The Truth About Dr. Walter Martin and The Seventh-Day Adventist Church

[BobRyan]

How many posts have asked him that same question, yet no answer.

For those to whom the Bible has no meaning... my Bible answer to questions are in their imagination - "no answer". We can all see that.

Perhaps my answer should have been in the form "of a video"

 

[BobRyan]

Since I have given the answer to this question many times right from the actual Bible

almost ten times now

Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

QUESTION for you: Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

I have asked that question about half a dozen times to which 'bible-avoidance" is the response so far.

Once I have asked it TEN times with nothing but crickets in response -- I will add a big red TEN to the post.

 

[steaver]

​

I pray that this is helpful to you.

Excellent! Very helpful! This SDA teaching of course is not listed in any of their Fundalmental Beliefs and is why it is helpful for others to understand what is really being taught by the church. Of course this goes against the Christian fundamental belief that one is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of yourself, but we all have a choice as to whom to follow.

 

[steaver]

Since I have given the answer to this question many times right from the actual Bible

Once I have asked it TEN times with nothing but crickets in response -- I will add a big red TEN to the post.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. I accepted your bible answer to my question to you about eating pork as it relates to your salvation. And then when I agreed with your answer that you pointed me to damnation you stomp your feet and say you didn't answer with damnation.

If you think you are being misrepresented then just say you can each all the pork you want without condemnation and we will all see your position. It's that simple. Your comember One Baptism answered plainly.

 

[BobRyan]

steaver said: ↑
Does Jesus have a double standard? He holds pork eating as a damnable sin

Isaiah 66 says someone is going to burn in hell for eating mice... you knew that right?

“But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol.
As they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,
4 So I will choose their punishments
And will bring on them what they dread.
Because I called, but no one answered;
I spoke, but they did not listen.
And they did evil in My sight
And chose that in which I did not delight.”
...
15 For behold, the Lord will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For the Lord will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the Lord will be many.
.
17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens,
Following one in the center,
Who eat swine’s flesh, detestable things and mice,
Will come to an end altogether,” declares the Lord

John 9
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

============================================


Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

In fact at this rate I am wondering if you ever debate on the side of "sola scriptura" any more these days

Since I have given the answer to this question many times right from the actual Bible...almost ten times now

QUESTION for you: Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

I have asked that question about half a dozen times to which 'bible-avoidance" is the response so far.

Once I have asked it TEN times with nothing but crickets in response -- I will add a big red TEN to the post.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. I accepted your bible answer to my question to you about eating pork as it relates to your salvation. And then when I agreed with your answer that you pointed me to damnation you stomp your feet and say you didn't answer with damnation.

Your posts never respond to the actual text -- your response is always that I am the author of the teaching that we find in Isaiah 66 and John 9.

You never even mention the actual detail in the text of God's Word... which I call your "anything-but-the-Bible" solution.

If you think you are being misrepresented then just say you can each all the pork you want without condemnation and we will all see your position. It's that simple. Your comember One Baptism answered plainly.

QUESTION for you: Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

you can say "yes read the Bible and accept what it says - and so I accept Isaiah 66 is God's anwer to the specific question"

you can say "I reject Isaiah 66"

But you need to be bold enough to actually look at the scripture and discuss it.

I
If you think you are being misrepresented then just say you can each all the pork you want without condemnation

As if "I write scripture" and so "anything I write" is the "new scripture" on that question?

Seriously??/

"THIS" is how you "practice" the Sola Scriptura doctrine "in real life"??

I gotta think you have left those discussions a long time ago in that case.

 

[steaver]

you can say "yes read the Bible and accept what it says - and so I accept Isaiah 66 is God's anwer to the specific question"

you can say "I reject Isaiah 66"

But you need to be bold enough to actually look at the scripture and discuss it.
.

The specific question was what YOU believe concerning eating pork and damnation.

YOU answered with Is 66.

I took that as you believe Is 66 is declaring that YOU would be damned for eating pork. If this is a wrong acessment then tell me I should take it as YOU not believing Is 66 is saying YOU would be damned. There is only the two choices.

Is 66 is YOUR answer. I have only two choices, take this as YOU believe you will be damned for the pork eating or you will not. Which way do you want me to view YOUR answer?

 

[BobRyan]

The specific question was what YOU believe concerning eating pork and damnation.

I never claimed that I wrote Isaiah 66.

I claim that it is the Word of God - and that "Bible details matter" to those who use the "sola scriptura" method.

You seem to be avoiding that point... at every post.

YOU answered with Is 66.

I quoted Isaiah 66 -- I did not author it.

You cannot blame the text of Isaiah 66 on me.
You cannot blame your need to ignore the details in Isaiah 66 on me.
I also quoted John 9
I did not write John 9 either.

I took that as you believe Isaiah 66

Indeed I do - as I believe all the Bible.
Do you believe Isaiah 66 is anything other than a text "I wrote"???

If so - why do you keep ignoring it and treating it like it is not the Word of God when I point you to it???

tell me I should take it as YOU not believing Isaiah 66

I never quote a Bible text to you with the "I don't believe scripture" heresy you suggest.

Your 'game' is not going well at this point... consider throwing away the shovel.

So far you cannot bring yourself to even look at the text being quoted for you..

How sad.

How "anti sola scriptura"

 

[steaver]

I never quote a Bible text to you with the "I don't believe scripture" heresy you suggest.
"

Wonderful! So my point is solid. You believe you will be damned for eating pork. That's all I needed to show.

It doesn't matter that I understand Is66 is nothing to do with christians eating pork and being damned. The fact remains that YOU believe it, the SDA church believes it and the SDA church preaches it, even though they say nothing about it in their "official" statements, even though you would expect it to be there seeing how they believe it is part of salvation, so one would think that it would merit an official statement. Of course if they did that then they couldn't keep the mask on of what they really teach about salvation.

See how debating the members of the sect reveals the truth about what a sect actually preaches. You can't always rely upon "official" statements because as you can see, some are meant to deceive.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I never quote a Bible text to you with the "I don't believe scripture" heresy you suggest.

Wonderful! So my point is solid. .

If your point is that I read and accept the Bible and you don't -- I suppose you could use my statement above to demonstrate my part of your statement.

Which is why I keep bringing you up short on the "sola scriptura" detail that you diligently try to skirt

 

[thatbrian]

Wonderful! So my point is solid. You believe you will be damned for eating pork. That's all I needed to show.

It doesn't matter that I understand Is66 is nothing to do with christians eating pork and being damned. The fact remains that YOU believe it, the SDA church believes it and the SDA church preaches it, even though they say nothing about it in their "official" statements, even though you would expect it to be there seeing how they believe it is part of salvation, so one would think that it would merit an official statement. Of course if they did that then they couldn't keep the mask on of what they really teach about salvation.

See how debating the members of the sect reveals the truth about what a sect actually preaches. You can't always rely upon "official" statements because as you can see, some are meant to deceive.

Of course, this is why Bob wants to restrict all debate to official belief statements of the SDA and why I wanted to talk about the actual beliefs of the SDA. Now all are aware that those are two different subjects.

Bob has been intentionally trying to deceive us. That's should be obvious to all now.

 

[Yeshua1]

If your point is that I read and accept the Bible and you don't -- I suppose you could use my statement above to demonstrate my part of your statement.

Which is why I keep bringing you up short on the "sola scriptura" detail that you diligently try to skirt

So does eating Pork, and denying the Sabbath is required to be observed, cause one to lose eternal life than?

 

[BobRyan]

So does eating Pork, and denying the Sabbath is required to be observed, cause one to lose eternal life than?

Avoiding the Bible and denying the Word of Go is what will lead to the Matthew 18 problem "I forgive you all that debt" followed by "cast him into torment until he should repay all"

 

[BobRyan]

"making stuff up for others - and then shooting your own straw man" comes naturally to some folks

Of course, this is why Bob wants to restrict all debate to official belief statements of the SDA

hmmm...

 

[BobRyan]

Since I have given the answer to this question many times right from the actual Bible

almost ten times now

steaver said: ↑
Maybe you could answer plainly.....If YOU decided to eat pork anytime you wanted, do you believe YOU would be damned to hell?

QUESTION for you: Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?

I have asked that question about half a dozen times to which 'bible-avoidance" is the response so far.

Once I have asked it TEN times with nothing but crickets in response -- I will add a big red TEN to the post.

 

[steaver]

QUESTION for you: Maybe you can answer this plainly --- do you believe you should read the Bible and accept its answers to your questions or that "anything-but-the-Bible" is a "better" solution?
.

Well Bob, I believe JWs, Mormons, Baptist, SDAs will all tell you they accept the Bible's answers. and yet they all have a different belief about the answer the Bible gives. I say your belief is wrong according to the Bible. You say your belief is right according to the Bible. So what is your suggestion for us all to come to an agreement on the answer the Bible gives?

 

[thatbrian]

Well Bob, I believe JWs, Mormons, Baptist, SDAs will all tell you they accept the Bible's answers. and yet they all have a different belief about the answer the Bible gives. I say your belief is wrong according to the Bible. You say your belief is right according to the Bible. So what is your suggestion for us all to come to an agreement on the answer the Bible gives?

Ellen White's writings, of course.

 

[BobRyan]

Well Bob, I believe JWs, Mormons, Baptist, SDAs will all tell you they accept the Bible's answers

They may - but in real life how good is their "bible avoidance" ?? is it as good as yours when your point has run aground?

I say your belief is wrong according to the Bible. You say your belief is right according to the Bible. So what is your suggestion for us all to come to an agreement on the answer the Bible gives?

You claim to be someone who has at least some value for "sola scriptura testing" -- at least on other threads you do that.

In the dark ages - all through the protestant reformation your argument above was precisely the argument made against the way that "sola scriptura" was being promoted as a judge as a test as a rule for testing established church doctrine.

Have our Catholic friends found a new 'convert' in the form of your adoption of their arguments against sola scriptura testing?

OR are you now proposing to allow yourself to actually "practice" the sola scriptura testing model in this example of Isaiah 66 and John 9???

 

[One Baptism]

Wonderful! So my point is solid. You believe you will be damned for eating pork. That's all I needed to show.

It doesn't matter that I understand Is66 is nothing to do with christians eating pork and being damned. The fact remains that YOU believe it, the SDA church believes it and the SDA church preaches it, even though they say nothing about it in their "official" statements, even though you would expect it to be there seeing how they believe it is part of salvation, so one would think that it would merit an official statement. Of course if they did that then they couldn't keep the mask on of what they really teach about salvation.

See how debating the members of the sect reveals the truth about what a sect actually preaches. You can't always rely upon "official" statements because as you can see, some are meant to deceive.

If any read my response carefully, I spoke of "learned" and "knowing", which involves the light one has received [John 3:19; James 4:17; Luke 12:47,48; Acts 17:30; 1 Peter 1:14, etc KJB], however, to be joined to the Seventh-day Adventist body, study is done upon the principles of the temple of the body, soul, spirit/heart/mind, for we believe and teach that Christ Jesus came to save us [redeem us] from all our sins [Matthew 1:21 KJB], not in them. Therefore, there are things we used to do that must be given up, in repentance and obedience to Christ and His Commandments. The sanctuary [Psalms 77:13 KJB] teaches this way, for coming back to God requires the sacrifice [Christ Jesus], but this is not the end, but the beginning. Entering into His service, requires the giving up of all the unclean that we walked in before, and this includes diet, dress, speech, thought, deed, etc. To knowingly and willingly turn back to the unclean, in the face of the sacrifice, is willingly to walk back out into outer darkness, whereas the light is shining in the sanctuary [John 8:12, 9:5, 12:46 KJB].

The material about body health and diet [including the unclean] is found in the "28 fundamental" beliefs, and it is found [primarily] in section 22

"... Christian Behavior [section] 22

We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with biblical principles in all aspects of personal and social life. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things that will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Gen. 7:2; Exod. 20:15; Lev. 11:1-47; Ps. 106:3; Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 10:5; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 2:4; 4:8; 1 Tim. 2:9, 10; Titus 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 John 2:6; 3 John 2.) ..." - https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Beliefs.pdf
​

Though, other sections also touch upon the subject, see also section 21, Stewardship, which includes this body which was bought with the blood of the Son of God, Jesus. It is also found in section 10, The Law of God, which includes the commandment against "murder" [Thou shalt not kill (murder)], and this would include murder of oneself through poor management of the body temple, and diet. It is also in section 15, Baptism, which includes the statements about the walking (living) in the newness of life, in other words, obedience to God, by/through loving faith. It is also found in several others, such as the section 13, The Remnant and its Mission, section 24, Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary [which also deals with the anti-typical Day of Atonement, and thus the investigative judgment], and in other sections throughout, which are interconnected.

The "28 Fundamentals" are a general statement of faith and practice, but not the creed of the Church.

Christ Jesus is the foundation, the fundamental, His word, the Bible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice:

"... I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. ..." - Early Writings (1882), 78.1 - Early Writings, Page 78 -- Ellen G. White Writings
​

There are many more such valuable quotes which could be given to emphasize this point.

You never needed to 'debate' at all. Simply ask me. I will tell you, even plainly.

If you want to study the matter out on diet [and abstaining from all unclean, abomination, etc] and drink [including the posion and intoxication of alcohol] [and in matters of sight and sound and even touch, the 5 pillars of the entrace to the Holy place in the sanctuary] we can, in another thread.

The difference, between us, seems not to be that there are forbidden things [diet, etc], but in the matter of the possibility of giving up one's position in the kingdom to another [what some would call losing one's salvation, and maybe even dealing with a misunderstanding of the "covenants" [the Ten Commandments are not the Old Covenant, texts upon request]. Yet, we [brother Bob and I, and even others] have shown on numerous occasions those scriptural example and doctrine of such, Psalms 77:13 [the sanctuary itself]; Exodus 32:33; Numbers 32:15; Deuteronomy 30:17-18; Ezekiel 3:20, 33:12,13,18; Matthew 5:13, 18:21-35; John 15:5-6; Romans 11:20-22; 1 Corinthians 7:15, 9:27; Hebrews 6:4-8, 12:25; James 1:14; 2 Peter 2:15-22; Revelation 3:5 KJB, etc. [specially in those numerous texts which demonstrate that sins "forgiven" ["covered"] are not yet "blotted out", and that the two terms are not synonymous but represent two totally differing phases of the plan of redemption, and also in living examples of persons, such as King Saul, etc and the error of the T.U.L.I.P. system of the calvinists. Calvin was a godly person, powerful reformer, and his institutes have some great stuff, but he also has some deadly stuff.

Seventh-day Adventists [sheep, wheat, wise] do not teach the erroneous [and deadly] OSAS, Irresistible grace, [false] predestination, [false] election [we teach true and biblical predestinaiton, and true and scriptural election], etc]

 

[One Baptism]

Since this thread is about [the now deceased] "Walter Martin", let me show a few errors he made about what he stated, on tv, [John Ankerberg "show"], in regards Hebrews 9:12, in the Koine Greek:

[John Ankerberg Show, with Walter Martin and William Johnsson [Review and Herald], time index 00:33:16-00:33:57] -

"... [George E. Canon reading Heb. 9:12 GNT into English] that Jesus Christ entered once into the holiest of all with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ...", and I [Walter Martin] asked the question, and 'Canon' did too, "Did this [event of Hebrews 9:12] take place, as [O.R.L.] Crosier said, as Mrs. [Ellen G.] White said, as the early Adventists taught? Did it take place in [AD] 1844, or did it take place at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31]?" [Walter Martin continues] The [Koine] Greek text says, at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31]. Once into the holiest of all - the Most Holy Place! ..."​

Text:

Hebrews 9:12 KJB - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:12 GNT TR - ουδε δι αιματος τραγων και μοσχων δια δε του ιδιου αιματος εισηλθεν εφαπαξ εις τα αγια αιωνιαν λυτρωσιν ευραμενος​

There is not a single extant mss, codici or papyrii, [etc] written in Koine Greek [or any language] that reads "αγια αγιων" [the Most Holy Place, see Hebrews 9:3 KJB, GNT TR] here in Hebrews 9:12, but plainly reads in all known extant mss, etc in any language, "τα αγια" [the sanctuary, ie first apartment, the holy place].

Latin [Jerome's Vulgate]: "in sancta",
German Luther Bibel 1545: "das Heilige",
Wycliffe: "the holy",
Stephanus 1550: "τα αγια",
Scrivener's 1894: "τα αγια",
Westcott's and Hort's 1881: "τα αγια".
UBS 5th: "τὰ ἅγια",
Novum Testamentum Graece 28th [Eberhard Nestle's / Kurt Aland's, etc]: "τὰ ἅγια"
without a single footnote in either 'scholars' work indicating any deviation
​

Consider:

Hebrews 8:2 KJB - A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews 8:2 GNT TR - των αγιων λειτουργος και της σκηνης της αληθινης ην επηξεν ο κυριος και ουκ ανθρωπος

Hebrews 9:1 KJB - Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:1 GNT TR - ειχεν μεν ουν και η πρωτη δικαιωματα λατρειας το τε αγιον κοσμικον

Hebrews 9:2 KJB - For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:2 GNT TR - σκηνη γαρ κατεσκευασθη η πρωτη εν η η τε λυχνια και η τραπεζα και η προθεσις των αρτων ητις λεγεται αγια

Hebrews 9:3 KJB - And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Hebrews 9:3 GNT TR - μετα δε το δευτερον καταπετασμα σκηνη η λεγομενη αγια αγιων

Hebrews 9:7 KJB - But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Hebrews 9:7 GNT TR - εις δε την δευτεραν απαξ του ενιαυτου μονος ο αρχιερευς ου χωρις αιματος ο προσφερει υπερ εαυτου και των του λαου αγνοηματων

Hebrews 9:8 KJB - The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Hebrews 9:8 GNT TR - τουτο δηλουντος του πνευματος του αγιου μηπω πεφανερωσθαι την των αγιων οδον ετι της πρωτης σκηνης εχουσης στασιν

Hebrews 13:11 KJB - For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

Hebrews 13:11 GNT TR - ων γαρ εισφερεται ζωων το αιμα περι αμαρτιας εις τα αγια δια του αρχιερεως τουτων τα σωματα κατακαιεται εξω της παρεμβολης

Revelation 15:5 KJB - And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

Revelation 15:5 GNT TR - και μετα ταυτα ειδον και ιδου ηνοιγη ο ναος της σκηνης του μαρτυριου εν τω ουρανω​

... to be continued ...

 

[One Baptism]

... continued ...

Seventh-day Adventists, including O.R.L. Crosier [Day Star Extra, February 7th, 1846, you may read in full here - The Sanctuary, Table of Contents -- Ellen G. White Writings ], and especially sister Ellen G. White, do/did not teach, and have never taught, that Hebrews 9:12 happened in AD 1844.

The event in Hebrews 9:12, took place in AD 31, at Christ's Ascension from the Mount of Olives, which parallels Psalms 24:1-10, 133:1-3; Revelation 5:5,6, etc. We do however teach, that the text of Daniel 7:13, and the events therein, took place in AD 1844, based upon the ending of the 2,300 prophecy of Daniel 8:13,14,26, 9:24-27, 11:31-33,40, 12:7-13; Revelation 9:13-15; 10:1-11, etc.

The Great Controversy 1888 & 1911, page 421 -

"... Thither the faith of Christ's disciples followed him as he ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, “which hope we have,” said Paul, “as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever.” “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” [Hebrews 6:19, 20; 9:12.]

For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed, there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of his solemn work,—to cleanse the sanctuary. ..." - The Great Controversy, Page 421 -- Ellen G. White Writings​

The Desire of Ages, page 166 -

"... The sacrificial service that had pointed to Christ passed away; but the eyes of men were turned to the true sacrifice for the sins of the world. The earthly priesthood ceased; but we look to Jesus, the minister of the new covenant, and “to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” “The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: ... but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, ... by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 12:24; 9:8-12. ..." - The Desire of Ages, Page 166 -- Ellen G. White Writings​

Walter Martin [and assoc., including John Ankerberg] was/and still are dead wrong, on both counts, and even the (so-called) LXX in Exodus 26:33 disagrees with him [them].

Exodus 26:33 KJB - And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

Exodus 26:33 (so-called) LXX - καὶ θήσεις τὸ καταπέτασμα ἐπὶ τοὺς στύλους καὶ εἰσοίσεις ἐκεῖ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου· καὶ διοριεῖ τὸ καταπέτασμα ὑμῖν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων.
​

The "holy place" [τοῦ ἁγίου] is separate [by a second "vail" [καταπέτασμα]] from and not the same as the "most holy" [τοῦ ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων].