About Sabbath

[tall73]

Sure - another thread that discusses Ezekiel's temple Ez 40-48 never built, the two paths of Israel where they had 490 years to make a choice according to Dan 9, and how one of those paths would have Ezekiel's temple and Isaiah's 100 year olds who when they die it is thought that a youngster had passed away before their time.

meanwhile - John's explanation of that "New heaven and New Earth" Rev 21:1 is all we really need in this thread for Is 66:23 and the New Heaven and New Earth.

Ah I see, you have all the answers, but you certainly don't want to discuss it here to clarify for anyone how you know that the Sabbath text is just fine even though it is next to several other things that don't fit into John's version, and must certainly be on a different path.

But then how can you tell the other poster it is not foggy at all when you refuse to clarify?

And you didn't mention anything about paths earlier when telling the other poster it was a very clear text.

 

[tall73]

I will just make one post for your last two posts then best get back to work. Firstly, I make my edits after posting sometimes when I see corrections are needed to my posts to avoid misunderstandings, to fix typos and spelling mistakes and to add something that I believe should be added into the post that I may have left out. This is normally done right after I have posted and re-read what I have posted. I completed my edits before you wrote this and what I wrote did not change the content of what was already written or that has been written in other posts to you already. My edits did not effect anything in this discussion so to imply I am changing a view by saying "you edited" is not being very truthful.

I hit quote before you finished your edit, which was why only part of your words were there in the first post. Then when I finished posting I saw the other and responded. Acting like I am being untruthful because you went back and edited is ridiculous. Anytime you edit after you post this can happen.

If you understand the principles of bible hermeneutics and exegetical methods employed in scripture interpretation you should know that we cannot disassociate scripture from it's context. Hebrews 4:9 says "Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God" The Sabbath rest that remains is that rest that those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into by believing and following Gods' Word *Hebrews 4:1-3 which is a reference to Gods' weekly "seventh day" Sabbath rest as shown in Hebrews 4:3-4. "A" Sabbath rest that remains is therefore that of believing and following Gods' Word that is connected to Sabbath keeping or true Sabbath observance that we which remain must enter into which is given by God to those who believe and follow Gods' Word in the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath. Now we can go through this all over again if you wish to but as shown already the evidence here is against you from every view point.

Incorrect. It states God was resting since He finished His creative works. We enter that rest. We rest from all our labors through the rest of grace, the true rest of faith, when we enter that true promised land with Him.

I will let Ellen White tell you again:


[Hebrews 4:9, 11 quoted.] The rest here spoken of is the rest of grace, obtained by following the prescription, Labor diligently. Those who learn of Jesus His meekness and lowliness find rest in the experience of practicing His lessons. It is not in indolence, in selfish ease and pleasure-seeking, that rest is obtained. Those who are unwilling to give the Lord faithful, earnest, loving service will not find spiritual rest in this life or in the life to come. Only from earnest labor comes peace and joy in the Holy Spirit—happiness on earth and glory hereafter. Let us therefore labor. 7BC


And thus the mountain from which the words of benediction were spoken came to be known as the mount of blessing. But it was not upon Gerizim that the words were spoken which have come as a benediction to a sinning and sorrowing world. Israel fell short of the high ideal which had been set before her. Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith. No longer is Gerizim known as the mount of the Beatitudes, but that unnamed mountain beside the Lake of Gennesaret, where Jesus spoke the words of blessing to His disciples and the multitude.
Ellen White--Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing Chapter 1

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I hit quote before you finished your edit, which was why only part of your words were there in the first post. Then when I finished posting I saw the other and responded. Acting like I am being untruthful because you went back and edited is ridiculous. Anytime you edit after you post this can happen.

Insinuating that I am doing something dishonest is being untruthful. That is how I read your post in regards to my edit.

LoveGodsWord wrote: If you understand the principles of bible hermeneutics and exegetical methods employed in scripture interpretation you should know that we cannot disassociate scripture from it's context. Hebrews 4:9 says "Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God" The Sabbath rest that remains is that rest that those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into by believing and following Gods' Word *Hebrews 4:1-3 which is a reference to Gods' weekly "seventh day" Sabbath rest as shown in Hebrews 4:3-4. "A" Sabbath rest that remains is therefore that of believing and following Gods' Word that is connected to Sabbath keeping or true Sabbath observance that we which remain must enter into which is given by God to those who believe and follow Gods' Word in the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath. Now we can go through this all over again if you wish to but as shown already the evidence here is against you from every view point.

1. Context to Hebrew 4:9 is the two rests of (1). Our rest through believing and following Gods' Word (Hebrews 4:1-3) and (2) God's rest defined in Hebrews 4:3-4 as the seventh day Sabbath rest that those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into by faith.

2. Hebrews 4:9 agrees with context of Hebrews 4:1-5 "therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. I personally believe Sabbatismos is indefinite article in the Greek because the Sabbath rest was unknown to those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word. As posted earlier we can externally keep the Sabbath without entering into Gods' Sabbath rest like the children of Israel did in the wilderness. As well as this however we have seen that the use of Sabbatismos in the Aramaic as well as Greek is only every used and applied to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance" and in Latin nearly every reference is to literal Sabbath keeping or Sabbath observance.

3. All uses of Sabbatismos applied to context of Hebrews 4:9 has application to "Sabbath keeping", Sabbath observance" through resting (Sabbath rest). As shown already (repetition now), All references to Sabbatismos from the Greek and Aramaic and Latin as well as the old testament use of the verb form Sabbatizo as well as all literature around that time (exception of Origen) is to the literal meaning of Sabbatismos being to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance".

4. Even in the single author Origin you posted it can be seen in his writings as shown in another paper that although his views were figurative as most of his teachings of the old testament scriptures. He also understood the meaning of Sabbatismos to "Sabbath observance".

5. The majority of all writings of the use of Sabbatismos and the use of it's verb form in the old testament scriptures (scripture references already posted elsewhere) is to "Sabbath keeping" or "Sabbath observance"

So as posted earlier believe what ever you like but the majority of evidence does not support your view of Hebrews 4:9 and nothing you have posted has not already been addressed through the scriptures and outside scripture in many posts shared with you in this thread already. The fact is the overwhelming evidence from all languages on the Greek, Aramaic and Latin's use of Sabbatismos is to "Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance and this is the historical understanding of this word's use. and when the contexts of Hebrews 4:9 is to the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath as shown in Hebrews 4:3-4 this only further supports application to seventh day weekly Sabbath. Your view seeks to separate rest from Sabbath which is not biblical.

Your response here...

Incorrect. It states God was resting since He finished His creative works. We enter that rest. We rest from all our labors through the rest of grace, the true rest of faith, when we enter that true promised land with Him.

Incorrect! Once again your trying to separate Gods' rest from the "seventh day" when resting is how the Sabbath is kept. Those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word do not enter into God's rest on the "seventh day" even if they might outwardly obey this commandment. Gods rest is the "seventh day" Sabbath that he made for all mankind on the "seventh day" where he "blessed the seventh day" and made it a "Holy day" and commands His people (those who believe and follow Gods' Word) to enter into by faith. We who believe enter into that rest. Your mistake here is trying to separate Gods' rest from the seventh day already defined in the context of Hebrews 4:3-4.

I will let Ellen White tell you again: [Hebrews 4:9, 11 quoted.] The rest here spoken of is the rest of grace, obtained by following the prescription, Labor diligently. Those who learn of Jesus His meekness and lowliness find rest in the experience of practicing His lessons. It is not in indolence, in selfish ease and pleasure-seeking, that rest is obtained. Those who are unwilling to give the Lord faithful, earnest, loving service will not find spiritual rest in this life or in the life to come. Only from earnest labor comes peace and joy in the Holy Spirit—happiness on earth and glory hereafter. Let us therefore labor. 7BC
And thus the mountain from which the words of benediction were spoken came to be known as the mount of blessing. But it was not upon Gerizim that the words were spoken which have come as a benediction to a sinning and sorrowing world. Israel fell short of the high ideal which had been set before her. Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith. No longer is Gerizim known as the mount of the Beatitudes, but that unnamed mountain beside the Lake of Gennesaret, where Jesus spoke the words of blessing to His disciples and the multitude.
Ellen White--Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing Chapter 1

Which agrees with what has been shared with you here and that is only those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into Gods' rest which is the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[tall73]

Insinuating that I am doing something dishonest is being untruthful. That is how I read your post in regards to my edit.

Then you don't read very well. I stated that you edited because you did. It has not hing to do with being dishonest.

 

[tall73]

Which agrees with what has been shared with you here and that is only those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into Gods' rest which is the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God.

Hope this is helpful.

You are not fooling anyone! Ellen White says the rest of grace, and the rest of true faith, and resting from our labors in the age to come!


She is in agreement with Chrysostom:

When David then, he says, speaking at a later period, and after these events, after that generation of men, said, Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, that you may not suffer the same things which your forefathers did, and be deprived of the Rest; he evidently [said this] as of some [future] rest. For if they had received their Rest (he says) why does He again say to them, Today if you will hear His voice harden not your hearts, as your fathers did? What other rest then is there, except the kingdom of Heaven, of which the Sabbath was an image and type?

What then does he say? Hebrews 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. And see how he has summed up the whole argument. He swore, says he, to those former ones, that they should not enter into the rest, and they did not enter in. Then long after their time discoursing to the Jews, he says, Harden not your hearts, as your fathers, showing that there is another rest. For of Palestine we have not to speak: for they were already in possession of it. Nor can he be speaking of the seventh; for surely he was not discoursing about that which had taken place long before. It follows therefore that he hints at some other, that which is rest indeed.

And well did he conclude the argument. For he said not rest but Sabbath-keeping; calling the kingdom Sabbath-keeping, by the appropriate name, and that which they rejoiced in and were attracted by.

For that is indeed rest, where pain, sorrow and sighing are fled away Isaiah 35:10: where there are neither cares, nor labors, nor struggle, nor fear stunning and shaking the soul; but only that fear of God which is full of delight. There is not, In the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, nor thorns and thistles Genesis 3:19; no longer, In sorrow you shall bring forth children, and to your husband shall be your desire and he shall rule over you. Genesis 3:16 All is peace, joy, gladness, pleasure, goodness, gentleness. There is no jealousy, nor envy, no sickness, no death whether of the body, or that of the soul. There is no darkness nor night; all [is] day, all light, all things are bright. It is not possible to be weary, it is not possible to be satiated: we shall always persevere in the desire of good things. Homily on Hebrews, John Chrysostom, Arch-bishop of Constantinople.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You are not fooling anyone! Ellen White says the rest of grace, and the rest of true faith, and resting from our labors in the age to come!


She is in agreement with Chrysostom:

When David then, he says, speaking at a later period, and after these events, after that generation of men, said, Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, that you may not suffer the same things which your forefathers did, and be deprived of the Rest; he evidently [said this] as of some [future] rest. For if they had received their Rest (he says) why does He again say to them, Today if you will hear His voice harden not your hearts, as your fathers did? What other rest then is there, except the kingdom of Heaven, of which the Sabbath was an image and type?

What then does he say? Hebrews 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. And see how he has summed up the whole argument. He swore, says he, to those former ones, that they should not enter into the rest, and they did not enter in. Then long after their time discoursing to the Jews, he says, Harden not your hearts, as your fathers, showing that there is another rest. For of Palestine we have not to speak: for they were already in possession of it. Nor can he be speaking of the seventh; for surely he was not discoursing about that which had taken place long before. It follows therefore that he hints at some other, that which is rest indeed.

And well did he conclude the argument. For he said not rest but Sabbath-keeping; calling the kingdom Sabbath-keeping, by the appropriate name, and that which they rejoiced in and were attracted by.

For that is indeed rest, where pain, sorrow and sighing are fled away Isaiah 35:10: where there are neither cares, nor labors, nor struggle, nor fear stunning and shaking the soul; but only that fear of God which is full of delight. There is not, In the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, nor thorns and thistles Genesis 3:19; no longer, In sorrow you shall bring forth children, and to your husband shall be your desire and he shall rule over you. Genesis 3:16 All is peace, joy, gladness, pleasure, goodness, gentleness. There is no jealousy, nor envy, no sickness, no death whether of the body, or that of the soul. There is no darkness nor night; all [is] day, all light, all things are bright. It is not possible to be weary, it is not possible to be satiated: we shall always persevere in the desire of good things. Homily on Hebrews, John Chrysostom, Arch-bishop of Constantinople.

No, she is in complete agreement with what has already been shared with you and that is no one enters into Gods' rest of the "seventh day" Sabbath if they do not believe and follow Gods' Word. Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4 is a warning to all those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word. It is not saying we are now free to break Gods' 4th commandment and as a result of breaking Gods' commandments we will enter into God's rest for disobedience, unbelief and sin. This was the very reason Gods' people in the wilderness did not enter into Gods' rest according to Hebrews 3:12-19 and Hebrews 4:1-12. Those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word do not enter into God's rest because they do not believe Gods' Word and do not follow what Gods' Word says. It is impossible for God's 4th commandment Sabbath to be a "shadow law" as it points backwards to creation "Remember" - Exodus 20:8-11, not forwards to things to come *Colossians 2:17. Your trying to separate Gods' rest from God's Sabbath which is not biblical.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Then you don't read very well. I stated that you edited because you did. It has not hing to do with being dishonest.

I do read very well thank you.

 

[Strong in Him]

When you say that nothing is secular and all work is sacred - all of it appropriate for a holy convocation a sanctified set-apart worship context - you are opening a scenario that few people have ever suggested.

Just because few have suggested it does not mean that it cannot be right.

And I wouldn't dream of blaming you for anything I said; why would you think otherwise?

 

[Strong in Him]

So then I gave a few examples of people doing all that sort of thing inside a church service to help he reader see how that just does not work.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that only that which is done inside a service of worship is worship, and cannot, or will not, see otherwise.

There are many different forms, and places, of worship.
In the OT people worshipped on top of mountains, beside altars made of stones, out in the open, in a stable/inn when they saw Jesus, and so on - none of these included a service in a building with a hymn/prayer sandwich and a sermon.
Paul says that the very act of offering our bodies to God; dedicating ourselves to him, is worship.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that only that which is done inside a service of worship is worship,

On the contrary -- I simply use that as a single example so the reader can easily see that there is such a thing as sacred vs secular activity and secular activity is not appropriate for sacred, sanctified context of something like a worship service or as God points out - for a day dedicated to that very thing.

Your objection arises because this point is so easy to see when we select the example of a worship service in church.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
When you say that nothing is secular and all work is sacred - all of it appropriate for a holy convocation a sanctified set-apart worship context - you are opening a scenario that few people have ever suggested.

Just because few have suggested it does not mean that it cannot be right.

Well as I have already said - you have free will and can choose as you wish. I am just glad to have our points of difference laid out so clearly for readers to easily see what the difference is.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Sure - another thread that discusses Ezekiel's temple Ez 40-48 never built, the two paths of Israel where they had 490 years to make a choice according to Dan 9, and how one of those paths would have Ezekiel's temple and Isaiah's 100 year olds who when they die it is thought that a youngster had passed away before their time.

meanwhile - John's explanation of that "New heaven and New Earth" Rev 21:1 is all we really need in this thread for Is 66:23 and the New Heaven and New Earth.

Ah I see, you have all the answers, but you certainly don't want to discuss it here

Many topics and side issues "exist" that would only serve as a distraction from the main , easy-to-see point here on this topic when it comes to Isaiah 66:23

Which is that in the new Earth -- for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship"

It is clear to all that - Isaiah and his readers knew

• what "from Sabbath to Sabbath" meant
• what "ALL MANKIND" meant

And John explains "New heaven and new Earth" in Rev 21:1 -- very easy to read it.

This is the "easy part" -- incredibly easy for all readers to get this.

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

Your complaint appears to be that this is too easy and couldn't we find at least "something" that adds a layer of confusion to the text. Certainly that is possible but the easy part above remains even so.

 

[tall73]

Many topics and side issues "exist" that would only serve as a distraction from the main , easy-to-see point here on this topic when it comes to Isaiah 66:23

Which is that in the new Earth -- for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship"

It is clear to all that - Isaiah and his readers knew

• what "from Sabbath to Sabbath" meant
• what "ALL MANKIND" meant

And John explains "New heaven and new Earth" in Rev 21:1 -- very easy to read it.

This is the "easy part" -- incredibly easy for all readers to get this.

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

Your complaint appears to be that this is too easy and couldn't we find at least "something" that adds a layer of confusion to the text. Certainly that is possible but the easy part above remains even so.

Not at all. In fact, I hoped it was that easy, because that would have made it easier when I was deciding on these things. I cannot ignore all the things there and just pretend they don't exist as you seem to have done. Why didn't you put the Levites and the death and the sinners into John's new heavens and new earth like you did the new moon )(which you do not assemble on)? They are in Isaiah's text, associated with the new heaven and new earth.

 

[tall73]

I do read very well thank you.

Then why did you think I was accusing you of dishonesty, or why did you accuse me of not being truthful? I said you edited. You admitted you edited. It is not a moral issue. It is simply you editing to add information, and me recognizing that and adding additional response.

 

[tall73]

No, she is in complete agreement with what has already been shared with you and that is no one enters into Gods' rest of the "seventh day" Sabbath if they do not believe and follow Gods' Word.

The rest in the passage is not the recurring 7th day Sabbath given as a sign to Israel. Ellen White knew it, and stated what it was. It is the rest of faith, of grace, and it is resting in Him now and in the life to come. Chrysostom knew it too.

Now we all agree Ellen White thought you had to keep the Sabbath. But she at least knew what the passage was saying, as do the SDA Bible commentary authors.

It is not saying we are now free to break Gods' 4th commandment and as a result of breaking Gods' commandments we will enter into God's rest for disobedience, unbelief and sin. This was the very reason Gods' people in the wilderness did not enter into Gods' rest according to Hebrews 3:12-19 and Hebrews 4:1-12.

Yes, they rebelled in many ways, including refusing to go into the promised land and to believe that God could take them there, which is the parallel to the rest mentioned.

It is impossible for God's 4th commandment Sabbath to be a "shadow law" as it points backwards to creation "Remember" - Exodus 20:8-11, not forwards to things to come *Colossians 2:17.

Of course it is, because it is one of the appointed times. I have already noted the similar listing in Ezekiel that included the weekly Sabbath. It is a sign given to Israel, stated a number of times in the text, as a sign of their sanctification, a memorial to their Creator, and their Savior from bondage in Egypt, Deut. 5. And given we see no one keep it until Exodus 16 where it was introduced to them, as a test, and then cemented as part of their covenant, given with sacrifices.

Your trying to separate Gods' rest from God's Sabbath which is not biblical.

In fact the author's point was that God has been resting since that time from His creative works, and we will also rest--not one day a week, but in the new promised land if we endure to the end.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Sure - another thread that discusses Ezekiel's temple Ez 40-48 never built, the two paths of Israel where they had 490 years to make a choice according to Dan 9, and how one of those paths would have Ezekiel's temple and Isaiah's 100 year olds who when they die it is thought that a youngster had passed away before their time.

meanwhile - John's explanation of that "New heaven and New Earth" Rev 21:1 is all we really need in this thread for Is 66:23 and the New Heaven and New Earth.

I cannot ignore all the things there and just pretend they don't exist as you seem to have done. Why didn't you put the Levites and the death and the sinners into John's new heavens and new earth

Obviously because John does not do it. That is not difficult at all when we see what Rev 21 actually says.

you are still trying to drag in the mix even though you freely admit that the mix you find in:

• Isaiah 14 does not mean Lucifer was ever the king of Tyre and you freely admit to
  
• the mix you find Ezek 28 even though you know that the king of Babylon was "not created perfect" and was not "the covering cherub" in heaven that Lucifer was.
  
• And we see the mix in Ps 22 where it cannot be said that all David's bones were ever "out of joint" or that David was ever pierced in the side, hands and feet etc.

You already admit to seeing this mix and then camp out on Is 65 (not even 66) as if the entire concept was "news"? How is that even compelling?

That would be like saying "no fact at all can be known from the book of Revelation until all its symbols are understood"

like you did the new moon )(which you do not assemble on)? They are in Isaiah's text, associated with the new heaven and new earth.

I already answered that - pointing out that at the Rev 21:1 point where John explains "new heaven and new Earth" was see that Earth will have had two creation events to remember - one in Gen 1:2- Gen 2:3 and one in Rev 21:1 and so having two memorial cycles one for 7 days and one for the new moon cycle is not unreasonable -

I can keep giving that same answer if you want to keep asking that same question but I don't see the point in it.

 

[Strong in Him]

On the contrary -- I simply use that as a single example so the reader can easily see that there is such a thing as sacred vs secular activity

In your view.
If a Christian has the Holy Spirit in them, if they are called by God to do what they do and/or are using gifts that he has given them, if they believe they are doing their work for the Lord, and especially if they pray before/during their work - how can that work said to be "worldly"?
Yet your argument is "well you can't clean your house in a service of worship, so it's not holy".

"Whatever you do work at it with your whole heart as though you are doing it for the Lord and not for men", Colossians 3:23. Not, "well unblocking a sink isn't spiritual. You don't need God to be in that; that's not his work. But making tea might be spiritual if you are making it for the vicar/a Bible study group."
That attitude implies that God is in some things, the things that are about him, but not others; that some activities are too minor for God to be in or to bother about. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus was concerned about Peter paying taxes for both of them so he told Peter to catch a fish - which had a coin in its mouth. After the resurrection, he had a fire burning and fish cooking so that he could give them breakfast. He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners, talked to people with leprosy (outcasts) and welcomed children. There was no area of life that he was not concerned about - he even healed the servant of a Roman soldier.

We don't know what Jesus did between the ages of 12 and 30 - he probably worked in Joseph's workshop and looked after the family (if it is true that Joseph died in his childhood.)
But whatever he did, that was God who was doing it.
Jesus didn't suddenly say at the age of 30, "right, the secular work can stop now, I can think about serving God". As God's Son, conceived by his Spirit, he had been serving him for years.

and secular activity is not appropriate for sacred, sanctified context of something like a worship service

It is the presence of the Holy Spirit and the dedicating of things to God that makes something sacred.
So a service held outdoors to bless allotments is sacred.
If a new sound system/pulpit/hymn book is dedicated to God and blessed, that makes it sacred - and a sound system can be used for "secular" meetings or concerts.
Colouring pencils, musical instruments, puppets, visual aids can be used in a service of worship, and for other events too - they are not "holy" in church but "secular" when they go outside".
If you/your ministers ever pray for your church, dedicate the building and what goes on in it to God, then yes; vacuuming, cleaning, cooking meals becomes sacred and holy.
And if you are filled with God's Spirit, doing the work he has called you to do, for his glory and in his name - that makes the work holy.
There shouldn't be any such thing as "I am doing this work by myself because I'm doing it in the world; it's secular. But when it's for the church it will then be holy and worthy of God's presence and blessing". That is saying, "don't be in this, Lord; only this."

 

[Strong in Him]

Well as I have already said - you have free will and can choose as you wish. I am just glad to have our points of difference laid out so clearly for readers to easily see what the difference is.

I choose to see God in all things, dedicate all things, and work, to God and do even the smallest and most mundane things as best I can for him - it's a shame if you don't.

Maybe you have never heard of the hymn;
"Teach me, my God and King,
in all things thee to see.
And what I do in anything,
to do it as for thee".
Shame if not; it's a nice hymn, and Scriptural.

 

[tall73]

By ignoring this pattern and then suddenly claiming to "discover it" in Isaiah 66 you are holding back information that all Bible scholars already admit about the way they mix local application details in with salvation history level information.

No Bob. I didn't claim to suddenly discover it. And I did not dispute it in the other examples. In fact, I even agreed with Ellen White in pointing out to @imge earlier in the thread that Jesus did this in Matthew 24 speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and His coming without spelling out which applied to each part, because of the two questions asked of him.

So I am not ignoring it. In fact, I invited you to speak to it. I already spelled out my view of this earlier in the thread. Now if one of us is trying to explain it, and one says that it is a distraction, which is "ignoring" it?

It's a fun game I guess but I prefer to play it on another thread...

No Bob, it is not a game at all. And it was certainly not "fun" when I did discover it years ago. But I am not at liberty to ignore it because I did not like it.

Nor do I think you really believe understanding what God's word says is a game. Nor do I think you believe that what was written in Isaiah is just a fun puzzle that doesn't matter.

Certainly Ellen White didn't think the issue of the Sabbath was a game because she indicated the following:

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

Nor was it a game to me when I had to look into these things, and the texts Adventists say are very clear. It was not a game to leave the church I loved, that I first heard the gospel in, that was the only church my children knew. And it was not a game when all the people I had ministered with and still loved thought I was a heretic. And it was not a game when my family thought the same.

And I asked the Lord the answer, and I do believe He led me, but He never said to ignore certain parts of Scripture and keep it simple.

Nor do I submit this so that people may go by my experience. We have to look at the Scriptures.

Your complaint appears to be that this is too easy and couldn't we find at least "something" that adds a layer of confusion to the text. Certainly that is possible but the easy part above remains even so.

No Bob, simply saying the easy part makes sense and ignoring all the things around it associated with the new heaven and new earth does not make it actually clear.

Your attributing to me an attempt to confuse what is clear by looking at what the text says is not in fact accurate. I did not start discussing this to win an argument. In fact, when I studied out all these things I lost every argument I had made for years on CF when defending the Sabbath, and came to the conclusion that I had preached a false message from the pulpit. That was neither fun, nor a game. And if I am wrong now, then it is certainly not a game either.

And if you in fact do have all the answers, you should spell them out. And if after you spell them out it is easy, then all the better for all those watching, including me.

 

[HIM]

Sabbath is for rest.