Creation Sabbath Origin

[SabbathBlessings]

Sure, Genesis 1. All before law.

Gen 1:1 shows that God preexists creating the heavens and the earth (lit. skies and ground). So where was he? Is that place a physical place or a spiritual place?

v2 shows the need for Christ. v3 foreshadows Christ. You don't even need to go to the fall to establish the need for Christ.

Again, your commentary is not matching the scriptures.

Where there is no transgression, there is no sin. Romans 4:15. Sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 and the devil sinned from the beginning. 1 John 3:8, which means the law was from the beginning.

 

[DamianWarS]

Again, your commentary is not matching the scriptures.

How so? Is not light spoken into darkness? Surely you see the foreshadow. Do you want biblical approval? 2 Cor 4:6

 

[SabbathBlessings]

How so? Is not light spoken into darkness? Surely you see the foreshadow. Do you want biblical approval? 2 Cor 4:6

How are you relating Cor 2:4:6 and Genesis 1 to we don’t have to follow God’s moral law which God personally wrote with His own finger Exodus 31:18 and spoke with His own voice Exodus 20 and Jesus came to magnify. Isaiah 42:21

 

[DamianWarS]

How are you relating Cor 2:4:6 and Genesis 1 into we don’t have to follow God’s moral law? Or that it means something that what personally wrote with His own finger Exodus 31:18 and spoke with His own voice Exodus 20, that Jesus came to magnify. Isaiah 42:21

You are warping my words. It establishes our need for light and subsequent sending of the light without need of law. Darkness needs light simply because it is dark. God sends the light first then he organises (separates) the light. But we don't need to be organised first through law to receive the light.

The law is based on constructs (as evident through what creation reveals) so it is possible to receive Christ without receiving the law. Christ himself tells us he is the way truth and life. That is not a conditional statement of law first then Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You are warping my words. It establishes our need for light and subsequent sending of the light without need of law. Darkness needs light simply because it is dark. God sends the light first then he organises (separates) the light. But we don't need to be organised first through law to receive the light.

Not according to the scripture:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

God is light and He didn’t need to create the sun to have light. Psalms 84:11, 1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 3:4. Darkness at creation does not mean sin, it is night. God separated night from day, which is what we have today. At creation there was no sin so dark was just night and day was just day.

God’s light is also symbolic for His Word.

God’s righteous commandments on how we are to live is the light. Psalms 119:172 as God’s Word is a lamp to our feet so when know how to live in His light and off the path from scripture/God’s law there is no light.

This is the path that takes us to God’s eternal kingdom, walking in His light, which is His Word and Law.

Revelation 14:12 Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not according to the scripture:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

God is light and He didn’t need to create the sun to have light. Psalms 84:11, 1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 3:4. Darkness at creation does not mean sin, it is night. God separated night from day, which is what we have today. At creation there was no sin so dark was just night and day was just day.

God’s light is also symbolic for His Word.

God’s righteous commandments on how we are to live is the light. Psalms 119:172 as God’s Word is a lamp to our feet so when know how to live in His light and off the path from scripture/God’s law there is no light.

This is the path that takes us to God’s eternal kingdom, walking in His light, which is His Word and Law.

Revelation 14:12 Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Darkness and light are some of the most powerful metaphors in the bible and it would be irresponsible (and I might add silly) to not allow the creation account to be parralled with these countless times light and darkness are mentioned in a spiritual focus. 2 Cor 4:6 "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." Are you telling me Paul is not referencing the darkness of creation with sin?

Light and darkness very clearly predate law so we don't need law to tell us its there. Although law is a product of light (speaking abstractly) law does not establish the light. Who establishes the light? God does. It says so right in Genesis 1:3. What's unique about the light of day 1 is God speaks the light first before he creates the luminaries (sun, moon, stars, etc...) on day 4. This is important as it establishes this light is greater than the mere phsycial and it is of God not of earthly vessels. Day 1 is also the first of the days positioning the light as a foundational part of creation which is echoed in the new creation too. If we are the new creation we too should parallel a focus of salvation as seen through creation which broadly shows us light spoken into darkness that starts a work ending in rest. Law simply is not a part of it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Darkness and light are some of the most powerful metaphors in the bible and it would be irresponsible (and I might add silly) to not allow the creation account to be parralled with these countless times light and darkness are mentioned in a spiritual focus. 2 Cor 4:6 "For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." Are you telling me Paul is not referencing the darkness of creation with sin?

Light and darkness very clearly predate law so we don't need law to tell us its there. Although law is a product of light (speaking abstractly) law does not establish the light. Who establishes the light? God does. It says so right in Genesis 1:3. What's unique about the light of day 1 is God speaks the light first before he creates the luminaries (sun, moon, stars, etc...) on day 4. This is important as it establishes this light is greater than the mere phsycial and it is of God not of earthly vessels. Day 1 is also the first of the days positioning the light as a foundational part of creation which is echoed in the new creation too. If we are the new creation we too should parallel a focus of salvation as seen through creation which broadly shows us light spoken into darkness that starts a work ending in rest. Law simply is not a part of it.

There is no sin at creation, so you are reading the darkness from night as sin which there is no scripture to support this assertion. This is why we should trust the scriptures. Proverbs 3:5. Context is everything in scripture. Sin did not enter earth until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of good and evil. This is all after creation Genesis 1.

Light is a metaphor for following God's Word and Law and shown though the scripture Creation Sabbath Origin , not a reason to not have to follow/obey which appears to be the argument that you are trying to make which is not supported by the scriptures. God character is reflected in His commandments, so you are saying God's laws are not part of it is not something we will find in scriptures. Jesus seems to prophesizing something completely different at His Second Coming. If we believe Jesus, we need to believe His teachings.

Matthew 5:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

We are known by our obedience to His commandments and we need to follow Jesus who kept the commandments of God as our example:


1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

This is all the time I have for now but wish you well in seeking His Word. God bless.

 

[Leaf473]

well you have free will and of course can speculate on anything you wish.

But getting back to the topic of this thread --



I always like to see that connection in scripture between the reality of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3 and the fact of it in legal code in Ex 20:11 as literally the 7th day of the week. A real 7 day creation week.

The question was asked by the OP and is part of the exploration of the thread topic.

If you want to say who you believe Paul is talking about in that passage, that would be great!

 

[DamianWarS]

There is no sin at creation, so you are reading the darkness from night as sin which there is no scripture to support your assertion. This is why we should trust the scriptures. Proverbs 3:5. Context is everything in scripture. Sin did not enter earth until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of good and evil. This is all after creation Genesis 1.

Light is a metaphor for following God's Word and Law and shown though the scripture Creation Sabbath Origin , not a reason to not have to follow/obey which appears to be the argument that you are trying to make which is not supported by the scriptures. God character is reflected in His commandments, so you are saying God's laws are not part of it is not something we will find in scriptures. Jesus seems to prophesize something completely different at His Second Coming. If we believe Jesus, we need to believe His teachings.

Before day one the darkness is not night. That only happens after the light is separated from the darkness during day one. Darkness is a metaphor for sin/destruction light is a metaphor for Christ/salvation. During day one God sees the light is good then separates it from the darkness. So if light is good what does that make the darkness?

I don't know why you are fighting this as it is one of the most widely used symbols in the bible, the very fact it mentions darkness and light in the first few words should be a massive hint. The beginning sets up the darkness so that light may be spoken into it. Law is not part of this process, law instead proclaims it by exposing our darkness and pointing to the light. What it proclaims is the first thing established in the bible and implicitly shows the law doesn't make these things instead it is based on constructs that are established since the beginning.

BTW what is your intent of quoting Matthew 5:21? How would you feel if I quoted the same and the end of a post directed to you? Let's treat each other with respect and be more aware of the messages we send.

 

[BobRyan]

The question was asked by the OP and is part of the exploration of the thread topic.

I don't see "How do people know that the Word of God informs us of right vs wrong" in the OP.

I do see this "creation Sabbath" topic there however

I believe those who dispute the Genesis origin of the Sabbath do so because of the incredible weight it carries against their tenuous supposition that the Sabbath is some sort of a ceremonial ordinance that came to an end in the Christian era. If they can somehow negate the fact of a creation institution for the Sabbath then they feel they are in a much softer setting to apply the Sabbath strictly to the Jews. But since the Sabbath is clearly a creation institution there are obviously no Jews around. Jesus Himself tells us that “the Sabbath was made for human beings....” He doesn’t say that is was made for the Jew. Also notice that Jesus says it was "made". In other words, it was created by His own act of resting, blessing and making holy the seventh day of creation.

The Sabbath was also instituted prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, so there was no sin and no sinner. Thus it is not an institution that would need to come to an end at any point in the future.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Also by Icyspark: Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian

 

[BobRyan]

Before day one the darkness is not night. That only happens after the light is separated from the darkness during day one. Darkness is a metaphor for sin/destruction light is a metaphor for Christ/salvation. During day one God sees the light is good then separates it from the darkness. So if light is good what does that make the darkness?

The massive amount of inference and speculation used there is less compelling than actual scripture.

The legal code of Ex 20:11 says it is 7 actual days as the days of Sinai.
The text of Gen 2:1-3 says it is 7 days.

The separation of light from dark happens when a light source is created/placed on one side of a planet without a lights source. This is not the hard part in my POV. God was not saying that the lifeless Earth was steeped in sin and then God came and brought salvation to a barren planet that had no atmosphere and no sun. Neither Ex 20:11 nor Gen 2:1-3 support such speculation.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Before day one the darkness is not night. That only happens after the light is separated from the darkness during day one. Darkness is a metaphor for sin/destruction light is a metaphor for Christ/salvation. During day one God sees the light is good then separates it from the darkness. So if light is good what does that make the darkness?

I don't know why you are fighting this as it is one of the most widely used symbols in the bible, the very fact it mentions darkness and light in the first few words should be a massive hint. The beginning sets up the darkness so that light may be spoken into it. Law is not part of this process, law instead proclaims it by exposing our darkness and pointing to the light. What it proclaims is the first thing established in the bible and implicitly shows the law doesn't make these things instead it is based on constructs that are established since the beginning.

BTW what is your intent of quoting Matthew 5:21? How would you feel if I quoted the same and the end of a post directed to you? Let's treat each other with respect and be more aware of the messages we send.

Before light was created on the first day it was just void. Genesis 1:2

I have already shown through scripture that using the metaphor of light/darkness with sin does not void the law, but those who speak against the law and prophets (scripture) shows there is no light in them Isaiah 8:20, so you're reasoning here to show we don't need the law that has something to do with the void before God created light is not something you seem to be connecting biblically.

 

[DamianWarS]

The massive amount of inference and speculation used there is less compelling than actual scripture.

The legal code of Ex 20:11 says it is 7 actual days as the days of Sinai.
The text of Gen 2:1-3 says it is 7 days.

The separation of light from dark happens when a light source is created/placed on one side of a planet without a lights source. This is not the hard part in my POV. God was not saying that the lifeless Earth was steeped in sin and then God came and brought salvation to a barren planet that had no atmosphere and no sun. Neither Ex 20:11 nor Gen 2:1-3 support such speculation.

The light has no source outside of God (the sun was created on day 4) and God very clearly separates the light from darkness. Plus innately light/darkness are not good/evil which is an abstract concept not a phsycial one. These are pretty big hints as to how we should read the account.

It may not reconcile in modern science but I really don't think that's the point. You accuse me of reading to much in the text yet you're the one saying God didn't separate the light form the darkness and that's just a natual phenomenon. Why not read it again, it very explictly says God separates light from darkness. Stop applying natural science to the creation account and read it as a salvation metaphor which Paul begins in 2 Cor 4:6.

 

[BobRyan]

The light has no source outside of God (the sun was created on day 4)

Everything created in that 7 day week has as its source - God.

Whatever "light" God chose to create on day 1 it would need to have been on one side of the planet so that a rotating planet yields day and night.

During the 5th day we also have that same rotating planet only now the sun does exist and it has "evening and morning". Very few people get confused about what that means on day 5. Being consistent with the definition for what evening and morning is and how the planet has such a thing -- avoids wild leaps of fancy and speculation as each day comes into view.

The text does not say it has "wickedness then righteousness" each day.

and God very clearly separates the light from darkness. Plus innately light/darkness are not good/evil which is an abstract concept not a phsycial one. These are pretty big hints as to how we should read the account.

You accuse me of reading to much in the text yet you're the one saying God didn't separate the light form the darkness and that's just a natual phenomenon. .

On the contrary - I said:

The separation of light from dark happens when a light source is created/placed on one side of a planet without a lights source. This is not the hard part in my POV. God was not saying that the lifeless Earth was steeped in sin

 

[DamianWarS]

Everything created in that 7 day week has as its source - God.

Whatever "light" God chose to create on day 1 it would need to have been on one side of the planet so that a rotating planet yields day and night.

During the 5th day we also have that same rotating planet only now the sun does exist and it has "evening and morning". Very few people get confused about what that means on day 5. Being consistent with the definition for what evening and morning is and how the planet has such a thing -- avoids wild leaps of fancy and speculation as each day comes into view.

The text does not say it has "wickedness then righteousness" each day.

and God very clearly separates the light from darkness. Plus innately light/darkness are not good/evil which is an abstract concept not a phsycial one. These are pretty big hints as to how we should read the account.



On the contrary - I said:

The separation of light from dark happens when a light source is created/placed on one side of a planet without a lights source. This is not the hard part in my POV. God was not saying that the lifeless Earth was steeped in sin

God did not create a luminary on day 1 (he created those on day 4). he spoke light and there was light. There was no "sun" of some sort, there was just light and that's all the text says, to suggest there was also a created luminary would be adding to the text. morning and evening are not concepts of good and evil that I'm highlighting but light and darkness are so be careful not to run with my words and invent things I never said.

2 Cor 4:6 references the creation event and calls the light the light of Christ in an abstract way to look at the gospel in a quote that says "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness'" this implicitly looks at the darkness as the anthesis to the light, not in the physical but as a gospel metaphor. Paul's focus is not the literal when he looks at creation, he doesn't even bring it up so why should our focus be the literal? His focus is the gospel, at the very least it shows us the creation account is more than the surface literal meaning and it foreshadows the gospel, at the very least when it comes to light and darkness which are the explict aspects that Paul highlights.

light and darkness are also extremely common symbols in the bible for good and evil/sin and it would be quite responsible to look at the creation account in this way or I might add it would be silly to reject it. God speaks the light into being, but he does not speak the darkness into being rather he speaks into the darkness. This also is a powerful metaphor and I'm confused why you would be fighting it. It's not that God is calling a lifeless planet sinful, it's that we should be approaching the account as a prophetic message not the literalness of the account. don't misunderstand me, I have no interest in challenging the literalness of the account I'm just saying when we read it we should be looking at the prophetic not the literal. the former has far more value.

so when you place a light source behind a giant ball it cast light on one side and darkness is on the other side. sure I get that, but the account doesn't say anything close to that so why exactly are we talking about that? The account says there was darkness and God spoke light, he saw the light was good and separated the darkness from the light. You seem to be trying to reconcile this information with modern science and ending up with a version the account can't support. I'm leaving the words alone because I believe they were put there with intention so I'm valuing them just as they are. Just as they are, they point to Christ (and Paul agrees with me).

 

[DamianWarS]

Before light was created on the first day it was just void. Genesis 1:2

I have already shown through scripture that using the metaphor of light/darkness with sin does not void the law, but those who speak against the law and prophets (scripture) shows there is no light in them Isaiah 8:20, so you're reasoning here to show we don't need the law that has something to do with the void before God created light is not something you seem to be connecting biblically.

before the light on day 1 the "earth was formless and empty, [and] darkness was over the surface of the deep". some translations say void. the Hebrew word means emptiness, void is bit too abstract of a concept for the ancient mindset so if we force it to make a point then we are just trying to force our point. The point of this period before light, these primordial waters is an antithesis to day 7. The earth is formless, empty and darkness is all over. Generally speaking it is incomplete and in a state of chaos or unrest. day 7 is everything this day "zero" is not. Day 7 is complete, organized, filled, and of rest and all this is started when God says "let there be light" (as 2 Cor 4:6 agrees). this is by design, I know this because the entire passage is in a chiastic structure verses at the beginning parallel another at the end. For v1:2 it parallels v2:2-3. but if you want I can break it down verse by verse to show the chiastic structure. what it shows us at the very least is this "void" as you call it is supposed to be contrasted with day 7, the goal is day 7, so the void is everything day 7 is not.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

before the light on day 1 the "earth was formless and empty, [and] darkness was over the surface of the deep". some translations say void. the Hebrew word means emptiness, void is bit too abstract of a concept for the ancient mindset so if we force it to make a point then we are just trying to force our point. The point of this period before light, these primordial waters is an antithesis to day 7. The earth is formless, empty and darkness is all over. Generally speaking it is incomplete and in a state of chaos or unrest. day 7 is everything this day "zero" is not. Day 7 is complete, organized, filled, and of rest and all this is started when God says "let there be light" (as 2 Cor 4:6 agrees). this is by design, I know this because the entire passage is in a chiastic structure verses at the beginning parallel another at the end. For v1:2 it parallels v2:2-3. but if you want I can break it down verse by verse to show the chiastic structure. what it shows us at the very least is this "void" as you call it is supposed to be contrasted with day 7, the goal is day 7, so the void is everything day 7 is not.

But its not making the argument that before God created the second day all the laws were voided or not needed. This does not reconcile with the scriptures or is supported by scriptures. We can read in almost anything we want to the scriptures, but it doesn't make it God's Word or that we are following God.

In contrast:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Leaf473]

I don't see "How do people know that the Word of God informs us of right vs wrong" in the OP.

I do see this "creation Sabbath" topic there however

OP can mean original post, but it can also mean original poster.

The question is asked in post #86
Creation Sabbath Origin

Peace be with you, my man!

 

[DamianWarS]

But its not making the argument that before God created the second day all the laws were voided or not needed. This does not reconcile with the scriptures or is supported by scriptures. We can read in almost anything we want to the scriptures, but it doesn't make it God's Word or that we are following God.

In contrast:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Who said anything about voided? Creation shows an image of darkness that light is spoken into. The spirit is hovering over the darkness before the light is spoken. If this mirrors our own salvation process then it is not law that is needed to show us what is sin and what is not, darkness is contrasted by light and that is how we know what darkness is. Sure you can say the law is of light so it sufficiently contrast the darkness and I would agree with you. But Christ is ultimately the light and he contrasts darkness better than the law can. So we do not need law to show us the darkness, we need light and that's what creation reveals. That may have been through the law, but since we have access to the source of light it doesn't make sense to go through the law, just go straight to the source.

 

[BobRyan]

OP can mean original post, but it can also mean original poster.

Subject title and opening post set the topic.

When can draw the person away to some other idea in a post 87 posts later - but that attempt does not change the topic of the thread. It is just a minor interruption in most well meaning cases. But here you are 30 posts later discussing "post 87" which apparently you agree is not the point of the title or of the OP .. ie. post #1... page 1...

And here you and I are - not discussing the OP post #1 (some more)... even after I just quoted it.

People on this forum looking at the title of threads and the OP - "suspect" this is about "Creation Sabbath" and you are a long way down the road to what might a gentile imagine that had no Bible and knew nothing about Creation or the Word of God. (So then - obviously not "this" gentile)

I don't see "How do people know that the Word of God informs us of right vs wrong" in the OP. but I do see a very explicit reference to "creation Sabbath" and its implications/meaning as we see it in the text. If you have zero interest in that sort of thing - why not start a thread title of something that does interest you?