Because covenant and testament meant the same thing? Testament: From Merriam -Webster: 1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy? From The Free Dictionary 5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God. From dictionary.net 2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter. From The Bible Glossary: Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace. From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary: Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.) I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.
No need to go on because a Testament is different from a Covenant, a Covenant doesn't require the death of anyone, a testament does.
That is why wills are called, 'the last will and testament and not last will and covenant.
That is why God put Heb.9:16-17 in the Bible and that is why the Bible is called the Old and New Testament, it is based on blood, not just a promise.
[ Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone. So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will). ]
Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".
No, lets say the scripture is right and that is what Heb.9:16-17 actually says.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?
Christ was bringing in something new, which made everything that preceded it, old.
He was ending the need for the Old Testament sacrifices, which couldn't pay for sins, only cover them.
[ 2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all. ]
He left us His Holy Spirit (Jn.14-16) and gave us a New Testament to live by.
Neither of which you seem to know anything about.
3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.
No, He died, and because He did die, the Testament went into effect.
His coming back to life doesn't negate His death and burial which paid the price of mankind sins, making all of the Old Testament sacrifices unnecessary (Heb.10)
[ That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.]
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.
Because in the Old Testament, they weren't the 'old' Testament until the new came which made the 'old' old.
A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.
No, you had better read Heb.9:16-17 again, a covenent doesn't demand the death of anyone to be active but a testament does.
It is just that simple.
You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.
It most certainly does since covenants were made all the time and went into force without anyone dying.
Heb.9:16 states very clearly,
for where a testament is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator.
Clear enough?
A covenant doesn't require the death of the one making the covenant as the NASB states.
That is made evident in the Old Testament time and time again.
Thus, even the NIV saw that they couldn't use covenant for that verse since one can make a covenant that goes into effect without anyone dying.
That is shown clearly in the Old Testament many times!
A testament however requires the death of the testator before it goes into force.
Thus, Christ had to die to pay for the sins of the world.
So, you have to ignore two clear verses, Heb.8:11 and Heb.9:16 to maintain your false theology.
'Men loved darkness rather than light'
Of course there's no need to go on. I post proof after proof from dictionary after dictionary and you still insist your opinion is the correct one. There's no accounting for stubbornness.
I've more than made my point so I'm not going to argue with you anymore since you just keep repeating the same things.