--------------4D3CF4FC49
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
More quibbles
--------------4D3CF4FC49
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <mcu@www4.clever.net>
Received: from mh2.cts.com by king.cts.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #20) id m0wgXFj-0019wVC; Tue, 24 Jun 97 08:11 PDT
Received: from www4.clever.net (www4.clever.net [209.25.18.1]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA22308 for <mwfisher@cts.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mcu@localhost) by www4.clever.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id KAA28673 ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:50:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 24 Jun 97 10:46:09 EDT
To: <apologetics-list@mcu.edu>
Subject: Flour Power
Message-ID: <970624144609_73222.3431_JHE88-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: 73222.3431@CompuServe.COM (Bill Ramey)
X-Sender: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
Reply-To: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
X-UIDL: 4e0fda21cee43770f17f455e8d130e31
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Michael,
>Bill, please note, is engaged in shifting the text here.
>The clause with the "nearly everything," "almost everything," or
>"almost all things" qualification is referring to sacred implements and
>such--not a personal sin offering.
>There is a shift in the thing signified in the verse between the two
>phrases. The first phrase which refers to "almost all things" is
>referring to just that--THINGS. Vessels and garments and assuredly many
>other concrete objects. BUT NOT PERSONAL SINS.
Your objection hinges on a distinction between ceremonial purification of
things by blood and personal remission of sins by blood, as if the writer
were discussing two separate things. He's not, as v. 19 makes clear:
For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to
all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and
scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all
the people ... (RSV)
Moses sprinkled _people_ with blood for the "purification of the flesh"
(cf. v. 13). Hence there is a relationship between purification and
remission of sins, which is precisely his conclusion in v. 22. The second
clause of v. 22 should not be ripped out its defining context.
>Since blood is not, "in toto" _required_ for remission of sins, then
>blood is, ipso facto, not _necessary_ for redemption.
Your argument is akin to saying that blood is not necessary to sustain
life, because synthetic plasma can be used in place of blood during an
emergency. Since blood is not _in toto_ required to sustain life, can we
then conclude that blood is, ipso facto, not necessary to sustain life?
>The fact that blood was not REQUIRED certainly vitiates that "fact".
The use of flour as a substitute under _some_ circumstances does not mean
that blood sacrifice was not required, any more than the use of synthetic
plasma as a substitute under some circumstances means that blood is not
necessary for survival.
Bill Ramey
__________________________________________________________________
For usage, send e-mail with "HELP" in the body to: list-request@mcu.edu
Comments and questions are welcome, use: apologetics@mcu.edu
To send mail to apologetics-list, use the address: apologetics-list@mcu.edu
To unsubscribe from apologetics-list, send UNSUBSCRIBE apologetics-list to: list-request@mcu.edu
"All commercial and publishing rights are retained by the contributors.
Copyright 1997 by the individual authors and contributors."
===========================================================
--------------4D3CF4FC49--