the OT.
Then He gave us one new command: "Love one another," because loving one another fulfills all the requirements of the Old Testament.

And, with reference to the Bible, the words "testament" and "covenant" are equivalent.

iakov the fool

 

[Edward]

We seem to understand covenants differently

 

[Jim Parker]

We seem to understand covenants differently

My understanding is based on having a seminary education.

 

[Edward]

That's because there are two major covenants; the "Old Covenant" which was in the form of a treaty between God and Israel and which contained the Law of Moses, and the "New Covenant", which is between God and anyone who will believe in Jesus (Jew or not) and which does not contain the Law of Moses.

No. It would not.
The purpose of the Old Covenant was to make us aware of sin and to lead us to Jesus.
The purpose of the New Covenant was to open the gates of heaven to whoever would believe in Jesus.

That is incorrect.
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The Old Covenant was not "modified" to be reissued as the "New Covenant."
Jesus fulfilled all the sacrificial, ceremonial, and defilement requirements of the OT.
Then He gave us one new command: "Love one another," because loving one another fulfills all the requirements of the Old Testament.

And, with reference to the Bible, the words "testament" and "covenant" are equivalent.

iakov the fool

What about Matthew 5?

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.../

I'm not exactly sure what point that you're trying to make brother.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm not exactly sure what point that you're trying to make brother.

My point is that the Old Covenant (testament) and the New Covenant are two different covenants.

Jesus said " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled..."

Who was Jesus talking to?
He was talking to Jews who were God's people according to the Old Covenant.

Was God's covenant with Israel an everlasting covenant?
It was an everlasting covenant. (Gen 17:7)

What was the promise of the Old Covenant?
Deu 5:33 You shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.
(That's where Leonard Nemoy, a Jew who played Spock on "Startrek," got "Live long and prosper.")

What is the promise of the New Covenant?
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Who receives the benefit of the New Covenant?
Whoever believes, Jew and Gentile.

In what way did Jesus fulfill the Old Covenant?
He became the perfect sacrifice which took away the sins of the world. (Jhn 1:29) All the animal sacrifices that were done under the Law of Moses revealed that the wages of sin is death, but, by His death and resurrection and ascension, Jesus destroyed death.

The wages of sin is death but Jesus, by His death, took away the sins of the world. Therefore, no one will remain dead; all will be raised never to die again as we all now experience death.
Jhn 5:28-29 ... the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

In this icon, Jesus is standing on the doors of Hades, which he has broken down, and is raising Adam and Eve, the representatives of all mankind.


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

image didn't post

 

[jasonc]

nimoy took the shalom, greeting. the greeting he used is the letter shin. its in the torah. the Catholics recite the Aaronic priesthood blessing. jewry will use the shin motion or whatever they name it to bless.

 

[Edward]

My point is that the Old Covenant (testament) and the New Covenant are two different covenants.

Jesus said " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled..."

Who was Jesus talking to?
He was talking to Jews who were God's people according to the Old Covenant.

Was God's covenant with Israel an everlasting covenant?
It was an everlasting covenant. (Gen 17:7)

What was the promise of the Old Covenant?
Deu 5:33 You shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.
(That's where Leonard Nemoy, a Jew who played Spock on "Startrek," got "Live long and prosper.")

What is the promise of the New Covenant?
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Who receives the benefit of the New Covenant?
Whoever believes, Jew and Gentile.

In what way did Jesus fulfill the Old Covenant?
He became the perfect sacrifice which took away the sins of the world. (Jhn 1:29) All the animal sacrifices that were done under the Law of Moses revealed that the wages of sin is death, but, by His death and resurrection and ascension, Jesus destroyed death.

The wages of sin is death but Jesus, by His death, took away the sins of the world. Therefore, no one will remain dead; all will be raised never to die again as we all now experience death.
Jhn 5:28-29 ... the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

In this icon, Jesus is standing on the doors of Hades, which he has broken down, and is raising Adam and Eve, the representatives of all mankind.


iakov the fool

Sounds like you're agreeing with me that parts of the old covenant are still valid.