How long will it take for you to acknowledge my explanation of what the sentences really mean before you give up this new attempt to quote random text to "prove" whatever you want, whether it is even addressed in the text or not?

My statement stands.

You quoted a (bad) translation of a text that doesn't address my statement.

I replied, corrected the translation (and KFC added the version she read which is closer to my translation), and pointed out that the text simply doesn't say what you claim it does.

You have yet to acknowledge my reply.

(I also notice that you proceeded in the other thread as if nothing had happened after you quoted Malachias.)

So, NO, you didn't rebut my statement.

Yes, that's closer.

And post #4 was not confusing but nonsense.

I didn't rely on the quotes presented here, I simply went and read the original text.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/

This helps with translation errors since it has many translations (and the Hebrew text).

Only the Douay Rheims translation uses the word "void". All the other translations use "corrupt" which gives he sentence a much different meaning:

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B39C002.htm#V8

Of course, the verb is still in perfect tense and talks about something that has already happened. Did anybody claim that sacrifices stopped 400 years before Jesus' birth???

So, yes, faulty sacrifices corrupted the covenant. But the chapter says neither that the covenant ended nor does it say anything about what will/shall/is to happen. It ONLY speaks about things that are already done and it doesn't speak of voiding but only of corrupting.

Here's the traditional order of the Hebrew Bible:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

So yes, KFC, Zecheriah is the lat prophet and Malachias is a kind of summary. For a non-Jew you have a good grasp of Jewish scripture. And this was the thing when I pointed out that Lula is not a Jew. Most non-Jews don't get that the "Old Testament" was once a living document and is not a done deal we can simply forget.

I know. It turns out their inferior sacrifices were a big no. no to Almighty God. The Jews were warned by God's prophets over and over and over. Malachias was the last in time...v. 2:8 sums it up. 

The Jews did not keep the Old Mosaic law. Malachias foretold that the rituals and sacrifices of the OC would be rejected and finally voided, abolished, abrogated, take your pick.  Worse, they would bring a curse upon those who obstinately clung to them. St.Paul warned the Jews, "for as many as are under the works of the law, are under a curse."   

Malachias' prophecy was fulfilled with Christ's most perfect sacrifice on the Cross. The beginning of the New Covenant in His BLood meant the end to the priestly practices, rituals, sacrifices of the Old Covenant.  In Hebrews 7:18-19, St.Paul declares, "there is an abrogation of the former commandment (Old Covenant) becasue of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection." "In saying a new, He (Christ) made the former old. ANd that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end." 8:13. They ended for good in 70AD.

Here's the thing....God is not a God of confusion...ever since Christ, there can't be both the Old and the New Covenant in force at the same time. 

In Galatians, St.Paul deals with the early Chruch in their struggle against the "Judiazers" who thought they would combine the practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant with the priestly religion of the New Covenant. This tendency had to be fought becasue the rituals and sacrifices of the Old Law only foreshadowed the coming of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to persist in those rituals would be implicitly to deny that He had come.

From the Douay Rheims version Malachias 1:10

10 Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand."

From the Protestant King James version, Malachi 1:10,

10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for naught; neither do you kindle fire on my altar for naught. I have no pleasure in you says the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand."

Leauki posts:

Whether you agree or not that Malachias is prophecy is beside the point. The fact is Malachias is a prophet...do you understand what God uses His prophets for?

Note that in this verse there are 3 times the word "will" is used.

Here, Malachias is prophecying that Almighty God wants His people to know that (at some future time when this propecy will be fulfilled) 1.--- He has no pleasure in His Aaronic priesthood and 2. that He will not accept their offering.

The time that God lets His people know that He has no pleasure in His Aaronic priesthood is when at the moment of Christ's death, the Temple Veil is rent from top to bottom. And the time that God lets His people know that He will not accept their offering for good is in 70AD when the Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Temple and not a stone was left and burnt Jerusalem down.

So, it would be wise to consider this passage when trying to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so that sacrifices can be offered.

The rebuilding of the Temple may be done, but the Lord of hosts says here He will not accept an offering.

leauki posts:

 lula posts:

 My reply 19 further rebuts your statement. It's Malachias that refutes your statement. Almighty God did make it known that the Old Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.

 .........................................................

 Leauki posts:

 The Douay Rheims version is the most accurate, faithfully translation there is. 

I'll bank my reading of God's Word on St.Jerome's translation....He was a linguistic genius...I'm convinced raised up by God to translate Scripture..St.Jerome was Greek speaking from birth, knew Latin perfectly as well as knew Hebrew and had many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant. He was 1600 years closer to the writings that any of the modern scholars.

 And speaking of faithful translations vs. wierd translations ie KJV....

 and using your link, let's compare the translation of 1:10-11,

 Starting with the DR version.

 Douay Rheims Bible
1:10 Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.

1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

 and the KJV..

 King James Version
1:10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

 "And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name"  I don't know whether to laugh or cry that "Sacrifice" has been changed to "incense".

kfc posts:

Here you are referring to Malachias 1:11, from the King James Version..

1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Really? Is incense the offerings that would be offered bigger and newer than what Isreal had ever seen or imagined?

I note that you start your statement with "If anything..".

Well, Malachias 1:11 is chock full of meaning. Hint: it's not incense, rather he prophecies the sacrifice in the New Covenant..and Melchisedech is back in the picture.

Yes. Do you understand why it is important to listen to them rather than quote them randomly?

Not in the Hebrew. Sorry.

Or rather, there are verbs in imperfect tense (shall/will). But they don't say what you want them to say.

Lastly, as I said before, none of that has anything to do with the end of the Second Temple or Jesus. It's solely about the priests' failure, at that time, to sacrifice the correct sacrifices. That's all the text says.

I really wish you would start quoting relevant texts.

Or, as a step towards that, start quoting better translations. If the translation you choose disagrees with most others, I think you might have a problem. And if you are trying to find truth in the writings of Roman translators and decide to value their words over the original text and the other translations, that is your right. But then you are NOT following the religion of the god of Israel.

Obviously not if it uses the word "void".

Why not.

I spend eight years in high school learning Latin. I'm still not very good at it, but I can use a dictionary.

vos autem recessistis de via et scandalizastis plurimos in lege irritum fecistis pactum Levi dicit Dominus exercituum

You but "went back" from the way and "caused to stumble" many in the law void (neuter) you made the pact (also neuter) of Levi said the lord "of a discrimined body of men"

So this is where you get "void" from. But "irritum" means a few other things as well. This is very interesting. And it's still perfect tense, i,e. not a prediction but a description of what already happened.

So let me put it this way: if you believe that Judaism should have stopped sacrifices 400 years before Jesus' birth because a faulty reading of a bad translation made up by a Roman, that's fine with me.

But it still has nothing to do with Judaism or the Bible.

Call your religion "Jeromism" or whatever you want. It has nothing to do with Judaism.

I'll bank my reading of G-d's Word on the Hebrew text and the Hebrew text says that 400 years before Jesus' birth the priests used the wrong sacrifices and were admonished by a prophet for it. It says nothing more than that.

Ironically, neither does Jerome. It just happens that after "cause to fail" became "void" and a few other things in Latin, it became "void" in the next step.

Do you? 

exactly.  While Malachi was a prophet and did prophecy he also addressed the nation over their sin.  That's also the role of a Prophet.  A Prophet speaks for God to man not only about the future but also about the present and I can give you lots of examples.  Moses was a Prophet.  Nathan was a prophet.  Samuel was a Prophet.  Isaiah was a Prophet. They all spoke correction or rebuke to the present age.  Nathan rebuked David over his sin with Bathsheba.  Moses spoke for God to the people continuously and it wasn't all prophecy.  Most wasn't.  The OT Prophets were continuously pleading with the people to turn from their sin.  They not only dealt with the future but they also dealt with the present.  Same with Christ.  He is a Prophet.  He told many prophecies but he also addressed present sin.  That's what the role of a prophet is.  A Prophet speaks for God to man.

And Lula, just so you know, the incense in the OT was a physical example of the prayers to God.  The incense represented the sacrifice of praise and prayer to God.  Symbolically incense represents prayer...Ps 141:2, Luke 1:10, Rev 5:8, 8:3. 

It sort of is like the Roman Catholics who go up for Communion and then walk right out the door without staying for the prayers or the end of the service.  They did their deed and think that's good enough to make it thru the week.  God sees them.  He's not accepting of that behavior.  God says he doesn't want our sacrifices, he wants our hearts.  It's not about the deed.  It's about the relationship with Him. 

LOL

Jerome used the Greek Septuigint for his translation.  He didn't use the original Hebrew.  While I don't have a big problem with Jerome I do with the ones who came after him and tampered even with his translation.  There was a bishop who came later and fixed some of Jerome's translation to better fit with the tradtions of the RCC and that's where I have a problem.  To me it's no diff than the JW who have their own translation that has sections that don't represent the original language at all but their own.  Again they're taking their will over the word of God making it say what they want it to say. 

The NASB is the closest translation to the original languages (not the DR).  I use the KJV myself but do know there are a few translation errors in the KJV that the NASB does a better job of translating.  Usually my notes pick up any questionable translation error with a better word or meaning.  The KJV is a good translation but the NASB is a better one. 

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

In the Bible, the prophets speak in behalf of God..they are His spokemen. So yes, I certainly do understand why it's important to listen to them.

Which brings this back to you.....Hmmm...so you admit you understand what God uses His prophets for, and certainly you know that Moses was a great prophet and yet you ignore and fail to obey Moses' command that you listen to the PROPHET God sent whom "thou shalt hear" Deut 18:15.  So ALmighty God through his prophet Moses was telling you to hear the PROPHET He sent. The PROPHET Moses was commanding you hear is Jesus Christ.

...........................................

leauki posts:

Oh, but it is more than that. It's much more than some priests being admonished by a prophet (speaking for God). After all, that had happened before time and time again. Malachias was the last warning. Malachais prophecies the dire consequences of their actions. 1:10.

Maybe not 3 times in the Hebrew you are looking at, but even so, that doesn't change what Malachais prophecises about God not accepting sacrifices.

It's not about the passages saying what I want them to say. In the case of 1:10 , Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.

In 1:10, Malachias says what he says and it's not difficult to understand what the last sentence means. What Malachias' prophecy doesn't tell us is when his prophecy will be fulfilled....when God will not accept the sacrifices.  We get a glimpse of when that will be though in the next verse 11.

Again, 1:10 ....does indeed say what will happen...God through His prophet Malachais tells His people that He has no pleasure in the OT priesthood and will not receive their sacrifices.

you're hanging onto this verse to prove your point which is not there.  This has nothing to do with just the priesthood. It's a call to the whole nation.   It's the whole system of worship gone bad.  It was contemptible but again, we see it all thru the OT.  Malachi is NOT saying anything the other Prophets didn't say hundreds of years before Him. 

But yet, you totally are not being honest when you don't include Malachi 3:7 which is AFTER your quote and says:

"Even from the days of your fathers you are gone away from mine ordinances and have not kept them.  Return to me and I will return to you says the Lord of hosts..."

God calls them to repentance.  If they repent and do well, giving God the honor he deserves 1:6 he will return to them. 

God says the same to us today.  If we worship (our way) and not His way he will not accept it.  Our sacrifice today is ourselves (Romans 12:1) which is really what it's always been.   Many times we know far better than we do. 

As far as the New Covenant Priesthood it doesn't exist outside of the individual believers (kingdom of Priests) because if it did as you say than you totally negate what Christ said in John 14:6 because HE is the ONLY Priest we have today. 

"I am the way, the truth and the life.  no man comes to the Father but by me." 

lula posts Malachias 1:10

leauki posts 22

It does when you put it all together and and have the benefit of looking at it from the standpoint of history.

Remember Malachias was the last of the OT prophets in time and therefore his prophecy is the final one from God to the Jews. Through Malachias, God's message was that He is displeased with their sacrifices and that He will not accept the them.

I agree with KFC's post 25 that the prophets speak for God to man not only about the future but also about the present.

From this point on, did the Jews as a whole ever reform and keep the Old Mosaic Law faithfully? If so, I don't know where it says they did. What we do know though...is that they weren't offering sacrifice in a pleasing way to God at the time of Christ. Not only were the sacrifices bad, the Temple was being misused as well. 

Malachias was 400 years BC. It took 400 years for Malachias prophecy to be fulfilled in 33AD when the only Temple in which God every inhabited was rent in two from top to bottom. That was a judgment upon Isreal...and the final judgment upon Isreal that would put an end for good to the Temple and its sacrificial rituals would come in their same generation, just as Christ told the Sanhedrin at His trial...that would be the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple as institugated by the little horn, Nero in 70AD.

[quote] Malachias 1:10, Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.[/quote]

kfc posts:

You say it yourself ...."it's the whole system of worship gone bad." 

I think God's message through Malachias 1:10 is quite clear.....meant as an immediate message that the Jews as a whole would either "hear" or not. Did they? Be honest. THe Jews as a whole were unfaithful...all through Jewish OT history, only a few were obedient and faithful to God's laws. They certainly didn't "hear" Moses who just before he died told them to "hear the Prophet"..(the Christ) that God would send. Deut 18:15.

I think that Malachias being the last prophet in time did say something the other prophets didn't say and it is 1:10.

 kfc posts:

 God in His mercy gave the Jews 400 years to get back to Him...did they?