So confused on the Sabbath...

[ThreeAM]

The Mosiac Law was a singlar law, never is it referred to in Scripture as the Law(S) of Moses it is a singularity, your distinctions for this reason mean nothing. It is a single code of law with 613 provisions, they are all a part of the Mosic law, he who breaks one of them is guilty of breaking all of the Law, Scripture is clear on this point. If you desire to be under Law, then be under it all 613 not just the ones you pick, and yet all the law which was given to ethnic Israel and to no one else has been fulfilled in Messiah.

Apparently not to God or He would have had Moses place the book that God had Moses write the ceremonial and civil laws in placed inside the ark with the Ten Commandments.


1Ki 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

 

[ThreeAM]

Good nonanswer, why did you bother to post at all if you had no intention of answering the questions?

Again :
One issue which I think has escaped this discussion. For those who suggest that we must keep the Sabbath I have a few questions which need to be answered for me to continue in this discussion.
Firstly what are the results of keeping the Sabbath, that is does one need to keep it to be Saved? That is can a person be considered righteous in the eyes of a Holy God if he does not keep the Sabath?

Secoundly will a redeemed sinner loose his eternal life if he does not continue to keep the Sabbath? And if so, how does he then again regain his eternal life.

Not at all I gave you plenty of information. The sabbath is just like the other 9 commandments no more important and no less important. You didn't answer my question so.....can a Christian continue in willful sin and rebellion agaisnt God and still expect salvation? Or should they obey God if they truely love Him. Really you are the one who failed to give an answer.

If we love Christ we keep His commandments. By their fruits we shall know them.


I'm not a OSAS person. I believe we can turn our backs on God and if we do we will be lost.


I believe our obedience is a sign of our love for God. I also believe that willful disobedience is a sign of our rebelion against God. I don't think that God will save those who do not love him. Observance of the Sabbath has been and always will be a sign of sanctification for those who observe the Sabbath because they love God. It will forever be a sign between God and his people. Sanctification is the slow process of becoming more Christ like in our lives. It is a life long process that will never be completed until the second coming but a process that we should strive to every day. There is nothing we can do to earn salavation Justification is a free gift but there are things we do because we are saved and we love God and that is the process of sanctification. When we become Christians we should avoid sin even if we recieve grace.

1Cr 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[FijianBeliever]

Not at all I gave you plenty of information. The sabbath is just like the other 9 commandments no more important and no less important. You didn't answer my question so.....can a Christian continue in willful sin and rebellion agaisnt God and still expect salvation? Or should they obey God if they truely love Him. Really you are the one who failed to give an answer.

If we love Christ we keep His commandments. By their fruits we shall know them.


I'm not a OSAS person. I believe we can turn our backs on God and if we do we will be lost.


I believe our obedience is a sign of our love for God. I also believe that willful disobedience is a sign of our rebelion against God. I don't think that God will save those who do not love him. Observance of the Sabbath has been and always will be a sign of sanctification for those who observe the Sabbath because they love God. It will forever be a sign between God and his people. Sanctification is the slow process of becoming more Christ like in our lives. It is a life long process that will never be completed until the second coming but a process that we should strive to every day. There is nothing we can do to earn salavation but there are things we do because we are saved and we love God. When we become Christians we should avoid sin even if we recieve grace.

1Cr 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

One question.

What do you define as "observe the Sabbath"?

 

[JAL]

Well I trust God to know when to make single evening and a single morning. Also notice Moses inspired by God makes NO DIFFENCE in how he describes the timing of all the days of the week. No matter if the sun and moon were created later in the week.

Gen 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If they were not 24hr days but rather eons of timethen how did plants survive without insects to pollinate them for what ...thousands or maybe millions of years?

And if these single evening an single morning was really eons of time and not 24 days how did all the splants all those millions of years of darkness followed by millions of years of light????

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. [A single evening and a single morning.]

An how did all those plants survive for eons without INSECTS to cross pollinate them????


Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Insects were created on the 6th day but the plants would died eons and eons before the insects ever came along.


Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Solution God created the earth in six 24hr day and rested on the 7th 24 hr day.

Why do we have a 7 day week and not a 6, 8, 9, or 10 day week. Both the French and the Russians tried to go to a Ten day week and failed. What celestial event dictates a 7 day week? Not the moon not the sun yet MAN has a 7 day week. Hmmmm.

Any functionality provided by an ordinary sun (including regular nights and including seasons) is available by divine Light. Nights and seaons on earth have nothing to do with whether or not there were 6 Galactic Days and 6 Galactic Nights. As for your view, it is unclear in how you define the first three days and nights if there is no sun in place.
(Your comment about why we have a seven day week and the Russians couldn't get to a 10 day week - I don't see your point. If you are trying to use this as another "go-to-church-on-Saturday" argument, I can't seem to follow your leap or connect your dots in this case).

 

[ThreeAM]

One question.

What do you define as "observe the Sabbath"?

Well everyone has to decide exactly what that means to them by prayer and study of the scriptures. I believe it is a speacial day that starts friday at sundown and goes to Saturday at sundown. On that day I put aside regular work. I go to church that day a worship God with others. I use the day for rest and for intense study and prayer. I also send the day with my family. Some time we go hiking etc.

I believe we should worship God daily through study and prayer but the Sabbath is a day to shut the usual Rat Race out and a day to spend with our Creator.

 

[FijianBeliever]

Well everyone has to decide exactly what that means to them by prayer. I believe it is a speacial day that starts friday at sundown and goes to Saturday at sundown. On that day I put aside regular work. I go to church that day a worship God with others. I use the day for rest and for intense study and prayer. I also send the day with my family. Some time we go hiking etc.

I believe we should worship God daily through study and prayer but the Sabbath is a day to shut the usual Rat Race out and a day to spend with our Creator.

So, for you, the Sabbath = no work, no rat race?

 

[JAL]

Not at all, I think that Carbon 14 dating can be some what reliable until the time of the flood. But plants and animals or organic things were likely shielded from carbon 14 absorption prior to the flood. So plants and animals prior to the flood would have much less Carbon 14 than would have been predicted if a steady state of absorption of Carbon 14 really did exist. This would make them appear much older than they really were.

It is sort of like if some one carbon dated our bodies a 1000 years from now using the exact same methods as we use today.. Our remains would appear much younger that 1000 years old because of all of the carbon in our atmosphere today since the begining of the industrial revolution from the burning of carbon containing fuels. Our live bodies contain more carbon 14 than someone who lived 200 years ago did before they died.

We KNOW that carbon 14 absorption has not remained in a steady stated in our own life time I cannot leap to the assumption that Carbon 14 up take has remained stable for millions and millions and millions of years.

My main objection to this is that I don't see much difference between carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating at large. In principle, they seem pretty much the same. If carbon-14 dating is "reliable until the flood" then why isn't the larger body of radiometric dating reliable? YECists fallback heavily on a doctrine of variable atmospheric carbon levels, allowing them to escape from any old dates given by carbon-14. Ok,fine, but I don't see how it escapes them from old dates given by a VARIETY of other substances used for dating.

 

[ThreeAM]

Any functionality provided by an ordinary sun (including regular nights and including seasons) is available by divine Light. Nights and seaons on earth have nothing to do with whether or not there were 6 Galactic Days and 6 Galactic Nights. As for your view, it is unclear in how you define the first three days and nights if there is no sun in place.

Perhaps you need to read my post again. You suggest creation took millions of years. That's impossible. In the first place the time periods for a day were an evening and a morning. The second place IF the evening and morning [singular] were extended periods of time ...say a billion hour day and a billion hour night the plants would have never survived due to lack of photosynthisis and lack of pollenation.

(Your comment about why we have a seven day week and the Russians couldn't get to a 10 day week - I don't see your point. If you are trying to use this as another "go-to-church-on-Saturday" argument, I can't seem to follow your leap or connect your dots in this case).

LOL That was a thought question for bonus points. Perhaps I should be more clear on this one. There is no celestial event that corresponds to our weekly cycle. We have a solar year because of the sun. The lunar month is because of the moon. But there is absolutly know reason for a seven day week. Yet we have a even day week even though Man has tried to change the length of the week. Every country in the world functions on a seven day week. WHY ...because God wants it that way. If the world had switched to a 10 day week there would be almost no way to observe the seventh day. It is also interesting to note that the two countries that had teied to change the weekly cycle had declared atheism as offical state policy at the time they attempted the change.

 

[JAL]

[FONT=&quot]Perhaps you need to read my post again. You suggest creation took millions of years. That's impossible. In the first place the time periods for a day were an evening and a morning. The second place IF the evening and morning [singular] were extended periods of time ...say a billion hour day and a billion hour night the plants would have never survived due to lack of photosynthisis and lack of pollenation. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Most people I debate with are much smarter than I am, and I don’t see you as any exception. The problem is, this makes me assume that they will pretty readily understand what I write. I can’t seem to get used to the fact that this is usually not the case. So I will try to be more clear. For starters, let me repeat myself. The Six Galactic days and Six Galactic Nights have absolutely nothing to do with whether there are 24 hour days and nights on earth. The divine Light is capable of providing both these phenomena simultaneously even with no existing sun. You see, God is quite capable of manipulating Light in ways we can’t even imagine. For example, when you are sleeping, and your room seems “dark”, it is actually filled with the divine Light, it’s just that you can’t see it, because He shields your eyes from it. As a result, you don’t even see the angels in your room because the Light reflecting off their torsos never strikes your eyes. And you don’t hear them speaking, because He shields your ears from their sound waves. But when he wants you to see and hear angels – trust me, you’ll see them, and you’ll hear them. Note that many angelic apparitions, as recorded in Scripture, were attended by visible Light. Why so? Because the exposure of Light is precisely what made them visible! Does this clarify my position?[/FONT]

 

[JAL]

[FONT=&quot]LOL That was a thought question for bonus points. Perhaps I should be more clear on this one. There is no celestial event that corresponds to our weekly cycle. We have a solar year because of the sun. The lunar month is because of the moon. But there is absolutly know reason for a seven day week. Yet we have a even day week even though Man has tried to change the length of the week. Every country in the world functions on a seven day week. WHY ...because God wants it that way. If the world had switched to a 10 day week there would be almost no way to observe the seventh day. It is also interesting to note that the two countries that had teied to change the weekly cycle had declared atheism as offical state policy at the time they attempted the change. [/FONT]

Again, I don’t see the significance of this argument for defending sabbatarianism. In my view, sabbatarianism is basically the doctrine that we should rest on the last day of the week based on which day is, in our society, currently defined as that day (apparently Saturday). Therefore the sabbatarian claim could be argued (or refuted!) regardless of whether there a are 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 (etc) days in a week. Yes, God may have had some special reason for choosing seven days. But as far as the debate between sabbatarians and non-sabbatarians, it seems to me a moot point. I suppose I must be missing something, since you keep raising this issue, but frankly I don’t know what it is.

 

[ThreeAM]

So, for you, the Sabbath = no work, no rat race?

Sabbath =Worship of the Creator> No work > Rest> no rat race

Pretty much in that order. How about you? Do you have a perfered day of worship? What do you do on that day.

 

[ThreeAM]

My main objection to this is that I don't see much difference between carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating at large. In principle, they seem pretty much the same. If carbon-14 dating is "reliable until the flood" then why isn't the larger body of radiometric dating reliable? YECists fallback heavily on a doctrine of variable atmospheric carbon levels, allowing them to escape from any old dates given by carbon-14. Ok,fine, but I don't see how it escapes them from old dates given by a VARIETY of other substances used for dating.

LOL I though we had already that settled. We don't know if God made ths earth with old material that has all forms of radioactive decay. I suspect He used old material and that is the reason we have lead etc. Carbon 14 dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that we had a steady state of carborn 14 for million and millions of years until the 1800's and the industrial revolution. That is a Huge assumption that can never be proven. Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope with a half life of 5730 years. Cosmic rays impact nitrogen which forms more carbon 14.


1n + 14N → 14C + 1p

There are many problems with carbon 14 dating some requiring correction curves for tempratures etc. Another problem is if the earth was surounded did by a vapor barrier the cosmic rays would not have entered into the reaction with nitrogen at the same rate as we see today and there would be no steady state for Carbon 14.

Gen 1:6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”

7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

8.God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

If it was this water above the sky that fell and cause the flood it would explain why Carbon 14 dating can not be correct when dating things that were alive before the flood. And it would explain why those things have much less carbon 14 content and appear extremely old.

 

[JAL]

LOL I though we had already that settled. We don't know if God made ths earth with old material that has all forms of radioactive decay. I suspect He used old material and that is the reason we have lead etc. Carbon 14 dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that we had a steady state of carborn 14 for million and millions of years until the 1800's and the industrial revolution. That is a Huge assumption that can never be proven. Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope with a half life of 5730 years. Cosmic rays impact nitrogen which forms more carbon 14.

When you keep pressing this carbon-14 argument without having addressed my initial statement on the issue of dating, it doesn't have much credibility with me. My initial statement is that there are several mutually confirmatory dating methods difficult to ignore. Consider for example this citation from TalkOrigins:
"The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

 

[ThreeAM]

[FONT=&quot]Most people I debate with are much smarter than I am, and I don’t see you as any exception. The problem is, this makes me assume that they will pretty readily understand what I write. I can’t seem to get used to the fact that this is usually not the case. So I will try to be more clear. For starters, let me repeat myself. The Six Galactic days and Six Galactic Nights have absolutely nothing to do with whether there are 24 hour days and nights on earth. The divine Light is capable of providing both these phenomena simultaneously even with no existing sun. You see, God is quite capable of manipulating Light in ways we can’t even imagine. For example, when you are sleeping, and your room seems “dark”, it is actually filled with the divine Light, it’s just that you can’t see it, because He shields your eyes from it. As a result, you don’t even see the angels in your room because the Light reflecting off their torsos never strikes your eyes. And you don’t hear them speaking, because He shields your ears from their sound waves. But when he wants you to see and hear angels – trust me, you’ll see them, and you’ll hear them. Note that many angelic apparitions, as recorded in Scripture, were attended by visible Light. Why so? Because the exposure of Light is precisely what made them visible! Does this clarify my position?[/FONT]

Interesting theory. But God is also able to provide 12 hours of sun light where there is no sun and 12 hours of moon light where there is no moon. Correct? So your point is moot because there is no differentation of the day length in any day of Creation yet we know the sun and moon dictated the length of at least some of the creation days..

Gen 1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.


But we need only to look to the exodus where God again timing of Sabbath in the Sinai desert. and did so with manna for 40 years.

 

[APY]

I am not sure if anyone has said this...the thread is soooo long.....But I believe that Jesus said......if you have to do work to make a living on the sabbath...DO IT!! I would consider school making a living due to in this day and age needing an education to servive when you are out on your own.

 

[JAL]

Interesting theory. But God is also able to provide 12 hours of sun light where there is no sun and 12 hours of moon light where there is no moon. Correct? So your point is moot because there is no differentation of the day length in any day of Creation yet we know the sun and moon dictated the length of at least some of the creation days..

Gen 1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;

and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

But we need only to look to the exodus where God again timing of Sabbath in the Sinai desert. and did so with manna for 40 years.

I think you're simply misunderstanding the text. Although the text might allow for your reading, my reading possibly flows better, for the seven days, in my view, are consistently generated by a single source of Light (God). Your reading is less uniform, it seems to me. You have Moses beginning with non-sun days and then ending with sun-based days. Now, as for the verse you quoted, in my view, it has nothing to do with the Six Galactic Days (as I have pointed out several times). All it tells us, in my view, is that the divine Light no longer needed to simulate 24-hour earth-days once our sun was in place, as would be expected.

Well, I suppose I'm biased when I say that my reading flows better but, regardless, the text allows for my reading, and that's the main issue.

 

[ThreeAM]

When you keep pressing this carbon-14 argument without having addressed my initial statement on the issue of dating, it doesn't have much credibility with me. My initial statement is that there are several mutually confirmatory dating methods difficult to ignore. Consider for example this citation from TalkOrigins:
"The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

You keep trying to quotes talks orgin as your source I thought I already explained ther biased perspective in the Hemeglobin immunology issues. They ignore nore things like fossil reversal and stair step fossils rather that a continuous fossile history. We see lots of this species and lots of that species but no continuious progression in the fossil evidence between the two species. But talksorigins will never mention that....

Sorry but calibrating carbon 14 dating back 30K years is bunk. Because it again assumes the knew how much carbon 14 was avaiable 30K years ago. THAT can't be reliably known. Their have been several experements where Carbon 14 was use to date objects with known ages. Some of the carbon 14 was resonably accurate and others it failed miserably.

 

[JAL]

And before you once again bring up the same tired argument about God having created the world with old material, let me make sure you are being consistent. If the material in the fossil record is excessively old, then we would have to adjust ALL datings accordingly. This apparently means that even the recent dates given by radiometric substances (I am referring to substances other than radiocarbon) must be adjusted. The problem with this contention, as I see it, is that many of those recent dates are already accepted by YECs as being accurate. Thus your claim, if it proves anything, would only prove too much, as I see it.

 

[ThreeAM]

And before you once again bring up the same tired argument about God having created the world with old material, let me make sure you are being consistent. If the material in the fossil record is excessively old, then we would have to adjust ALL datings accordingly. This apparently means that even the recent dates given by radiometric substances (I am referring to substances other than radiocarbon) must be adjusted. The problem with this contention, as I see it, is that many of those recent dates are already accepted by YECs as being accurate. Thus your claim, if it proves anything, would only prove too much, as I see it.

That line of reasoning makes no sense what so ever. It seems y ou are in a little over your head. Got to work tommorow good night.

 

[JAL]

You keep trying to quotes talks orgin as your source I thought I already explained ther biased perspective in the Hemeglobin immunology issues. They ignore nore things like fossil reversal and stair step fossils rather that a continuous fossile history. We see lots of this species and lots of that species but no continuious progression in the fossil evidence between the two species. But talksorigins will never mention that....

Sorry but calibrating carbon 14 dating back 30K years is bunk. Because it again assumes the knew how much carbon 14 was avaiable 30K years ago. THAT can't be reliably known. Their have been several experements where Carbon 14 was use to date objects with known ages. Some of the carbon 14 was resonably accurate and others it failed miserably.

No, I think you are missing the real thrust of the argument - mutually confirmatory dates. To discredit the argument, you will first need to discredit dendochronology, varve layer counting, coral reef dating, ice-core dating, etc. You are asking me to endorse a logic which stretches the very limits of my imagination.

I once read a documentary about a noted YEC "scientist" who had to testify in court. He admitted, under oath, that if only had the scientific evidence to look at, and no Bible, we'd quite readily conclude that the earth is old. You keep using the term "bunk". Given such concessions by YECs, it seems to me that their attempt to use science to support YECism is where the definite bunk is really found.