Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Someone "else" would be someone from the vast group of people that were alive between Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 16.

How many do you think retained the sabbath by the time of the Israelite's slavery in Egypt?

The point was that God Himself pointed out the "very day" so no doubt about it remains. You asked "as opposed to what?" -- and I said the obvious "as opposed to people from all the humans that lived from Adam to Sinai"

 

[tall73]

How many Adventist pastors do you see on CF comparing notes daily with non-SDA POV? Inside one's own group it is easy not to pick up on all these little helpful details because the playing field here is very different from an evangelistic series or one-on-one Bible study. Here every detail that sets correct context is useful.

Pastors "know about" opposing views - which is very different from engaging in this sort of discussion on a regular basis.

Now? I don't know. In the years when I first go here some were. Some of them I knew offline.

And on CARM Adventist and non-Adventist pastors, and formers would all dialogue regularly at one time. Once they switched their software some time ago I haven't been back.

There were a few very good discussions (I had a fascinating discussion with one Adventist on the sanctuary that was over 100 pages in one night).

But on the whole, while there was a lot of doctrinal discussion, there was also a lot of name calling and personal attacks. CARM tends to allow more of those, especially against those they do not consider orthodox. So when they switched the software I didn't sign up again.

But there are also a lot of pastors investigating their own doctrine. I know some formers who run a website that directs them to such discussion. And some also stop by my website on the sanctuary.

 

[tall73]

The point was that God Himself pointed out the "very day" so no doubt about it remains. You asked "as opposed to what?" -- and I said the obvious "as opposed to people from all the humans that lived from Adam to Sinai"

I agreed God pointed out the very day. I am asking how many you think kept the Sabbath by the time Israel was in slavery.

 

[BobRyan]

I agreed God pointed out the very day. I am asking how many you think kept the Sabbath by the time Israel was in slavery.

I think all the saints were keeping Sabbath including Jacob and his family going into Egypt... just as I also think they knew they were not supposed to covet and not supposed to take God's name in vain.

 

[tall73]

It's not the "list of kings from Esau" that raises the question... it is the comment reminding the reader that those kings are before the kings of Israel.

Edomites are in 2 Samuel, 1 kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles

If the idea is that the Edomite kings in Canaan were unknown to live before the kings of Israel then a lot of OT books would have to have "not existed" at the time of the kings.

It lists the specific kings who reigned in Edom before there were kings in Israel. So that is the point. They would be more likely to know the names of the kings after there were kings in Israel, and this listed the ones before.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Books of Moses written during the times of the kings of Israel - not stated in scripture - or supported by it.
Genesis written during the time of kings of Israel rather than written by Moses and kept in the ark - not supported by scripture.

So since those two options can't be supported by scripture - I point out that the two solutions are in the form of
1. late editing as you pointed out in the case of Deut 34 for the death of Moses
2. Genesis written before all other books of the Bible - which is the only way to explain Moses' comment that the kings of Canaan and Edom were there before the Kings of Israel - as if that might be news to the reader.

So you posited a second hand editing the text in at least two places (Deut, and Genesis) as a way to escape that for what reason?

because I prefer to avoid things not supported by the Bible

 

[BobRyan]

It lists the specific kings who reigned in Edom before there were kings in Israel. So that is the point. They would be more likely to know the names of the kings after there were kings in Israel, and this listed the ones before.

1. Knowing more details about what happens at an earlier date - much more likely with an author living at that earlier date - than at a later date.

2. This whole thing does not come up because Moses and his readers could not possibly have known about a list of Edomite kings at the time of Sinai... rather it came up by you for this one point below. The passing reference that kings in Edom and Canaan lived before the Kings of Israel existed.

Read both parts of the sentence:

Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom,
before any king reigned over the Israelites.

My statement is that - that detail would only have been news for someone who had no other book of the Bible in the OT from Moses or Judges or Kings or Samuel or Chronicles etc. That puts Genesis first.

 

[BobRyan]

It lists the specific kings who reigned in Edom before there were kings in Israel. So that is the point. They would be more likely to know the names of the kings after there were kings in Israel, and this listed the ones before.

1. "More likely to know" - are you suggesting that the Bible is only about what they were "likely to know"?
2. How is it that they are more likely to to know what happened 1000 years earlier (kings of Israel) than what happened a mere 500 years earlier (Moses writing)??

And how is it that one even needs to get into these sort of weeds - to address the fact that Exodus 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 both show the Sabbath in Eden?

 

[tall73]

Genesis written before all other books of the Bible - which is the only way to explain Moses' comment that the kings of Canaan and Edom were there before the Kings of Israel - as if that might be news to the reader.

I guess you didn't notice this then. Did you look anything up when I said to show where else it was said?

It looks like it was of interest to the reader in a clearly later time.

1Ch 1:43 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the people of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, the name of his city being Dinhabah.
1Ch 1:44 Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:45 Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:46 Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, reigned in his place, the name of his city being Avith.
1Ch 1:47 Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:48 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:49 Shaul died, and Baal-hanan, the son of Achbor, reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:50 Baal-hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place, the name of his city being Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1Ch 1:51 And Hadad died. The chiefs of Edom were: chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth,
1Ch 1:52 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon,
1Ch 1:53 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar,
1Ch 1:54 Magdiel, and Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom.

 

[tall73]

because I prefer to avoid things not supported by the Bible

Which is why you said Moses wrote it in the desert of Midian and acknowledged you got it from Ellen White?

 

[tall73]

2. This whole thing does not come up because Moses and his readers could not possibly have known about a list of Edomite kings at the time of Sinai... rather it came up by you for this one point below. The passing reference that kings in Edom and Canaan lived before the Kings of Israel existed.

So you think they already knew all the history recorded in Genesis?
Frankly at this point I can't understand what you are saying.

It came up because it is referring to a time before kings reigned in Israel in the past tense.

It was apparently written for history.

And it was repeated in I Chronicles. Some biblical history is repeated. And people still have an interest in it even in later times.

But you still haven't explained why it was written from the perspective of someone who is looking back to a time before there were kings in Israel.

My statement is that - that detail would only have been news for someone who had no other book of the Bible in the OT from Moses or Judges or Kings or Samuel or Chronicles etc. That puts Genesis first.

Your statement missed I Chronicles then.

Nor is there any reason to think everyone living at that time would innately know history of specific Edomite kings.

 

[tall73]

1. "More likely to know" - are you suggesting that the Bible is only about what they were "likely to know"?

No, I was responding to your question about what readers would know in the time of the kings.

And there is no reason to think they would have an innate knowledge of the list of Edomite kings. So they were listed. And they were listed in I Chronicles as well.

And of course there is no issue with I Chronicles speaking about a time before Israelite kings. Because they are speaking from a time when there now are and relating history--just as Genesis appears to be doing, with the same phrasing.

 

[tall73]

And how is it that one even needs to get into these sort of weeds - to address the fact that Exodus 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 both show the Sabbath in Eden?

Probably because you "inferred" Moses wrote the book of Genesis and don't want to address why Genesis refers to kings reigning in Israel in the past tense.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess you didn't notice this then. Did you look anything up when I said to show where else it was said?

It looks like it was of interest to the reader in a clearly later time.

1Ch 1:43 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the people of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, the name of his city being Dinhabah.
1Ch 1:44 Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:45 Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:46 Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, reigned in his place, the name of his city being Avith.
1Ch 1:47 Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:48 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:49 Shaul died, and Baal-hanan, the son of Achbor, reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:50 Baal-hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place, the name of his city being Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1Ch 1:51 And Hadad died. The chiefs of Edom were: chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth,
1Ch 1:52 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon,
1Ch 1:53 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar,
1Ch 1:54 Magdiel, and Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom.

The writer gives a list. One assumes scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16 since God says it is - and that God new this before the time of 1 Chron 1.

But it is not "the list of kings" of Edom that brings this conversation about Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 up in the first place.

Rather it is the Genesis statement that the kings of Canaan and Edom were there before the Kings of Israel. A point addressed by my post

BobRyan said: ↑
Genesis written before all other books of the Bible - which is the only way to explain Moses' comment that the kings of Canaan and Edom were there before the Kings of Israel - as if that might be news to the reader.

Your argument is that the exact list of names of the kings (and just kings of Edom - not Canaan) exists as a list in 1 Chron 1 - but that cannot be used to imagine that nobody knew kings of Edom existed at the time of Moses - especially when it appears that the writer of Chronicles is copying from Genesis, a book that was already in the ark of the covenant by that time.

I guess I don't see how this helps your argument.

 

[BobRyan]

No, I was responding to your question about what readers would know in the time of the kings.

My claim is that if they had the books of Moses, of Judges, of Joshuah, of Samuel etc - they would know that Esau and the kings of Edom were in Edom before Israel got there from Egypt.

And there is no reason to think they would have an innate knowledge of the list of Edomite kings. So they were listed.

They had that list from Genesis by then.

And of course there is no issue with I Chronicles speaking about a time before Israelite kings. Because they are speaking from a time when there now are and relating history--just as Genesis appears to be doing, with the same phrasing.

"with the same phrasing" -- more inference I assume to re-invent that history. My point is that adding the statement that the fact that Edomite kings at the time of Jacob or of Moses - were "Before the kings of Israel" is not a fact that was news to anyone other than those who lived at a time where Genesis was the only book of the Bible that they had.

So 1 Chron 1 appears to be the short version for Moses' chronology -- not the other way around.

The writer of Chronicles also records details already in Samuel and Kings. Written by Ezra - last half of 5th century B.C. which is about 1400 years before the Edomite kings. Hard to conceive of a revisionist history that would put thte book of Genesis in the Ark of the Covenant more recently than the 5th century B.C.

 

[tall73]

The writer gives a list. One assumes scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16 since God says it is - and that God new this before the time of 1 Chron 1.

Agreed so far.

But it is not "the list of kings" of Edom that brings this conversation about Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 up in the first place.

Rather it is the Genesis statement that the kings of Canaan and Edom were there before the Kings of Israel. A point addressed by my post

There you lost me.

The statement is looking back from the time when there were kings in Israel.

And you already noted that the Canaanites in the land had to be a second hand edit--but not because that is demanded by the text. Just because you want it to be by Moses.

Your argument is that the exact list of names of the kings (and just kings of Edom - not Canaan) exists as a list in 1 Chron 1 - but that cannot be used to imagine that nobody knew kings of Edom existed at the time of Moses -

Again, I don't even know what that means. I don't assume that a large population knew all the names of the kings of Edom at any stage in history.

I do think that both books recorded this to list and inform them.

And I think since both books are written from the perspective of someone commenting after the time when kings began to reign in Israel.

especially when it appears that the writer of Chronicles is copying from Genesis, a book that was already in the ark of the covenant by that time.

The writer of Chronicles may be quoting. But that does not change what Genesis said. It referred to the time before a king reigned in Israel, meaning that it was written when they had begun reigning.

Perhaps I missed a post. Can you post the Scripture saying Genesis was in the ark?

I guess I don't see how this helps your argument.

I can't even follow your argument. You think Moses wrote about kings that had not reigned yet in the past tense, for unknown reasons.

And you think another note had to be copied in, but only because it would otherwise disagree with Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

I added the quotes on a thread recently

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

It is hard to know exactly what is meant.

Yes, there were two tables. Yes, there were four and six. I am not sure if they are saying the four correspond to one table or not.

In any case, I am not aware of any Scripture which assigns four commands to one table.

 

[tall73]

My claim is that if they had the books of Moses, of Judges, of Joshuah, of Samuel etc - they would know that Esau and the kings of Edom were in Edom before Israel got there from Egypt.

It is a listing of the specific kings. But it also referenced a time before any king reigned in Israel--past tense.

They had that list from Genesis by then.

By the time before Chronicles? Quite likely. In the time of Moses? Not sure why you would say that due to the kings of Israel being referred to in the past tense, and the canaanites being referred to as in the land at the time of the narrative (but not at the time of the writer).

"with the same phrasing" -- more inference I assume to re-invent .

That is not inference. The phrasing of that sentence is the same in both.

My point is that adding the statement that the fact that Edomite kings at the time of Jacob or of Moses - were "Before the kings of Israel" is not a fact that was news to anyone other than those who lived at a time where Genesis was the only book of the Bible that they had.

It would certainly be odd news when it listed something that had not happened yet as a past event, rather than a future prediction.

But it makes great sense if it was recording something that happened in the past tense because it was written after kings reigned in Israel.

And you changed the quote to try to make it work.

Before any kings REIGNED (past tense) in Israel.

So 1 Chron 1 appears to be the short version for Moses' chronology -- not the other way around.

Yes, quite likely. However, not the point. Both were written after kings in Israel reigned, past tense.

The writer of Chronicles also records details already in Samuel and Kings

Agreed.

 

[tall73]

I think all the saints were keeping Sabbath including Jacob and his family going into Egypt... just as I also think they knew they were not supposed to covet and not supposed to take God's name in vain.

So any idea what percentage of the world that was?

 

[BobRyan]

Probably because you "inferred" Moses wrote the book of Genesis

Along with Christ.

you need to start a "Moses did not write Genesis" thread if you really think this is the issue we are having.