Sam Bacchiocchi vs. Dale Ratzlaff in Sabbath debate

[NightEternal]

Sabbath vs. Sunday
An Internet Debate

Installment #1/Introduction​

Is the Saturday Sabbath a creational institution for mankind, or a Mosaic ordinance for the Jews alone? Do Christians need to observe the Sabbath, or has Jesus Christ fulfilled its typological function by becoming our salvation rest?
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, professor of Theology and Church History at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan and Dale Ratzlaff, pastor of the Christian Community Church in Glendale, Arizona agreed to debate their opposing views regarding the Sabbath/Sunday question on the Internet.


The Internet Debaters

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
​

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has published several books supporting the keeping of a Saturday Sabbath, the most famous of which is his doctoral dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday, originally published by the Pontifical Gregorian University Press with the official Catholic imprimatur.

Dale Ratzlaff​

Mr. Ratzlaff has published his views in a book entitled The Sabbath in Crisis and believes that the Sabbath is not a creational/moral institution for mankind, but a ceremonial/Old Covenant ordinance given to the Jews. Christians, according to Mr. Ratzlaff, no longer need to observe the Sabbath. ​

Dr. Bacchiocchi's Web site is at:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com

Mr. Ratzlaff's Web site is at:
http://www.ratzlaf.com

The general format of this debate will be that Dr. Bacchiocchi will give an analysis of Mr. Ratzlaff's arguments found in his book The Sabbath in Crisis, after which Mr. Ratzlaff will give his response and offer his own arguments for Dr. Bacchiocchi to answer.

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/DebateIntroduction.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate2.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate3.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate4.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate5.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate6.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate7.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate8.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate9.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate10.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate11.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate12.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate13.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate14.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate15.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate16.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate17%2DPart1.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate17%2DPart2.htm

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate18.htm

 

[tall73]

Well I remember the flood in my inbox!

Now if only someone would step up to the plate and debate the IJ.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Thanks Nite for this thread and all the sites for the debate. I am copying them off one at a time.

God Bless you brother
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Well I remember the flood in my inbox!

Now if only someone would step up to the plate and debate the IJ.

I've been reading some of Ford's work on the IJ. Some of his work is good but some of it is not so good. For instance he claims the 2300 days could relate to Antiochus Epiphanes but if you check the time line 2300 days is only 6.38 years. So depending on the starting date for this if you take it literally it wouldn't even get you out of the Babylonian empire rule time. If you accept the day for a year principle which makes the most sense it is a spurious contention at best.

Another thing is that he does not treat the contextual hebrew and it's obvious sanctuarial tones/animals well in relating to Dan 8:14 at all. Nor does he correlate Rev 10 and 11 to the end times or a judgement of the dead before the 2nd advent.

There a lot more but those were just a few of the things I have found wrong with his study so far.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

I've been reading some of Ford's work on the IJ. Some of his work is good but some of it is not so good. For instance he claims the 2300 days could relate to Antiochus Epiphanes but if you check the time line 2300 days is only 6.38 years. So depending on the starting date for this if you take it literally it wouldn't even get you out of the Babylonian empire rule time. If you accept the day for a year principle which makes the most sense it is a spurious contention at best.

Another thing is that he does not treat the contextual hebrew and it's obvious sanctuarial tones/animals well in relating to Dan 8:14 at all. Nor does he correlate Rev 10 and 11 to the end times or a judgement of the dead before the 2nd advent.

There a lot more but those were just a few of the things I have found wrong with his study so far.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I don't agree with Ford's conclusions, but I do with his questions.

Incidentally, are you reading his big book?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I've been reading some of Ford's work on the IJ. Some of his work is good but some of it is not so good. For instance he claims the 2300 days could relate to Antiochus Epiphanes but if you check the time line 2300 days is only 6.38 years. So depending on the starting date for this if you take it literally it wouldn't even get you out of the Babylonian empire rule time. If you accept the day for a year principle which makes the most sense it is a spurious contention at best.

Another thing is that he does not treat the contextual hebrew and it's obvious sanctuarial tones/animals well in relating to Dan 8:14 at all. Nor does he correlate Rev 10 and 11 to the end times or a judgement of the dead before the 2nd advent.

There a lot more but those were just a few of the things I have found wrong with his study so far.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

That is because AE does not meet every aspect of every prophecy in Daniel anymore then 1844 and the IJ meet all of the things you listed.

In general the idea is that AE deals with the particular desecration of the temple and he is a type for the anti-Christ's final opposition. Apparently SDA's have no problem seeing dual prophecy ideas in Joel 2 but can't see it in Daniel. Of course the view of Daniel is not dual prophecy but refers to specific events which from other New Testement ideas shows similarities to other prophecies. Likewise Joel 2 is not a dual prophecy but is a description of the last days, which began at the time of the apostles.

 

[Jimlarmore]

That is because AE does not meet every aspect of every prophecy in Daniel anymore then 1844 and the IJ meet all of the things you listed.

Antiochus Epiphanes didn't come along for several hundred years from the time of Daniel and if you throw out the day for a year principle you have a hard time making AE fit any of the major time lines we study. He cannot be the little horn of Dan 8:9 for several reasons.

1. He did not wax great in the four directions the Bible says this power did.
2. He did not take part in the taking away of the continual burnt offerings which is symbolic of Christ's role in heaven as a mediator.
3. He did not totally conquer or subjugate the chosen people as did the Roman power and later the papal power for 1260 years.


God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I don't agree with Ford's conclusions, but I do with his questions.

Incidentally, are you reading his big book?

No, I've been reading the stuff off the internet on him and his beliefs.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

Antiochus Epiphanes didn't come along for several hundred years from the time of Daniel and if you throw out the day for a year principle you have a hard time making AE fit any of the major time lines we study. He cannot be the little horn of Dan 8:9 for several reasons.

1. He did not wax great in the four directions the Bible says this power did.
2. He did not take part in the taking away of the continual burnt offerings which is symbolic of Christ's role in heaven as a mediator.
3. He did not totally conquer or subjugate the chosen people as did the Roman power and later the papal power for 1260 years.


God bless
Jim Larmore

For some more details of how he didn't fulfill the prophecies in Daniel see: http://www.666man.net/Dating_the_Book_of_Daniel_by_David_Conklin.html#a4e

There are so many problems thinking that Antiochus was the fulfillment of the prophices I find it unfathanomable as to why Ford persists in trotting it out. Of course, if he dropped it that would mean he was wrong and people might wonder what else he was wrong on. Some people "worship" the man instead of seeking the truth.

 

[djconklin]

http://true.faithweb.com/debate/Debate5.htm

"In his examination of this passage Ratzlaff attempts to show two things: (1) the Sabbath mentioned in this text is the weekly Sabbath and not the annual ceremonial Sabbaths (pp. 157-160). (2) "The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old covenant convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel guilty for NOT observing them" (p. 163).

Ratzlaff's first conclusion is accurate, because I have stated in my dissertation "The three words, feasts, new moons and sabbaths, represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times. This view is validated by the occurrence of these terms, in similar or reverse sequence, five times in the Septuagint and several times in other literature (See From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 358-359)."

For the Greek way of thinking it is a "logical and progressive sequence" of annual, monthly and weekly; but, since Paul is a Semite it is more likely to be a chiasm of annual, monthly, annual. The Day of Atonement and blowing of trumprets are never called "feast" days in the OT; hence since they are ceremonial sabbaths the only way for them to include them in a comphrensive listing of ceremonial days is to say "feast, new moon and sabbaths."

 

[Sophia7]

For the Greek way of thinking it is a "logical and progressive sequence" of annual, monthly and weekly; but, since Paul is a Semite it is more likely to be a chiasm of annual, monthly, annual.

"Some people see chiasm in their cereal bowls" (tall73).

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Antiochus Epiphanes didn't come along for several hundred years from the time of Daniel and if you throw out the day for a year principle you have a hard time making AE fit any of the major time lines we study. He cannot be the little horn of Dan 8:9 for several reasons.

1. He did not wax great in the four directions the Bible says this power did.
2. He did not take part in the taking away of the continual burnt offerings which is symbolic of Christ's role in heaven as a mediator.
3. He did not totally conquer or subjugate the chosen people as did the Roman power and later the papal power for 1260 years.


God bless
Jim Larmore

Clearly you only see things through the SDA view and when the AE view is not the same as the SDA view you say it can't be the AE. This is sophistry, but then again it is the same sophistry the Lesson quarterly used.

 

[tall73]

No, I've been reading the stuff off the internet on him and his beliefs.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

If you really want to know why Ford matters, get the big book and read only the first half.

From there, in my opinion, it went down hill.

 

[happywiththelord]

All i am going to say is this guy is off his rocker! (Dale Ratzlaff that is!)

 

[Sophia7]

All i am going to say is this guy is off his rocker! (Dale Ratzlaff that is!)

Have you read anything that he has written?

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
For the Greek way of thinking it is a "logical and progressive sequence" of annual, monthly and weekly; but, since Paul is a Semite it is more likely to be a chiasm of annual, monthly, annual.

"Some people see chiasm in their cereal bowls" (tall73).

I haven't met that person yet. I simply noted that different people think differently. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by happywiththelord
All i am going to say is this guy is off his rocker! (Dale Ratzlaff that is!)

Have you read anything that he has written?

I have and he is.

 

[djconklin]

Clearly you only see things through the SDA view and when the AE view is not the same as the SDA view you say it can't be the AE. This is sophistry, but then again it is the same sophistry the Lesson quarterly used.

And just as clearly you didn't offer any proof to support your statement.

 

[happywiththelord]

i have heard his debate and its bogus! so i agree with dj!

 

[Cliff2]

I've been reading some of Ford's work on the IJ. Some of his work is good but some of it is not so good. For instance he claims the 2300 days could relate to Antiochus Epiphanes but if you check the time line 2300 days is only 6.38 years. So depending on the starting date for this if you take it literally it wouldn't even get you out of the Babylonian empire rule time. If you accept the day for a year principle which makes the most sense it is a spurious contention at best.

Another thing is that he does not treat the contextual hebrew and it's obvious sanctuarial tones/animals well in relating to Dan 8:14 at all. Nor does he correlate Rev 10 and 11 to the end times or a judgement of the dead before the 2nd advent.

There a lot more but those were just a few of the things I have found wrong with his study so far.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I have know Ford now for around 50 years. Not all he says is right and not all he says is wrong.

Some seem to think that every word he writes is from the devil himself.

That is not the case at all.

I believe his work on the gospel is as good as you are going to find.