Covered or Removed?

Van said:

Good grief, first the false claim is that I do not answer his questions, plural, and now the false claim is I do not like to answer an unstated question. Pure drivel, folks.

JD731 cited Hebrews 10:11 which says the Old Covenant sacrifices can never take away sins. The Greek word (translated take away) was also used to translate, in the Septuagint, Genesis 41:42, where the King took off or removed his ring. In other words, under the Old Covenant God provided a merciful covering for their sins, but under the New Covenant, God provided total removal of the sin penalty of those who underwent the washing of regeneration.

Click to expand...

It was clearly not an unstated question. I quoted the question from its post.
And the answer??
Proof of the opposite?
Not really answered to my satisfaction. (Don’t be upset about the way I said that. It simply means that I have more questions based upon your answer.)
I don’t see anyone holding to the old covenant for the removal of sin.
Do you have a quote of someone doing this or did someone just reference a verse that says what you want to say. I am missing the place where someone is “holding to the old covenant for the removal of sin.”

Van said:

Good grief, first the false claim is that I do not answer his questions, plural, and now the false claim is I do not like to answer an unstated question. Pure drivel, folks.

Click to expand...

Also addressing me instead of the post.

Did you ever wonder why you get the responses you do?

John the Baptist said when he saw Jesus;

Jn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Hebrews says this:
He 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Both John and Jesus had one thing in common. They both lived and died under the Divine operative principle of the Mosaic Law.

Sin was put away as a death penalty for men while they lived when Jesus died, being the sacrifice and dying their deaths, However, they must be reconciled to God while they lived.

He 927 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

The taking away of sin by the one time death penalty (wage) of the innocent Jesus for sin reconciled an offended God to sinful men.


8 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Reason & Logic application time here;

If it is true that Jesus did make a satisfactory payment for all sin in his own body by enduring it's penalty of suffering and death, what would be the basis of a righteous Judge to continue to hold sinners guilty? Answer NONE!

BUT, the death of Jesus did not reconcile sinful men to God and there remains the death penalty after physical death. Sinners must be reconciled because they want to be. They must believe they can be through Jesus Christ and because of who he is and what he did. God the Father cannot reject any sinner who comes to him for reconciliation through Jesus Christ. For this reason God sends ambassadors to make this known to all men.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

However, this time of grace will not last forever. It is just for this time, this age. God says he has reserved a time that he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ and after no others will come to God for reconciliation in his name. There is a reserved time coming when God will destroy all sinners from this earth and leave only the saved.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day (a theme of scriptures called< the day of the LORD>), in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
21 For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.

Let every one of us be sure they have come to God for forgiveness of sins in the way he has given, through faith in Jesus Christ. Let no man tell you that Jesus Christ did not atone for the sins of the whole world because that preaching is not the gospel.


We (ambassadors) then, as workers together with him (Jesus), beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation)

Ben1445 said:

It was clearly not an unstated question. I quoted the question from its post.
And the answer??
Proof of the opposite?
Not really answered to my satisfaction. (Don’t be upset about the way I said that. It simply means that I have more questions based upon your answer.)
I don’t see anyone holding to the old covenant for the removal of sin.
Do you have a quote of someone doing this or did someone just reference a verse that says what you want to say. I am missing the place where someone is “holding to the old covenant for the removal of sin.”

Click to expand...

More drivel, the issue is not what people believe, but what God teaches concerning the difference between the two Covenants, and the confusion produced by mistranslation.

Ben1445 said:

Also addressing me instead of the post.

Did you ever wonder why you get the responses you do?

Click to expand...

Nope, I know what you are, which is an empty suit, who tries to disrupt biblical discussion and turn it into petty bickering without the need for biblical understanding.

Here is the part of my post that was edited out, you know, the part addressing the topic.

JD731 cited Hebrews 10:11 which says the Old Covenant sacrifices can never take away sins. The Greek word (translated take away) was also used to translate, in the Septuagint, Genesis 41:42, where the King took off or removed his ring. In other words, under the Old Covenant God provided a merciful covering for their sins, but under the New Covenant, God provided total removal of the sin penalty of those who underwent the washing of regeneration.

Van said:

More drivel, the issue is not what people believe, but what God teaches concerning the difference between the two Covenants, and the confusion produced by mistranslation.

Click to expand...

Who is confused?
What statement was made that makes you think that anyone is confused?
Are there any people posting here, or denominations or religions (outside of maybe Judaism) that believe that the old covenant removes sin??
I am confused about who you think is confused. Now you say it doesn’t matter.

Van said:

Nope, I know what you are, which is an empty suit, who tries to disrupt biblical discussion and turn it into petty bickering without the need for biblical understanding.

Click to expand...

More accusations!! (Can you believe this. He won’t even hold himself to his own standards)

Van said:

Here is the part of my post that was edited out, you know, the part addressing the topic.

JD731 cited Hebrews 10:11 which says the Old Covenant sacrifices can never take away sins. The Greek word (translated take away) was also used to translate, in the Septuagint, Genesis 41:42, where the King took off or removed his ring. In other words, under the Old Covenant God provided a merciful covering for their sins, but under the New Covenant, God provided total removal of the sin penalty of those who underwent the washing of regeneration.

Click to expand...

So where did he say that the old covenant removed sin??
I am still waiting for an explanation of who is proposing this nonsense idea that the old covenant removed sin.

Ben1445 said:

Who is confused?
What statement was made that makes you think that anyone is confused?
Are there any people posting here, or denominations or religions (outside of maybe Judaism) that believe that the old covenant removes sin??
I am confused about who you think is confused. Now you say it doesn’t matter.

Click to expand...

You are wasting my time posting nonsense. Why ask who is confused when I did not say any specific person was confused, but only that mistranslation causes confusion. This is not difficult to grasp. But there you go, using the fallacy of personal incredulity, to obstruct discussion of bible doctrine.

There are mistranslations in the KJV that say the Old Covenant removes sin. In Psalm 79:9 the KJV text reads "... and purge away our sins..." but a better translation might read "...and mercifully cover over our sins...." Vague and poor translations create confusion in our understanding of God's actual message.

Van said:

You are wasting my time posting nonsense. Why ask who is confused when I did not say any specific person was confused, but only that mistranslation causes confusion. This is not difficult to grasp. But there you go, using the fallacy of personal incredulity, to obstruct discussion of bible doctrine.

Click to expand...

You used the words and now you say they are not important.
How do you expect me to have any conversation with you if you are going to back out of a position that you created calling it not important.

Van said:

There are mistranslations in the KJV that say the Old Covenant removes sin. In Psalm 79:9 the KJV text reads "... and purge away our sins..." but a better translation might read "...and mercifully cover over our sins...." Vague and poor translations create confusion in our understanding of God's actual message.

Click to expand...

That’s funny. I just read that God was Who he expected to remove sin. I didn’t see the old covenant mentioned.

I have yet to find anyone who is confused let alone any kind of general population.
There is nothing wrong with that rendering in the KJV. But since your understanding of the Hebrew passes that of the writer, I would love to sit at your feet and learn.
I don’t believe that the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek. I also don’t believe you do.

Ben1445 said:

The verses were the point. You read them, explained them and then said that they did not contradict you.

The verses were written in English.

You say that the removal of sins would conflict with the OP.


The removal of sin removes the penalty. You strain at gnats. No one gets justly punished for something that is not credited as being done by them. That is why we are able to stand without fear of penalty. Our sins are removed from us.


I also recognize that this is someone asking to be removed. Yes I know what it means. Don’t overthink it. If you aren’t in the way of lying then you are not guilty of it. If you’re not guilty of it, you don’t have that sin laid to your claim. And apparently the important part for you is the penalty. No sin, no penalty. The real issue is the sin. Adam wasn’t removed from the garden because he had a penalty. He was removed because he had sin. Take care of the sin and you have no more penalty, problem, or guilt.

You say removing ourselves away from the hazard like if we can be distanced enough from sin God won’t know it was ours. It just sounds like a child covering their eyes and considering themselves hidden.
The reality is that God said He would do the removal. It is effective enough for God to remove them. You belittle the actions of God as if they are not enough to make us perfect.

I’m glad you can see one of them, without obfuscation.

I actually didn’t find clarity in the doctrine presented. I assumed by the title that you meant that sins were covered (since that is all you talked about) and not removed, since you phrased it as an “or” question.

All I did was find sin that was removed or requested removed (whether by moving the person or the sin makes little difference for the discussion).
I quoted the verses for you because I wasn’t sure if I knew what you were talking about. I figured you would answer the confusion if I quoted some removals to you.
As best I can figure, you are not as concerned with the sin as you are the penalty.
If that is the case, you have the cart before the horse.

Click to expand...

This is going to get me into trouble, but every time I see one of Van's insult posts (often), I can't help but imagine that he has this look on his face while he is telling people about God's love.

5 point Gillinist said:

This is going to get me into trouble, but every time I see one of Van's insult posts (often), I can't help but imagine that he has this look on his face while he is telling people about God's love.

Click to expand...

Posting against the person fallacies fuels hate. The person who shot Mr. Kirk thought Mr. Kirk promoted "hate" probably because Mr. Kirk rejected the viewpoint that someone can change his or her God given gender.

What if parts of my posts were not intended as insults, but as loving rebukes? Scripture teaches we should seek a consensus, you cannot do that if the topic is avoided by change of subject ploys.