First, to the moderators I must acknowledge that I had no real clue were best to place this thread. If it is in the wrong place, I am more than willing for a correction to be made.
Second, to all I give an explanation for this thread. In the thread on Matthew 24, I employed the phrase "holy of holies" in one of my postings. In response to this, Brother "Prophet1" presented the following reproof --
Holy is an adjective.
There can be no such thing as "Holies".
Try using the Scripture, instead of parroting men.
The Scripture calls it the "Most Holy Place".
The Scripture doesn't use the word "rapture", which in English is an abstract and not a concrete noun, so it couldn't possibly be the name of an event.
In fact, by definition, rapture is imagined.
Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is one of them.
You've dashed your foot against a stumbling stone, and fallen into Rome's mire, Brother.
Of course, I'll be ridiculed and chided for this post, but, no matter.
The children of Light are watching,
His sheep hear His voice.
It is my intention to provide a response to this reproof against me by Brother "Prophet1." However, I did not wish to hijack the other thread and thereby to turn it aside from its primary focus upon Matthew 24. Thus I am presenting my response in a new thread posting.
Third, to Brother "Prophet1" I would first present my intention with this posting -- (1) to acknowledge a fault, (2) to present a defense, and (3) to return a reproof.
1. My acknowledgement of fault -- I must acknowledge that in the King James translation the phrase "holy of holies" is never employed. Furthermore, I must acknowledge that the King James translation does indeed employ the phrase "the most holy place" for the innermost holy place of tabernacle/temple. Therefore, I will acknowledge that for the sake of Biblical precision and Biblical understanding, it would have been better that I employed the phrase "the most holy place;" and I shall pursue such a change in the future. (However, I do also recognize the truth of Brother "Beameup's" posting #45 concerning the Hebrew as God the Holy Spirit originally moved the Old Testament writers to communicate. As such, I recognize that in Hebrew an adjective can be used as a substantive (in the place of a noun), and that the doubling Hebrew adjective for "holy" would present such a meaning as "the holy place of holy places." With this understanding in mind, I am unwilling to acknowledge any doctrinal error on me part; and thus I am unwilling to acknowledge any sin as having been committed.)
2. My presentation of defense -- You declared that there is no such thing in the English language as the noun "holies." This is not strictly accurate. In the Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the word "holy" includes that following within its definition presentation -- "n., pl. --lies a holy thing or place."
3. My return of reproof -- In your reproof against me, you made the following statement, "Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is [are] one of them." Now, the doctrinal truth concerning Satan certainly is a matter of Biblical doctrine. Yet in God's Holy Word there is no indication whatsoever that Satan has a "bejeweled sleeve." In fact, the word "bejeweled" is not found any whatsoever throughout the entirety of the King James translation. Furthermore, in God's Holy Word there is no indication whatsoever that Satan even has sleeves. In fact, the word "sleeve" is not found any whatsoever throughout the entirety of the King James translation. Therefore, as my return of reproof, I shall "parrot" a reproof that I recently encountered, "Try using Scripture. Satan has more than one trick . . . , and extra-Biblical terms is [are] one of them." Indeed, the thrust for this return of reproof is not that I myself actually believe it is an inherent sin to employ doctrinal terms that are not strictly found in the King James translation. Rather, the thrust for this return of reproof is that if you intend to reprove others on the ground of this position, I would counsel you to remain strictly consistent in your own communication, lest your contradiction to yourself create damage to your credibility.