The great apostasy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

 

Okay. Fairly stated. I will be forthcoming with you. I haven''t read Ehrman myself and have no intention to do so. From what I have gathered, if he is correct, it isn't a question of reformation vs. restoration, but of God vs. no God. Some Mormons think Ehrman helps their cause. I dunno. I am Catholic. No apostasy. No reformation. No restoration. But I can't go atheist. I could lose my faith, but I would still need to be taught how to disbelieve in God. Anyway. thanks for you reply. I appreciate your restraint. I didn't hold much back myself.

Take care,

Rory

 

Ehrman came from an infallible scripture background (traditional Evangelical), I believe.  In his academic studies he found that scripture wasn't infallible after all.  This led to him to doubt and then jettisoning faith completely****.  (I am sure I have simplified it, but it seems the basics of what happened; if someone has more info, I welcome it)

But it needn't be such a black and white choice, LDS for example accept both fallibility and that the scriptures are God communicating with man and man attempting to tell the story of that relationship and what God wants for us.

That is why we can accept his research demonstrating scripture has been altered over the centuries without having to accept his personal conclusion this means they are not truly inspired revelation.

****"In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman recounts becoming a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager. He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Edited December 11, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It wasn't the main types of Judaism of the era though (the two types of Phariseism, Essenes, Saduccees, platonist, etc.) It likely borrowed elements of each including probably some we don't have record of. So it was it's own thing that then itself both affected these other strains but evolved itself.

Agreed

 

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's a problem there being many Christianities. After all truth be told is there just one Mormonism? Even acknowledging we share a view of authority there's a big difference from McConkie Mormons, FARMS like apologists who privilege science, liberal Mormons like BCC and so forth.

Agreed as well. I don't think it's really a problem, it's just different from the old narrative of restoring the "original church" that was mainly uniform until apostasy crept in.

[Gray]

Just now, Calm said:

Ehrman came from an infallible scripture foundation (traditional Evangelical), I believe.  In his academic studies he found that scripture wasn't infallible after all.  This led to him to doubt and then jettisoning faith completely.  (I am sure I have simplified it, but it seems the basics of what happened; if someone has more info, I welcome it)

But it needn't be such a black and white choice, LDS for example accept both fallibility and that the scriptures are God communicating with man and man attempting to tell the story of that relationship and what God wants for us.

That is why we can accept his research demonstrating scripture has been altered over the centuries without having to accept his personal conclusion this means they are not truly inspired revelation.

Ehrman is pretty mainstream, and he'll outright say that none of his research leads to any necessary theological conclusions. Dale B. Martin refers to Ehrman a lot, and he's Episcopalian. Martin likes to say a historical reading of the NT is not sufficient to establish Christian orthodoxy, but historical interpretation is not the only way to read the Bible.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Kind of. If you believe the records are at all accurate in recording what he said it seems he was building a personal cult (in the anthropological sense). So many of his statements are about people following him personally.

Sure. Not saying Jesus was in line with every faction, but he was thoroughly Jewish. A lot of people think Jesus' primary objective was to build up a franchise movement of peaceful resistance against the Roman occupiers - which is a kind of Messianic mission in and of itself.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Sure. Not saying Jesus was in line with every faction, but he was thoroughly Jewish. A lot of people think Jesus' primary objective was to build up a franchise movement of peaceful resistance against the Roman occupiers - which is a kind of Messianic mission in and of itself.

I think he was more interested in being the prophesied messiah, saving a few souls before the apostasy, and fulfilling the atonement. But then I am biased by the witness of the Holy Ghost.  

[Atheist Mormon]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 

Okay. Fairly stated. I will be forthcoming with you. I haven''t read Ehrman myself and have no intention to do so. From what I have gathered, if he is correct, it isn't a question of reformation vs. restoration, but of God vs. no God. Some Mormons think Ehrman helps their cause. I dunno. I am Catholic. No apostasy. No reformation. No restoration. But I can't go atheist. I could lose my faith, but I would still need to be taught how to disbelieve in God. Anyway. thanks for you reply. I appreciate your restraint. I didn't hold much back myself.

Take care,

Rory

 

Exactly Rory! I have no good news for your from this end. Joseph was 100% right to condemn Catholic Church then. Now that we are fallen to peaceful period of Humanity's Christian history, globally there's a huge effort to sweep the atrocities committed under the rug. What do you think the biggest reason is for Latin America's being so poor? We Europeans hauled away thousands tons of gold to the coffers of Spain's Castille & Aragon Treasury, I guarantee you the gold is still there, tainted by millions of native American blood, obviously Pope was very willing complicit in the process. i don't think Joseph knew nearly as much as I do know but it was enough for him to revolt in his own way. I don't want to discourage or make you feel bad but the story of Christianity is all there....What I can suggest is read from Historian's perspective.......

Another grossly miscalculated tidbit of the history of Catholicism played right in their backyard and the Pope delivered Byzantium (where I was born) to the Moslems (Ottomans) by refusing to help them, it was ironic that 5thousand brave men & Women fought over a mont against 100 thousand invaders over a month.....The story of my ancestors is full of this type of dreadful massacres......And when somebody talks about the Brutality of Brigham Young or Mountain Meadow Massacres I suggest first turn their heads back where they came from and learn from History........

Edited December 11, 2017 by Atheist Mormon

[Gray]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think he was more interested in being the prophesied messiah, saving a few souls before the apostasy, and fulfilling the atonement. But then I am biased by the witness of the Holy Ghost.  

That's a perfectly legitimate theological reading. It's just not a historical reading.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Gray

[Spammer]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Another grossly miscalculated tidbit of the history of Catholicism played right in their backyard and the Pope delivered Byzantium (where I was born) to the Moslems (Ottomans) by refusing to help them, it was ironic that 5thousand brave men & Women fought over a mont against 100 thousand invaders over a month....

I think you're referring to the 4th Crusade, called by Pope Innocent III to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims? If so, the crusaders and their Venetian partners decided unilaterally to divert from Jerusalem and sack Constantinople (Byzantium). The Pope did not authorize the sack and issued a blistering critique of the crusaders' action, although he eventually accepted the new reality. 

Regardless, the examples you cite of the dark side of Catholicism (the sack of Byzantium, theft of native gold by Spaniard conquistadores and churchmen, etc) apply only to Roman Catholicism, the church of the popes of Rome, not to the the Catholic Tradition writ large, which includes churches in that tradition who were formerly in communion with Rome (and who broke communion with the popes long before any pope's 'willing complicity' in the sins you mentioned), namely the Greek Christians of Byzantium (the Orthodox Church), Egypt's Copts, and the Church of the East. Catholicism is global and diverse, of which the church of the popes of Rome is only a part (albeit the largest part). When discussing the sins of Catholicism and 'Humanity's Christian history' as you're doing, it's better and more accurate to clarify that what you're really doing is discussing only the sins of 'Roman' Catholicism and 'Western Christian history', the more narrow history of the Latin wing of the historical Catholic Church. 

[Edit to add: I think it's also important to distinguish between a pope's mandate or call to action and the actions of those responding to the pope's call. Typically, the popes are blamed for the bad actions of Roman Catholics who go their own way after responding to the call. The 4th Crusade is one example. The actions of Peter the Hermit and the 'People's Crusade' during the First Crusade is another.  Even so, the actions of a minority of popes (the rotten apples) in no way impugns the good popes, who are the majority. Papal actions also have no bearing on whether the Church's holy orders are valid, whether the Church preserves the Apostolic teaching, or whether Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.  The Apostolic Tradition, Holy Scripture and what happens at Mass/Divine Liturgy comprises Catholicism, not the actions of sinful popes, bishops, priests and laymen. It's no different for Mormonism and the sins of LDS prophets, apostles, bishops and laymen. If an LDS prophet falls, no matter how egregious the sin or apostasy (hypothetically, let's suppose BY really did order the MMM and then lied to cover it up), that has no bearing on the authority of the other FP members or the 12, or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether the priesthood and saving ordinances were restored. It's no different in Roman Catholicism as regards the bad popes].

Edited December 11, 2017 by Spammer

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's a perfectly legitimate theological reading. It's just not a historical reading.

I am not so sure. There are only four real documents that cover the life of Christ. You can argue it was all altered later or not believe it but it is the basic reading.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Agreed as well. I don't think it's really a problem, it's just different from the old narrative of restoring the "original church" that was mainly uniform until apostasy crept in.

I think most discussions even in the mid-20th century of the "original church" focused on a few structural items. Primarily priesthood authority and structure. I tend to agree there even if I might suspect the structure was a little more fluid than many do. Much as I think the Church today, which structurally the same as in the 1840's in many ways, is also different in key ways. It's all about how much similarity one needs in structure.

Then I think following the Book of Mormon we can talk about the secondary issue of the fulness of the gospel. While I think platonism gets a bit too unfair a rap in all this, I do think some key doctrinal changes undermined calling the Church the Church. Even if early Christianity might well have been somewhat like Nauvoo Mormonism where an inner circle had more taught than the average Christian convert.

Edited December 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure. There are only four real documents that cover the life of Christ. You can argue it was all altered later or not believe it but it is the basic reading.

The issue is that the four canonical gospels (and there are others as well) are not histories. They're theological documents. History needs to be reconstructed from them. You don't get it with a face value reading.

[snowflake]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:21 AM, Calm said:

It says the pretty much same thing as the current one.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

"The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete."

"The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruc- tion of the Church was complete."

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

When I read through the NT I don't find any of the rituals recorded or anyone specifically being blessed to pass on the priesthoods, it is all very vague.

Luke 9:1-2

1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Nothing here about priesthood.

And here in Hebrews 5

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Again here Christ is our high priest forever, nobody else just Jesus.

Again Mark 3

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

He ordained them at the beginning of his ministry so they could be with him and preach. Nothing about passing on priesthood.

Where in the NT are the specific priesthood blessings found?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The issue is that the four canonical gospels (and there are others as well) are not histories. They're theological documents. History needs to be reconstructed from them. You don't get it with a face value reading.

I have to disagree a little. While they have theological value they are more a recitation. Most of the theology is left out. They appear to have been written to edify believers and do not instruct. They are more a notable sayings and notable doings of Jesus. They are not intended to convert and are for those who are already converted.

[RevTestament]

On 12/10/2017 at 10:06 AM, Spammer said:

Whether the Bible teaches a Christ begotten in time or before all ages/time is a matter of interpretation. Catholics cite the very same verse you cited in support of Catholic teaching about Christ's eternal generation before all ages. 

What's bad about the former view is that it divides the divine being into two, erasing God's infinity and therefore his divinity. But I belong to the Catholic Tradition, the same tradition that originally compiled the New Testament, so naturally that's that's the interpretation I accept.

Whether that divides the divine being into two is also a matter of interpretation Spammer. I certainly do not see it that way, and I do believe Christ was literally begotten in time before "the beginning" of Genesis. If the Eastern Orthodox Church had been able to stick more to its original roots rather than being overwhelmed by the theology of the later state church, I would be more sympathetic to it. I still like the Eastern Orthodox, although I think it went way overboard on the matter of the two natures. That whole debate came out of Greek philosophy in my estimation, and caused an unnecessary split with Nestor. The whole debate over hyperstatic union and what not is just in my view an unnecessary academic exercise in futility - sorry to be so blunt about it - but after wading through pages and pages of the debate of the time on the subject, I decided that it just wasn't of God. God is just not concerned about it anywhere in scripture. It was a new trinitarian debate. It just seemed an irrelevant exercise in futility which the Eastern Church got hung up on - I know you don't see it that way, but that was my take on it. 

On 12/10/2017 at 11:16 AM, Spammer said:

Thank you for sharing that. Brings back some good memories discussing the preexistence.. I was raised LDS, fifth generation on both sides. Temple, mission, eternal marriage, etc. I crossed the Tiber nearly a decade ago. It'll be ten years next Easter Vigil. 

May I be so bold as to inquire what caused you to leave? Did you ever feel the Spirit while in the LDS Church? Do I understand correctly that at first you became Roman Catholic? 

[snowflake]

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 7:20 PM, bluebell said:

Well yes I agree, that sentence above is nonsense.

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

I don't believe the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are mentioned by name because I don't believe the bible is the complete (and perfect) word of God.

By the way, did you ever answer my question about whether or not you believe that you are a part of the House of Israel? I'm not even sure this was the thread I asked it on, and I easily could have missed the answer so sorry if i did.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

Ah, ah... no adding to the text if you won't let us. Nothing about Jesus being the "final High Priest" is in the NT either. The dichotomy between the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood was present in the OT, and as you point out in the NT as well. What kind of priest was Moses? How about Jethro? Do you make Moses a levitical priest or one of the sons of Aaron? Just because the scriptures do not talk much about the ancient priesthood doesn't mean it wasn't there. When examined closely, one finds it was.

Your conclusions about Jesus being the last High Priest are not scriptural either. From Hebrews 5:

1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

So, here we see there is no distinction about the office of High Priest ending. We also see that Aaron was a High Priest. His "sons" were given the Aaronic or levitical priesthood, but the office of High Priest continued. You will note that Moses also had chosen 70 elders to help lead Israel. Jesus too chose "other seventy." Jesus chose apostles, and when they died more were chosen to take their place. Where did Jesus say to stop the practice? Why did the apostles choose other apostles such as Paul, Barnabus  and Matthias to replace those such as Judas? Should I refuse to believe Paul because he claims to have been an apostle? This was after Jesus' ascension. The NT simply does not agree with your contention that the priesthood stopped when Jesus left, or that everyone who simply believes in Jesus becomes a member of this priesthood. May I suggest you research who showed up at Nicea to vote on it? Do you accept the Nicean Creed? If so, why? Do you think the bishops, priests and deacons which showed up were apostates and just made up their offices?

 

[snowflake]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are mentioned by name because I don't believe the bible is the complete (and perfect) word of God.

Fair enough, Do you believe the priesthood ordinances, sacrifices and duties in the OT are accurate? Interesting that the priesthoods and their blessings/ordinations/procedures are absent in NT as well as the BOM.

I find it confusing when the LDS claim a "restoration" when the original is absent from the NT and the BOM. Something has to be there first, before it can be lost and then restored.

 

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

By the way, did you ever answer my question about whether or not you believe that you are a part of the House of Israel? I'm not even sure this was the thread I asked it on, and I easily could have missed the answer so sorry if i did.

No worries, I get into many threads too and lose track also. The Christians are grafted into the house of Israel. That being said I do not believe that the church has replaced the Jews as his chosen people (sometimes called replacement theology). The promises of the OT will be fulfilled with the Jewish people and the country of Israel IMO.

[Jane_Doe]

@snowflake, when do YOU believe the great apostasy happened, since you are not Catholic or Orthodox?

[snowflake]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@snowflake, when do YOU believe the great apostasy happened, since you are not Catholic or Orthodox?

I don't think there was a great apostasy by the LDS standard (loss of Priesthood authority). There is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that the Priesthood as the Mormons practice was ever practiced in the NT church. 

I believe that the Nicene Creed (gasp.......) is scripturally accurate and is an excellent standard for defining the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If you apply the Nicene creed to the God of the BOM it is quite accurate to.

This is from the prayer foundation.

http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have to disagree a little. While they have theological value they are more a recitation. Most of the theology is left out. They appear to have been written to edify believers and do not instruct. They are more a notable sayings and notable doings of Jesus. They are not intended to convert and are for those who are already converted.

The gospels are full of theology - and the theology is slightly different in each of them. What makes you think they're not intended to convert?

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I don't think there was a great apostasy by the LDS standard (loss of Priesthood authority). There is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that the Priesthood as the Mormons practice was ever practiced in the NT church. 

I'm not talking the LDS view of apostasy, I'm talking your own view.  The churches which all claim apostolic succession also believe in an ordained priesthood.  You do not, hence logically from your beliefs all apostolic Churches and historic Christianity as a whole was in apostasy.    Hence, my question: when do YOU believe this great apostasy happened?

 

 

[snowflake]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So, here we see there is no distinction about the office of High Priest ending.

Yes we do, Hebrews 8: Notice that Jesus is to be the new High priest.

⁶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

⁷ For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

⁸ For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

⁹ Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

¹² For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

¹³ In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

Speaking just for myself I think Melchezedek Priesthood is a neologism unique to Mormonism as is the way we've tended to reify priesthood which I think tends to create certain theological problems. A useful sermon by Joseph Smith on this is the October 5, 1840 one. By and large I take Joseph to be saying that "priesthood" really reduces down to the individuals designated by that priesthood rather than priesthood as something independent of them. I take Elder Oaks' recent talk on priesthood to effectively be saying the same thing. Ultimately we all enter into the order of the priesthood which I take to be what Alma 13 talks of. That's done by the ordinances of the temple. I take Peter to be alluding to that. 

It's worth noting that the bit about "royal priesthood" in Peter should be read in light of Ps 110 but also the Dead Sea Scrolls. 11QMelch has Melchezedek as a heavenly eschatological figure but tied to a covenant. That's the way Mormons tend to read it, although how we see the Abrahamic covenant is different from our other Christian friends. For us it's fully wrapped up in the temple. For us the entering into the Holy of Holies such as PS 110 with its kingship imagery does isn't just done by Melchezedek, Christ, or Michael or a similar angel. Rather it's a step each of us take as each of us takes up the robes of priesthood and king/queenship. So we take the emulation of Christ to a different level. So I'd argue that priesthood shouldn't be taken as separate from being made priests or priestesses in the holy order. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Yes we do, Hebrews 8: Notice that Jesus is to be the new High priest.

⁶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

⁷ For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

⁸ For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

⁹ Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

¹² For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

¹³ In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

I don't see anything in there about being the last High Priest nor even the last covenant.

Who did Jesus make that covenant with? Did God send Him to the Gentile nations?

If not, what is this covenant:

Isaiah 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

7 For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

What is "their land" where God said He would make an everlasting covenant with them?