I think posts # 1078 and post # 1079 linked, debunks the myth of the "argument of silence" that Gods' law was not known by God's people (see Genesis 26:5) prior to Exodus 16 to Exodus 20. As shown through the scriptures already, everyone of God's 10 commandments can be listed and shown prior to Exodus 16 and Exodus 20. So to state there was no law (and you cannot separate Gods' Sabbath law from the 10 commandments as it is one of the 10) prior to Exodus 16 or Exodus 20 is simply not biblical.
I stated we see no human observance of Sabbath prior to Exodus 16. And your post backed that up. The rest we certainly see. So you perhaps highlighted the big exception without realizing.
We will be addressing Genesis 2 and Mark, as indicated.
We need to keep in mind the context of what Paul is saying here in Romans 2. Paul is not stating that Gentiles are righteous because they do by nature some things in the law. He is simply stating that by doing what is in the law from the heart even if we do not know what is in the law gentiles are doing the right thing.
The context here of course is that it is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the doers of the law that shall be justified. Of course we are talking about God's 10 commandments here as it is through the law that Paul states we have a knowledge of what sin is in Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7.
So the point of these scripture in Romans 2 and Romans 3 is to show that none are righteous before God no not one therefore we can only be justified through God's forgiveness and faith *Romans 3:9-23
You might want to discuss with Bob on the point as he sees those who have the law written on the heart in Romans 2 to be saved under the new covenant (see the discussion earlier).
However, we agree that the overall point of 1:18-3:20 is that all alike are under sin and in need of righteousness that comes apart from law as outlined beginning in 3:21.
But you didn't address Romans 5. Some didn't have the law or commands to transgress, but still sinned.
Yet it was possible to understand God's attributes through what He made, and some by nature recognized the law.
So to claim we are following God according to the scriptures while breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken is not saving faith but the faith of devils who believe but do not follow *James 2:17-20; 26.
That is the issue under consideration, whether the Sabbath is required.
And the problem you state cuts both ways, as I well know, having been on both sides of the question.
If it is required then to refuse it is to refuse God's command.
But if it is not required then asking people to do so is also against God's will. Physical circumcision is an example of something clearly commanded by God. It was required of Abraham's offspring, and you say we are all that. But in the new covenant physical circumcision was not required.
As I mentioned I am reviewing the question. If you wish to consider me as similar to a demon, I can just discuss with BobRyan.
Either way we will all stand before the judgment seat.
LGW: FIRST TABLE:
Tall: Please show from Scripture where you get the notion that the first table contained four commandments.
I do not need to. The tables were in reference to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 of the two great commandments of love to God and man. The first four commandments are our duty of Love to God and the second six are our duty of love to our fellow man. On these two commandments of love hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:36-40)
You don't need to, but then why claim what is on each table when it is not stated?
Of course, it is stated, just by Ellen White:
A Vision
On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth (the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all;
In
Exodus 16, prior to the promulgation of the Decalogue and the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant, Israel obeyed the Sabbath law by resting “on the seventh day” (Exod. 16:30). God indicated in this chapter that some Israelites, however, were not keeping the Sabbath commandment meaning that the Sabbath was being kept prior to Exodus 16 with these words: “How long do you [plural] refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions [or ‘laws’; Heb.
torah]?
The context shows why this was stated. They multiple times refused to obey his commandments and instructions.
See, the LORD has given you the sabbath . . .” (Exod. 16:28-29). That this is not a new, unknown institution seems to be indicated by the words of
Exodus 16:23, “This is what the LORD meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD.” The NASB is the only major English translation that translates the Hebrew
dabar as “meant.” It is normally translated at this point as “said” or “commanded.” Taking it as “meant” does not necessarily rule out that God had said or commanded these very words (or something close to them) at some point prior to the events narrated in
Exodus 16. It is clear that God had previously spoken and instituted a Sabbath for which ancient Israel was accountable prior to the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant.
You seemed to have moved the goalposts at the end. I already agreed He told them before Exodus 19. It was in Exodus 16. And Moses had to explain it ,etc.
If they did not know what sin was there would have been no need of sin offerings. Yet here we also see in Genesis 22:2-7 that it was a regular practice for Abraham and his family to offer burnt offerings for sin.
You must have missed that I agreed they knew what sin was, but did not have the written law. And I agreed they had knowledge of 9 commandments. However, what you didn't demonstrate was people keeping the Sabbath prior to Ex. 16
Tall: Did Abraham keep the passover?
Of course not. It was a different covenant given to the seed of Abraham.
Yes, it was. And we are all seed of Abraham. But even there physical circumcision was required, and now it is not.
You need to keep in mind here that God's people were slaves in Egypt for 400 years. During this time it would have been quite possible over many generations that their habits and their slavery would have made it difficult if not impossible for them to practice God's laws therefore the necessity to leave Egypt and for God to make known all His laws again including the introduction of a new covenant with more written laws in the Torah outlining God's plan of salvation for all mankind.
I not only need to keep it in mind, but I mentioned in my post that you could posit that they were in slavery for 400 years and it would need to be re-communicated to them. However, you still have the problem of a month and a half before Ex. 16.
There is no indication anywhere in Exodus 16 that God had not given His people prior to Exodus His laws. It fact it is God Himself that states that He had given His people both his Sabbath and laws in Mark 2:27; Genesis 2:1-3 and Genesis 26:5 and to state otherwise would be to deny the very Words of God.
As noted numerous times we will be addressing Genesis 2 and Mark 2 in turn.
Genesis 26 does not state the content of the decrees. And the content of the decrees is what is at issue.
As posted earlier it is an argument of silence your trying to make here when there is no silence on this matter.
There is silence in regards to a text describing humans keeping the Sabbath before Ex. 16. But we have more texts to discuss.
