[quote= Yet Jesus declaration that all foods are clean takes place before the cross. [/quote]

Where did He say that? Which 'version'? Show me that in the KJV.

Where did He say that? Which 'version'? Show me that in the KJV. [/quote]

OK, so actually, in the modern versions, this is a parenthetical statement where Mark applies an interpretation to Jesus previous statement. It is silly to cavil over what I said when it doesn't change the overall (and obvious) point I was making. What I wrote makes it plain enough that even in the modern versions, it is an unreasonable stretch to interpret the passage as abrogating the divinely instituted dietary laws.

Ok, so you admit your mistake and then downplay it by calling the whole argument "silly." I don't think it is "silly." It is certainly not trivial to mess with the Word of God by adding to it.

Here's what's silly: to say that Mark would write that Jesus declared all clean foods clean. What would be the point of that?

Face it: the modern versions have adjusted the text per their own agenda.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[quote=Green Face it: the modern versions have adjusted the text per their own agenda.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa. [/quote]

Thank you. Hasn't anyone else looked at the context of tha passage? WASH your hands before you eat.

Not downplaying anything. My point that the modern versions, when read in context, do not abrogate the dietary laws still stands. I was aware of the fact that Jesus did not say in as many words that all foods are clean, but by explaining the contextual meaning of the entire passage, my point could easily be seen. One could find a number of text in the KJV New Testament that say in as many words that the law no longer applies. Adventists have long recognized such statements can not be taken standing alone from their immediate context or that of the entire scriptures for that matter. The modern rendering of Mark 7:19, when taking the context into consideration, obviously refers to foods being clean in regard to human tradition and not divinely prescribed law -- especially in light of Jesus upholding the law in verse 8.

Here is the problem. I have shown that the modern versions, in the passage under consideration, do not teach that pork is on par with chicken when it comes to nutritional value. That is a good thing and should be celebrated. By bringing up the passage in the first place, it at first appeared that your concern was to safeguard our doctrinal positions. After showing that that particular position is not jeopardized by the modern translations (such as the NASB/NIV/ESV), you continue to insist that they teach otherwise -- not because they do, but because it is crucial to your argument that they are corrupt. Ironically, you say that it is the modern versions that have an agenda.

Regarding your second point, it is a big deal in light of the reverence the people had for rabbinic tradition, however uninspired. The Pharisees did not believe food to be clean if it was consumed without following their tradition of washing hands. On the flip side, the KJV "purging all meats" that precludes defilement by ingestion would also apply to clam chowder. Whether in the KJV or NASB, that is not the point. It is about the fact that neglecting the traditions of men can never cause defilement. In both the KJV and NASB, Jesus stresses that the law of God must never be broken for the sake of tradition.

[quote=Dave One could find a number of text in the KJV New Testament that say in as many words that the law no longer applies. [/quote]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show me a few of those texts. I can't find them.

Either you are being purposefully obtuse, or you have never once discussed the applicability of the law to the NT gentile Christian with an evangelical in your whole life. The same proof texts that they always point out and misconstrue in defense of their antinomian arguments are the ones I'm referring to. You know that is what I was referring to and I'm not going to humor you by listing them -- you know exactly which Pauline texts I am referring to. I remember them from when my First Sergeant (in the army) pulled out his KJV and tried to overwhelm me with a number of quotes about how the Law has been done away with. Out of context, those quotes agreed with what he was saying. Reading them in their context, they didn't support antinomianism at all. SDA's have long endeavored to get people to read such passages in their context in their efforts to refute antinomian fallacies.

Harold,

If you honestly did not see my earlier post as referring to the misuse of the same old Pauline texts that evangelicals always refer to when trying to argue that the law no longer applies to Christians in the NT, I apologize for suggesting obtuse behavior on your part. You may not have realized that is what I meant.

In no way do I believe that the Bible (KJV or good modern versions -- I need to make clear that some are in fact bad) supports the idea that the 10 commandments are no longer binding. In all versions there are texts that SEEM to be in agreement with antinomian teachings, but ALWAYS turn out to uphold and uplift the Law when read in their context.

Green and Harold, you are not understanding what Dave said in that post any more than you are trying to understand what Jesus was trying to say. Even though Green indicated he knew what Jesus was saying, you both seem to take His and Dave's statements out of context and construe them to say what they are not in the same fashion as the pork eaters do.

[quote=Dave You know that is what I was referring to and I'm not going to humor you by listing them --[/quote]

I didn't think you would. When you DO find some, let me and the rest of know where they are.