Great; I accept that with all my heart -- but it doesn't help me determine in what sense Romans 11:29 MUST be taken;
If the
law is a gift, and God does not repent... what is the inference?
eg: God could not repent/or do the giftS (plural) exclude what we speak of, or was the gift of the law ORIGINALLY PRESCRIBED as temporary (eg:
not BY a later prophecy which would be the very definition of "REPENT"; Jeremiah is no good.)
Or ... Is there another possibility???
Nice try.
You are speaking with someone who studies Greek diligently and has done so for many years.
There is no escape from my argument in either Greek or English by these kinds of attacks on my exegesis.
1) If (as you tried to browbeat me with before) the UNIFORM
English translation in all bibles YOU listed are *valid*, then
BOTH Greek words are translated "UNTIL" (pure synonyms) and both share UNTIL's flaw. You, therefore, have no English based argument to use against me.
2) now that you appeal to the Greek -- then we have to find out exactly what the meaning of the word "achris" is in Greek to know if your argument has merit at all.
Step 2 is not ultimately in your favor either; Strong's defines the word to mean totally different things in different passages.
The example I gave was this:
http://biblos.com/hebrews/3-13.htm ( In this passage, Strongs says ἄχρις means "WHILE" )
http://iblos.com/galatians/3-19.htm ( In this passage, Strongs says ἄχρις means "UNTIL" )
NOTE NOTE NOTE: it's the *SAME* exact spelling, the *SAME* exact word.
By attempting to use Strong's numbers without critical review one implicitly assents to "until" being the meaning IN ENGLISH of Galatians 3:19; (argument goes back to step 1); However: You are free to interpret the word as "While", as an alternative which is taken from Hebrews 3:13.
This is another reason to use a *concordance* search; eg: so that we could go through scripture and test the dictionary against all the places where the word is used; by doing that, we can learn *ourselves* which meaning the word has in English. (Not only that, we may find a more precise meaning if it is very consistently used elsewhere).
But, Even without knowing that answer definitively -- my argument stands vindicated.
Because:
If the word means "Until", then (argument 1) -- until in English doesn't guarantee a change afterward.
If the words mean "while" (which is what I hold) then the word doesn't even SUGGEST a change.
Choose either definition...
Galatians 3:19 is NOT a proof text via "until":
Therefore my argument becomes "Strongs"er not weaker. :D ( if you don't like my pun, that's OK )
I admit your statement "on account of transgressions" is intimately tied to the change in laws; That's a good point; and it's something we need to study a bit later in the thread...
On the other hand,
Jerimiah merely shows a "new" covenant will come, it does not deny the existence of the old; nor prove it passed away from all existence; nor even does it say that
all things of the old law are abolished when a new priesthood arises. (Laws have *many* statutes...) The words "change" in law can be satisfied by the new priesthood changing even one statute; whether or not it changes the others. (Again, To be clear: I
don't advocate returning to the Mosaic law)
Therfore, Jerimiah is wonderful, but it's also very obscure
I'm going to probe a bit more.... and see where that scripture leads me...
I know Jeremiah implies the change is associated with the exit from Egypt, and the problem to solve is the breaking of a "marriage" covenant to a husband; but not much more -- so let's talk about those...
I am at a loss to know exactly what Jeremiah means by "by the hand... from Egypt..."
On the other hand, I do know some things about marriage:
One can't break a covenant with a husband, unless there is a law saying what is adultery or divorce, or at very least what a marriage IS.
In our new covenant; Jesus himself says we (the church) are a bride, and Paul goes almost wild over that point... We are the "BODY" of Christ; which obviously is rooted in the Genesis marriage law "The TWO
will become one flesh" and this
law of marriage requires the transfer of living flesh (marriage ends at death therefore flesh *alone* can't make a marriage).
Next: I reason that for flesh to be alive,
it must have a spirit; (eg: I know that when my spirit leaves this body of mine, I will be physically dead and no longer breathing)
And by all this reasoning, I end up at a single point --
dead animal sacrifices are useless...
An animal was not fit to be Adam's wife, much less a dead one;
And now I'll look at scripture to see if my chain of reasoning is supported in the new covenant:
Does Jesus make us flesh of his flesh, and married by flesh animated by spirit?
John 6:63, John 6:51.
Yes -- so I clearly have evidence, but it's not fully explored or a thorough examination.
Yes, but what KIND of change? There is no new covenant, unless there is at LEAST
a law; eg:
a law of marriage...
a law of what an oath is...
So, there is "
a" law with the changes made, just not "
THE" law, whatever Paul meant by that... (and it's in dispute, so don't arbitrarily assign it.)
Faith does not abolish the law, faith sets the law on it's PROPER footing.
Abraham, Noah, Moses -- are all examples of "law" and "faith".
None of the passages you cite even seem to make a distinction between faith in God, and faith in Jesus Chirst. Both kinds of Faith, then, are potentially pleasing to God.
Priesthood requires "a" law, but not "the" law.... Got it.
Some statutes of these two priest's laws changed ... but ... how many?
Yes... but "greater" is a vague and *very* subjective word....
That's repetitive browbeating; I will never accept that particular point. I have clearly shown, in every way, that "until" is useless to this argument. It's a dead horse ... It's a been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
There is no valid argument based on that *particular* word.
