Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....

[VictorC]

On to number 6:

I will agree that God created everything... I disagree with the idea that the sabbath is a memorial of creation. I disagree that it was done in 6 literal days. I don't have enough information to make the declarative statement that humans were the crowning work of creation because I don't know what else He has created in order to compare the creative acts.

An acceptance of a fixed creation account doesn't make Fundamental Belief #6 any easier to accept. Look at the jump in logic where the conclusion is unrelated to the premise established:

In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.​

The error appears where "thus" begins the second sentence. There is nothing to support the "thus" that makes the jump in logic. The sabbath has no relation to God's rest that was from His act of creation, was permanent, and never repeated. It was ordained thousands of years later as a shadow of that permanent rest that remained a promise yet to be attained by mankind (Hebrews 4:1-4). Further mentioning the sabbath as a "perpetual memorial" is ridiculous in light of the sabbath's limited tenure, and the conclusion is unsupported by the premise and violates Scripture.

 

[StormyOne]

An acceptance of a fixed creation account doesn't make Fundamental Belief #6 any easier to accept. Look at the jump in logic where the conclusion is unrelated to the premise established:

In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.​

The error appears where "thus" begins the second sentence. There is nothing to support the "thus" that makes the jump in logic. The sabbath has no relation to God's rest that was from His act of creation, was permanent, and never repeated. It was ordained thousands of years later as a shadow of that permanent rest that remained a promise yet to be attained by mankind (Hebrews 4:1-4). Further mentioning the sabbath as a "perpetual memorial" is ridiculous in light of the sabbath's limited tenure, and the conclusion is unsupported by the premise and violates Scripture.

No argument from me Victor.... I refuse to make that leap of illogical reasoning... I shared what I agreed with and disagreed with, and I suspect we are on the same page here...

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

So, even if God Himself says that the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, you disagree? "Remember" = memorial. "Remember...for in six days, the Lord made...."
​

you say that God said it... I don't have proof of that, just as there is growing evidence that Moses didn't write all of Genesis.

Stormy, I take the position that holy men of God wrote as they were inspired by God's Spirit. So, therefore, it doesn't matter to me the name of the writer, whether it be Moses or someone else. I think there is enough evidence of a supernatural power behind the writing for me to accept and wrestle with the writings, not discard them.

And since I accept the writings as authoritative, then when the writer says that God wrote the 10 commandments with His finger, I accept the word "remember" as being from God. And I accept the writer's description of God speaking the 10C from Mt. Sinai as reality.

I think where we differ is that where you think that because men wrote the Bible, it cannot be trusted, I think that despite it being the writings of men, their message can be trusted, whether in literal, historical, poetic, or prophetic form. Why? Because I detect a supernatural power behind the writing, a Power that foretells the future. In which case, the writings need to be wrestled with for understanding, not set aside as untrustworthy.

So just because you say God said it, doesn't mean he actually said it. For the sake of this discussion I will suspend my disbelief and say yes he wrote it... One problem, he was not at creation so he was not an eyewitness. Since God did not dictate what to write, the story reads like something you would tell a child who didn't understand the basic ideas of where they are from and who they belong to... That is the purpose I believe of the narrative, not to state definitively how things happened but to reacquaint a people with their God...

Okay. But no need to suspend disbelief. If you don't believe the Bible, then just say so. At least that way we could work towards being on the same page, whatever that page might be. We might have to take a step back and discuss what is solid grounds for a belief.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

I can see you making an argument that the ten commandments are done away with, and therefore, the "Remember" of the 4th commandment no longer applies. But in the context of the ten commandments themselves, the Sabbath is indeed described as a memorial of creation.
​

You may need to borrow my glasses because I am not making that argument at all.

Oh, you aren't making an argument that the 10 commandments have been done away with? May I ask for clarification? Do you hold that the 10C still apply or do you hold that they no longer apply?

No the sabbath is a sign that God delivered the COI from Egypt. There is no indication that the directive to observe sabbath occurred before the liberation... Adam was not given that directive, nor anyone else pre captivity. That is something we adventists read into the text... its not supportable.

Deuteronomy amplifies what was given by the voice of God and written with His finger in Exodus 20. Being delivered from bondage is another aspect of Sabbathkeeping, but does not do away with the memorial aspect of creation.

Also, the directive to observe the Sabbath seems to have occurred before Sinai, probably even before the liberation, because Exodus 16:28 gives insight into the law being known before Sinai, "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" I don't think anything is being read into a text that is stated so plainly.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

So...whether you believe the 10C apply today or not, what is your reason for deciding that the Sabbath was not, at least at some point in the past, a memorial of creation? I'm not, at the moment, suggesting that you must keep the Sabbath holy, but rather, simply asking, in a vacuum, why you think the Sabbath is not connected to creation.
​

See my answer above... the text says God rested, it does not say God told Adam and Eve to rest... the argument is convoluted in that it is assumed that because God rested everyone must have rested...

The text says that God sanctified the seventh day. Genesis 2:3, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." I see no reason to ignore the "sanctified" part and concentrate only on the "rest" part. When, later, God says, "remember ... because that in it He had created," then, to me, it definitely ties Sabbath and Creation together.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Okay. How long do you think it took for creation to occur? Surely, you must have a foundation for your belief, whatever it is, otherwise, it would just be a case of "This is my opinion," nothing more.
​

The reality as I see it is that there are billions of stars in the universe and the light from those stars takes thousands of light years to reach us, that's the framework... then given the fossils that have been found, some of the dating of the things found leads me to believe some of creation had to take place over more than 6 days.... Now I will concede that we could be talking about creation on this earth may have been brief, but the stuff I've been reading suggests a longer period of creation... As an aside, because none of us has proof, it is all opinion...

In my understanding, the universe is old, the earth's foundation materials are old, but life on earth is young. So that would take care of your proffer of billions of stars and the light from those stars taking time to reach earth.

As to fossils, that would take a thread by itself just to discuss them. But briefly, from my study on the subject matter of fossils, I have come to the conclusion that they are interpreted according to worldview, and I've resolved my interpretation on a scientific basis, so don't feel a need to accept the evolutionary worldview.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

My position is based on what it says in Genesis. "Evening and morning" is a pretty literal phrase. What is your position based on?
​

Your position is tenuous because you have no idea who wrote that. Some biblical scholars suggest that a priest edited the narrative to emphasize sabbath observance. Read James Kugel if you are interested and get a chance....

It doesn't matter to me who wrote what. Why does it matter to you? To me, it is the evidence of the Supernatural that matters to me, not who His writers were.

 

[Joe67]

Fundamental Beliefs are as they are titled, "Funda-mental."

Each position is the childish, carnal position of mind (mental) as presented in the prophetic and apostolic witnesses. That is all beginners can receive. All of the "Creeds" of the Orthodox churches are all expressions of the "fundamentals" of their belief.

Each position could only be the beginning, since they are used as an introduction into church fellowship. If the ministry had no greater "wisdom" and "understanding" than the foundation, then you would only have spiritual children for leaders.

Novices being prepared for spiritual ministry need the wisdom involved in the union between the foundation and the walls. Then they are ready to be sent out in ministry, serving under someone who has already been led into the understanding of the purpose of God in all things, i. e., the ceiling.

No one can begin in truth with the ceiling of the temple of the holy Spirit. They would only have a childish carnal thought concerning the outward habits of the body and the mental processes and would fall into the snare of the devil, feeling complete through bodily habits or mental exercise.

This is the conflict of the spiritual parent, how to give the children milk and to give stronger food to the novices for service, and strong meat to the older warriors on the battlefield of faith and suffering in service.

These principles work well in a family arrangement where all relations are personal and every one is vital, even Ishmael, Esau and the sons of Keturah.

Corporate structure, with its competition between the children of one father and 4 mothers, are conducive to strife for who is the greatest. But the Lord has a remedy for this, though it is not pleasing to our flesh.

People live within the "walls" built on top of the foundation. But the "walls" need a "roof" to seal the house from the rain.

Foundation and walls use words/numbers to describe and measure them. The roof of the house for the Spirit cannot be newly measured, but it must needs fit on the walls. And the walls must needs sit on the foundation or else the wind and the water will carry them away.

Let us give the "little ones" the cup of cold water that they need, while we go on to "perfection" IN Christ through eating the stronger meat of wisdom and understanding. We do teach wisdom to the mature.

Remember Gideon. Many responded to the message to gather, and this was good. Those that were emotionally unprepared for the battle were sent home. Then the Lord presented another measurement of preparedness for the upcoming battle, even though all professed readiness. Just a small remnant remained for the conflict. Those sent back home were not to be
despised. They were part of the nation.

Joe

 

[Laodicean]

An acceptance of a fixed creation account doesn't make Fundamental Belief #6 any easier to accept. Look at the jump in logic where the conclusion is unrelated to the premise established:

In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.​

​

I believe this statement in Fundamental 6is based on more than a myopic view of just a few words. The doctrine has been built on a wider structure of texts and summed up here in brief fashion. So to pick apart a few words as if that is all SDAs believe in regard to what is written in Fundamental 6 is not helpful. F6 is based on the entire structure of all texts that throw light on its position -- The day was sanctified. The day was to be remembered in light of creation, and so on.

The error appears where "thus" begins the second sentence. There is nothing to support the "thus" that makes the jump in logic. The sabbath has no relation to God's rest that was from His act of creation, was permanent, and never repeated. It was ordained thousands of years later as a shadow of that permanent rest that remained a promise yet to be attained by mankind (Hebrews 4:1-4).

Please for a text that says the 7th day Sabbath of the fourth commandment is a shadow of a permanent rest. Not Victor's opinion, now. A text.

Further mentioning the sabbath as a "perpetual memorial" is ridiculous in light of the sabbath's limited tenure, and the conclusion is unsupported by the premise

What is the premise?

and violates Scripture.

In what way does it violate Exodus 31:16, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant"?

 

[StormyOne]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

So, even if God Himself says that the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, you disagree? "Remember" = memorial. "Remember...for in six days, the Lord made...."
​

Stormy, I take the position that holy men of God wrote as they were inspired by God's Spirit. So, therefore, it doesn't matter to me the name of the writer, whether it be Moses or someone else. I think there is enough evidence of a supernatural power behind the writing for me to accept and wrestle with the writings, not discard them.

And since I accept the writings as authoritative, then when the writer says that God wrote the 10 commandments with His finger, I accept the word "remember" as being from God. And I accept the writer's description of God speaking the 10C from Mt. Sinai as reality.

I think where we differ is that where you think that because men wrote the Bible, it cannot be trusted, I think that despite it being the writings of men, their message can be trusted, whether in literal, historical, poetic, or prophetic form. Why? Because I detect a supernatural power behind the writing, a Power that foretells the future. In which case, the writings need to be wrestled with for understanding, not set aside as untrustworthy.



Okay. But no need to suspend disbelief. If you don't believe the Bible, then just say so. At least that way we could work towards being on the same page, whatever that page might be. We might have to take a step back and discuss what is solid grounds for a belief.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

I can see you making an argument that the ten commandments are done away with, and therefore, the "Remember" of the 4th commandment no longer applies. But in the context of the ten commandments themselves, the Sabbath is indeed described as a memorial of creation.
​

Oh, you aren't making an argument that the 10 commandments have been done away with? May I ask for clarification? Do you hold that the 10C still apply or do you hold that they no longer apply?



Deuteronomy amplifies what was given by the voice of God and written with His finger in Exodus 20. Being delivered from bondage is another aspect of Sabbathkeeping, but does not do away with the memorial aspect of creation.

Also, the directive to observe the Sabbath seems to have occurred before Sinai, probably even before the liberation, because Exodus 16:28 gives insight into the law being known before Sinai, "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" I don't think anything is being read into a text that is stated so plainly.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

So...whether you believe the 10C apply today or not, what is your reason for deciding that the Sabbath was not, at least at some point in the past, a memorial of creation? I'm not, at the moment, suggesting that you must keep the Sabbath holy, but rather, simply asking, in a vacuum, why you think the Sabbath is not connected to creation.
​

The text says that God sanctified the seventh day. Genesis 2:3, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." I see no reason to ignore the "sanctified" part and concentrate only on the "rest" part. When, later, God says, "remember ... because that in it He had created," then, to me, it definitely ties Sabbath and Creation together.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Okay. How long do you think it took for creation to occur? Surely, you must have a foundation for your belief, whatever it is, otherwise, it would just be a case of "This is my opinion," nothing more.
​

In my understanding, the universe is old, the earth's foundation materials are old, but life on earth is young. So that would take care of your proffer of billions of stars and the light from those stars taking time to reach earth.

As to fossils, that would take a thread by itself just to discuss them. But briefly, from my study on the subject matter of fossils, I have come to the conclusion that they are interpreted according to worldview, and I've resolved my interpretation on a scientific basis, so don't feel a need to accept the evolutionary worldview.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

My position is based on what it says in Genesis. "Evening and morning" is a pretty literal phrase. What is your position based on?
​

It doesn't matter to me who wrote what. Why does it matter to you? To me, it is the evidence of the Supernatural that matters to me, not who His writers were.

If you cannot grasp why it might make a difference then at the moment we are not on the same page and we will continue to talk past each other... Your view is that something supernatural happened, and it may have, except the problem remains, from the other thread I started;

Kugel also states this
who decided what the bible should consist of? Not Moses, not Isaiah, not anyone we know by name in fact. The very idea of a bible, along with its present table of contents, is essentially an editorial decision......

Men editing and repackaging the source material to tell a particular story is not supernatural, it is men's work.... Thus you believe it is a document from God, I do not....

As for the 10 commandments, google the Noadic laws, then we can discuss them, in another thread more than likely....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

In what way does it violate Exodus 31:16, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant"?

Lao . . . what process would you use to define "perpetual?"

Would you use this same process to define the use of "perpetual" in Lev. 3:17, Lev. 23:14. Lev. 23:21, Ex. 23:31, Lev. 23:41, Ex. 27:21, Ex. 29:9, Ex. 30:31 and Ex. 40:15?

BFA

 

[VictorC]

I believe this statement in Fundamental 6is based on more than a myopic view of just a few words. The doctrine has been built on a wider structure of texts and summed up here in brief fashion. So to pick apart a few words as if that is all SDAs believe in regard to what is written in Fundamental 6 is not helpful. F6 is based on the entire structure of all texts that throw light on its position -- The day was sanctified. The day was to be remembered in light of creation, and so on.

Recognizing the myopia inherent in the language of FB #6 isn't consistent of your apparent support of it. Myopia describes a loss of focus, especially on items that are distant, and I believe this does describe the confusion presented in FB #6 - the GC authors inserted a conclusion regarding the sabbath unrelated to the premise of the FB itself. If additional language was necessary to insert to support the conclusion contained in the FB, then the authors should have written it in. They didn't. Your complaint should reflect the party actually responsible.

Please for a text that says the 7th day Sabbath of the fourth commandment is a shadow of a permanent rest.

Colossians 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Not Victor's opinion, now. A text.

I wish you would apply the advice you charge others with.

What is the premise?

If you have Stormy's reading glasses, put them on and read FB #6 again. They introduced the premise based on the Genesis account of God resting from His work of creation. They then wrote in "thus" to establish a literary conclusion concerning the sabbath wholly unrelated to God's rest in the creation account.

and violates Scripture.

In what way does it violate Exodus 31:16, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant"?

Put on those reading glasses, and find a relation between a memorial and a covenant that was dictated unilaterally by God for a specific people. That covenant was perpetual until the Author who dictated it found reason to replace it, and the legal precedent to do so was already established for the perpetual covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:9-13), which ended when it was replaced with the ordinance of circumcision given to Moses (Leviticus 12:1-3), which Jesus verified the origin of circumcision with the audience in attendance in John 7:22. Even the SDA church recognizes that the everlasting, perpetual covenant of circumcision came to an end and is no longer charged to a people not in the covenant relationship in which circumcision is contained. The same is true with the sabbath.

The myopic view of Fundamental Belief #6 isn't acceptable to those who find that the seventh day of creation was sanctified (Genesis 2:3), and was the impetus called on to ordain the sabbath some 2500 years later (Exodus 20:11). God's rest was the reality that the myopic couldn't see the sabbath designed to lead them to, just as "the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away" (2 Corinthians 3:13).

 

[Laodicean]

If you cannot grasp why it might make a difference then at the moment we are not on the same page and we will continue to talk past each other... Your view is that something supernatural happened, and it may have, except the problem remains, from the other thread I started;

Men editing and repackaging the source material to tell a particular story is not supernatural, it is men's work.... Thus you believe it is a document from God, I do not....

When I refer to something supernatural happening, I mean prophesies coming to pass. Of course, I also believe that God would direct holy men in their editing and repackaging of scripture, but what I'm referring to here is the fulfilment of prophecy. Men writing thousands of years before an event and their prophecies coming to pass, especially the prophecy of the Messiah, is evidence, to me, that the Mind behind the writings is not human.

Now, you can choose to doubt the time line of the writers, and imply a conspiracy in which writers wrote after the fact to make it look as if they were predicting before the fact, but that leaves you rudderless, and open to doubting whatever you choose to doubt when something does not fit with your ideas. And it leaves me free, based on your standards, to equally doubt your sources.

I don't think this is a solid foundation on which to proceed.

As for the 10 commandments, google the Noadic laws, then we can discuss them, in another thread more than likely....

Okay, I googled the Noadic laws. Great. They only confirm to me that God's laws were in existence, in some form,before Sinai.

 

[Laodicean]

Lao . . . what process would you use to define "perpetual?"

Would you use this same process to define the use of "perpetual" in Lev. 3:17, Lev. 23:14. Lev. 23:21, Ex. 23:31, Lev. 23:41, Ex. 27:21, Ex. 29:9, Ex. 30:31 and Ex. 40:15?

BFA

BFA, I define "perpetual" by its context. The texts you supply above have differing contexts for the same word. Actually, not even the same word. The meanings are similar, but different words are used for "perpetual."

NIV uses "lasting," RSV uses "perpetual," NLT uses "permanent.

For instance, Leviticus 23:31 (you had Exodus 23:31, but I guess you meant Leviticus) uses "lasting" in NIV, "forever" in RSV, and "permanent" in NLT.

Exodus 30:31 uses "for generations to come" in NIV, "throughout your generations" in RSV, and "always" in NLT.

Exodus 40:15 has "for all generations to come" in NIV, "throughout their generations" in RSV, and "from generation to generation" in NLT.

So, to me, "perpetual" can mean for as long as a situation lasts, and each situation provides context. I can't take the word in one context and apply it with exactly the same meaning in another context. "Forever" does not always mean eternity. And yet in certain contexts, "forever" can indeed mean eternal.

 

[Laodicean]

Recognizing the myopia inherent in the language of FB #6 isn't consistent of your apparent support of it.

You missed my point, Victor. The myopia I was referring to was yours. You have taken a myopic view of a few words and tried to interpret them without additional information. The fundamental beliefs were not meant to be a book, but a brief description of a belief.

Colossians 2:16-17 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

I asked you for a text that said that the fourth commandment Sabbath was a shadow. The text you have provided does not answer my request. The "sabbaths" here refer to ceremonial sabbaths. There is no text that says the fourth commandment Sabbath is a shadow.

Put on those reading glasses, and find a relation between a memorial and a covenant that was dictated unilaterally by God for a specific people.

I'm not going there with you again, Victor. For one brief, shining moment, you seemed to grasp that "covenant" means agreement or promise, but almost immediately you slid right back into your entrenched position. No, I'm not going there with you again.

 

[StormyOne]

When I refer to something supernatural happening, I mean prophesies coming to pass. Of course, I also believe that God would direct holy men in their editing and repackaging of scripture, but what I'm referring to here is the fulfilment of prophecy. Men writing thousands of years before an event and their prophecies coming to pass, especially the prophecy of the Messiah, is evidence, to me, that the Mind behind the writings is not human.

Now, you can choose to doubt the time line of the writers, and imply a conspiracy in which writers wrote after the fact to make it look as if they were predicting before the fact, but that leaves you rudderless, and open to doubting whatever you choose to doubt when something does not fit with your ideas. And it leaves me free, based on your standards, to equally doubt your sources.

I don't think this is a solid foundation on which to proceed.



Okay, I googled the Noadic laws. Great. They only confirm to me that God's laws were in existence, in some form,before Sinai.

no it is merely a point in which we disagree... go talk to a jewish rabbi and you will learn that many of the assumptions we christians have made about the jewish understanding of scripture are incorrect... likewise until you are willing to look at how the bible was compiled, who did the editorializing, who decided what would be included or excluded, then I don't think you are prepared to discuss the issue.... you cling to your belief that its the word of God and I respect that, but I've also made a mental note that you have chosen not to delve into the how we got the bible and as such in this particular area you choose magical thinking over what the evidence suggests.... I also respect that....

 

[VictorC]

You missed my point, Victor. The myopia I was referring to was yours. You have taken a myopic view of a few words and tried to interpret them without additional information. The fundamental beliefs were not meant to be a book, but a brief description of a belief.

The inability to see the end of the temporal ordinances under the first covenant describes myopia adequately, which best describes the myopic view of SDA Fundamental Belief #6. Remember, they made a jump to the sabbath from a premise that was silent about the sabbath, and then concluded that it was somehow a "perpetual memorial" of the creation.

I have found that the creation has been successful in leading me to the Creator. The language of FB #6 retains the creation and ignores God's "My rest" unique to the Creator. How is my explanation myopic? This is something your post was unable to describe, and your intended point was unsuccessful.

I asked you for a text that said that the fourth commandment Sabbath was a shadow. The text you have provided does not answer my request. The "sabbaths" here refer to ceremonial sabbaths. There is no text that says the fourth commandment Sabbath is a shadow.

This is the very reason I desired you to apply your own appeal to Scripture rather than your opinion to yourself; you wrote opinion rather than accepting Scripture. Colossians 2:16-17 specifies "sabbaths" in the plural, and does not make a distinction between the weekly sabbaths contained in an alleged "ceremonial" versus the weekly sabbaths contained in an alleged "moral" subset of the law. Calling an end to either subset causes a permanent cessation of the sabbath ordinance. Specifying a "fourth" commandment leaves you dependent on the covenant from Mount Sinai, of which there was only one, the same we were delivered from (Romans 7:6-7).

I'm not going there with you again, Victor. For one brief, shining moment, you seemed to grasp that "covenant" means agreement or promise, but almost immediately you slid right back into your entrenched position. No, I'm not going there with you again.

The ten commandments have been defined using the language that Moses used to describe the covenant from Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:12-13), the same ten commandments that Paul instructs Christians to cast off, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman" (Galatians 4:24-31). A covenant with no content is what you have repeatedly described, and of course no one is buying it.

The comments concerning my entrenched dedication and a brief shining moment when you thought I might accept your opinion indicate you have no real substance to back up your opinion. You resort to personal attacks, which is a departure from discussion.

 

[Laodicean]

no it is merely a point in which we disagree... go talk to a jewish rabbi and you will learn that many of the assumptions we christians have made about the jewish understanding of scripture are incorrect... likewise until you are willing to look at how the bible was compiled, who did the editorializing, who decided what would be included or excluded, then I don't think you are prepared to discuss the issue.... you cling to your belief that its the word of God and I respect that, but I've also made a mental note that you have chosen not to delve into the how we got the bible and as such in this particular area you choose magical thinking over what the evidence suggests.... I also respect that....

Stormy, what makes you think that I have not looked at how the Bible was compiled? Is it because I have not read Kugel that you draw the assumption that I have not studied into how the Bible came to be?

In any event, by your standard of doubting human writers, how do I know that I can trust Kugel and his opinions? How do I know that he isn't lying or has not done his research well?

And come on, Stormy, I don't think it is fair of you to say that I cling to my belief that the Bible is the word of God, when, in our discussions of the previous fundamentals, I made it clear that I believe that the Bible is the word about God, not of God, especially if "of" leads one to believe that God wrote every word Himself.

Have we exhausted fundamental 6 then? Shall we move on?

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, what makes you think that I have not looked at how the Bible was compiled? Is it because I have not read Kugel that you draw the assumption that I have not studied into how the Bible came to be?

In any event, by your standard of doubting human writers, how do I know that I can trust Kugel and his opinions? How do I know that he isn't lying or has not done his research well?

And come on, Stormy, I don't think it is fair of you to say that I cling to my belief that the Bible is the word of God, when, in our discussions of the previous fundamentals, I made it clear that I believe that the Bible is the word about God, not of God, especially if "of" leads one to believe that God wrote every word Himself.

Have we exhausted fundamental 6 then? Shall we move on?

Its not necessary that you read Kugel, however your failure to acknowledge the problems inherent with how the bible was compiled leads me to believe that you have not done any meaningful exploration into the process.... if you have, I apologize for believing you have not....

We can move on if you feel we've done all the damage we can do to this one....

 

[AzA]

Lao . . . what process would you use to define "perpetual?"

Would you use this same process to define the use of "perpetual" in Lev. 3:17, Lev. 23:14. Lev. 23:21, Ex. 23:31, Lev. 23:41, Ex. 27:21, Ex. 29:9, Ex. 30:31 and Ex. 40:15?

BFA

BFA, I define "perpetual" by its context. The texts you supply above have differing contexts for the same word. Actually, not even the same word. The meanings are similar, but different words are used for "perpetual."

NIV uses "lasting," RSV uses "perpetual," NLT uses "permanent.

For instance, Leviticus 23:31 (you had Exodus 23:31, but I guess you meant Leviticus) uses "lasting" in NIV, "forever" in RSV, and "permanent" in NLT.

Exodus 30:31 uses "for generations to come" in NIV, "throughout your generations" in RSV, and "always" in NLT.

Exodus 40:15 has "for all generations to come" in NIV, "throughout their generations" in RSV, and "from generation to generation" in NLT.

So, to me, "perpetual" can mean for as long as a situation lasts, and each situation provides context. I can't take the word in one context and apply it with exactly the same meaning in another context. "Forever" does not always mean eternity. And yet in certain contexts, "forever" can indeed mean eternal.

As a note, the English words vary (translated by different people with different theological commitments and translation philosophies) -- but the underlying Hebrew word is the same in each of these passages, except in those which speak of a generational connection.

I thought it possible that readers might not pick that up based on what was said so far.

It is true, as best as I know, that the root, olam, is not an atomic-clock kind of concept. This makes sense because the ancient Hebrews were not an atomic-clock kind of people.

Things last as long as they last, and only that long.
People last even less long.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

So, to me, "perpetual" can mean for as long as a situation lasts.

In your statement above, you've done a nice job of summarizing my understanding of the word "perpetual," as used in Exodus 31. Thanks.

I agree that words derive their meaning from context. However, the root word itself provides significant clues. As Aza shared in his post, if we were to look at Exodus 31 and Leviticus 23, we would find that the root word is the same (even though the English translation varies).

What's interesting to me is the similarity of the context between Exodus 31 and Leviticus 23. The fact that the context is so strikingly similar and the root word is the same leads me to the conclusion that I should apply the same definition in both passages. I understand that you've reached an alternate conclusion.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Colossians 2:16-17 specifies "sabbaths" in the plural, and does not make a distinction between the weekly sabbaths contained in an alleged "ceremonial" versus the weekly sabbaths contained in an alleged "moral" subset of the law.

Neither do Exodus 34 or Leviticus 23 which classify the seventh-day sabbath in the same category as any other convocation.

It's interesting to me that many SDAs are willing to acknowledge that the seventh-day sabbath pointed forward to something, but are unable to view the sabbath as a shadow.

BFA

 

[AzA]

As Aza shared in his post...

Thanks for making me smile, BFA!

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thanks for making me smile, BFA!

Oops. After all of this time, you'd think I'd get it right.



I'm really sorry!

:o

Thanks for receiving my mistake with a smile.



BFA