So confused on the Sabbath...

[JAL]

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.

If you are going to be condescending, fine, perhaps I deserve it - but show your work, because in all too many cases I have seen condescending people on this forum have nothing to back up their condescension.

 

[Sleaker]

Not to be pushy, but can you guys take the YEC/OEC discussion to another thread, trying to stay OT here and I keep seeing 2-3 pages of creation talk in between, not really sure how sabbath has anything to do with the OP as of now.

 

[JAL]

Yes, perhaps we've strayed too far, but perhaps I can clarify how we got here.

Sabbatarians emphasize Saturday largely based on their assumption that God rested on that day. My claim is that God did not rest on ANY of the 24-hour days as we know them because the six day-night periods of Genesis 1 (lightness-darkness) periods occured with no sun in place (at least not until the 4th day). In my view the divine Light is responsible for these six days. To substantiate this, I argued that the earth is 4 billion yearrs old, and therefore the six days spanned 4 billion years.

 

[minus208]

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.

Ok, so days can only mean years when Adventist say they should right? Why cant days be years in the Genesis account? Why cant a day be like 1,000 years in this case?

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?

UUUMMM, maybe because death did not exist.. I mean we are talking about eternity here give me a break.

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????

I'm sure you were trying to repeat what you said previously that plants couldn't survive without light, but this is nonesensical since physical death did not exist till sin came into the world.. Obiviously they were living in eternity so there was no suchthing as death.

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

Have you ever studied the greek way of thinking that always seems to have an explanation to everything? We as God's children are not supposed to have all the answers but accept things as they are even if they maybe unclear to us. Now in answer to your question i'll repeat no death no sin, no sin no death, God can do whatever he wants.

without INSECTS to cross pollinate them????

Obviously if the insects did not come into existence till the sixth day and plants were already in existence, so much for the cross pollinating.

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.

Not so, you mean to tell me that Adam and Eve could have died before they transgressed?

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

I have no problem with your view on a young earth and a literal six 24 hour day creation. Now when you raise up these arguments that make no sense is when i start to question.

 

[JAL]

Frankly, I don't really see the need to prolong this debate over YECism, because the very first objection to sabbatarianism that I raised on this thread seems to me sufficiently devastating. Allow me to recap. Sabbatarians claim that we should take the 10 commandments literally. I pointed out that the commandment in debate here says the following, "SIX DAYS YE SHALL LABOR, and do all thy work, on the seventh ye shall rest." But sabbatarians do not labor six days. They labor five days, and have no qualms about taking a two week vacation. (I have a coworker who is a DEVOUT 7th day Adventist - in fact she occasionally tried to shove her sabbatarianism down the throats of other Christians. A while back she asked for a three month leave of absence from her job because her (military) husband would be stationed in Germany where she has relatives and consequently she wanted to vacation there. Our company only gives two weeks vacation, so she was asking for unpaid time off from work).


Anyway, repeatedly I asked ThreeAm to answer the following question (paraphrased here), "When reading the ten commandments, must we, in each case, take the WHOLE verse literally? YES or NO?" In other words, do we take literally only those parts of the verse most tasteful to us - in this case the part about RESTING as opposed to the part about WORKING six days? ThreeAm has had every opportunity to answer this question. He has abstained. I came into this thread with the suspicion that this argument devastates the sabbatarian position. ThreeAm's conspicuous silence to my repeated question (a simple Yes or No question) has been, for me, the most confirmatory factor that I could hope for.

Therefore (unless I get really bored), I am finished with this discussion.

 

[holo]

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.

Well, God loved us and died for us while we were still his enemies. So he has actually already saved people who don't love him. Think about it, it's almost the opposite of what you seem to suggest. I think it's a very serious thing to say that God won't save people who don't love him. Because the reality is that we love him because he loved (saved) us first.

Willful disobedience... is there such a thing as disobedience that's not willful? I mean, did you ever sin without choice? I see your point though, I just think the distinction between sin and willful sin is unnatural and destructive.

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.

Yes and no. I can't become more like Christ by striving, but rather by looking at him. Fixing your eyes on Jesus has the most amazing results. Peter walked on the water, not by trying, and not because he was good or clever, but simply because he looked at Jesus. I mean, all the time and effort I've put into changing myself for the better and holier hasn't had 0.0000000000001% of the effect one gets from simply gazing at Christ.

Your spirit is transformed, born again, in an instant, but it's a fact that a renewed mind and personality takes time. God is patient, though. Let's be like him.

 

[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.

If you are going to be condescending, fine, perhaps I deserve it - but show your work, because in all too many cases I have seen condescending people on this forum have nothing to back up their condescension.

Alright:

In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were synthesized in the explosions of massive stars that scattered materials through the Galaxy, to be formed into planets and other stars. The parent isotopes have been decaying since that time, and so any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now.

Now if God used these materials to construct the earth from all isotope forms of each element would exist. When Dino bones mineralize they pick up the isotopes in the material they mineralize with.

Carbon-14 is an exception. It is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). When animals are alive they absorb Carbon 14 by eating this absorption stops when they die.

So Carbon 14 dating depends on assuming a known amount of Carbon 14 in a specimen at the time of its death. As we have discussed I believe that is impossible for us to know and we can't assume a steady state of carbon 14.

Now back to Radiometric dating. OE supporters would estimate the earths age at about 4.567 billion years. I simply believe that God made the earth from old material as old as 4,567 billion years old. I believe he gathered those materials from the universe and formed the earth. So it should be of no surprise then that we find all the radioisotope forms of all elements on our earth. So when were find lead we can't automaticaly say since we find lead the earth has to be X years old. Rather when we find lead we know know the materials used in the creation of the earth is X years old instead. God took old matter and gave it form. Sort of like if we build a house and use a beam from a 200 year old oak. Is the house now two hundred years old or is the material used to build the house 200 years old. Of course the answer is the material is 200 years old and the house is brand new.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hope that helps.

 

[ThreeAM]

Not to be pushy, but can you guys take the YEC/OEC discussion to another thread, trying to stay OT here and I keep seeing 2-3 pages of creation talk in between, not really sure how sabbath has anything to do with the OP as of now.

I can see how you have come to that conclusion at first glance but if you take the time to read the whole thread you will see how a literal 24 hr 7 day week of Creation has everything to do with the sabbath. I'm simply answering the challenge that the earth was created over billions of years and not 7 x 24hr days there by making a 24 hr sabbath a moot issue. Of course they same people who try to use an old earth argument ignore they fact that God gave manna one 24 hour period every 7th day for 40 years showing us the sabbath is a 24 hr period not eons of time.

 

[ThreeAM]

Well, God loved us and died for us while we were still his enemies. So he has actually already saved people who don't love him. Think about it, it's almost the opposite of what you seem to suggest. I think it's a very serious thing to say that God won't save people who don't love him. Because the reality is that we love him because he loved (saved) us first.

Willful disobedience... is there such a thing as disobedience that's not willful? I mean, did you ever sin without choice? I see your point though, I just think the distinction between sin and willful sin is unnatural and destructive.

Yes and no. I can't become more like Christ by striving, but rather by looking at him. Fixing your eyes on Jesus has the most amazing results. Peter walked on the water, not by trying, and not because he was good or clever, but simply because he looked at Jesus. I mean, all the time and effort I've put into changing myself for the better and holier hasn't had 0.0000000000001% of the effect one gets from simply gazing at Christ.

Your spirit is transformed, born again, in an instant, but it's a fact that a renewed mind and personality takes time. God is patient, though. Let's be like him.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

You can transgress the law knowingly [willful sin]

You can transgress the law out of ignorance but God winks at that sin. But when you realize you have sinned you should repent.

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

 

[ThreeAM]

Frankly, I don't really see the need to prolong this debate over YECism, because the very first objection to sabbatarianism that I raised on this thread seems to me sufficiently devastating. Allow me to recap. Sabbatarians claim that we should take the 10 commandments literally. I pointed out that the commandment in debate here says the following, "SIX DAYS YE SHALL LABOR, and do all thy work, on the seventh ye shall rest." But sabbatarians do not labor six days. They labor five days, and have no qualms about taking a two week vacation. (I have a coworker who is a DEVOUT 7th day Adventist - in fact she occasionally tried to shove her sabbatarianism down the throats of other Christians. A while back she asked for a three month leave of absence from her job because her (military) husband would be stationed in Germany where she has relatives and consequently she wanted to vacation there. Our company only gives two weeks vacation, so she was asking for unpaid time off from work).


Anyway, repeatedly I asked ThreeAm to answer the following question (paraphrased here), "When reading the ten commandments, must we, in each case, take the WHOLE verse literally? YES or NO?" In other words, do we take literally only those parts of the verse most tasteful to us - in this case the part about RESTING as opposed to the part about WORKING six days? ThreeAm has had every opportunity to answer this question. He has abstained. I came into this thread with the suspicion that this argument devastates the sabbatarian position. ThreeAm's conspicuous silence to my repeated question (a simple Yes or No question) has been, for me, the most confirmatory factor that I could hope for.

Therefore (unless I get really bored), I am finished with this discussion.

Well if you look back at my posts I have already addressed this ridiculus line of reasoning in my post 159 when you first posted it ..perhaps you missed it. We have lots of labors and responsibilities in life perhaps this co-worker of yours felt it was her job in part to be with her husband.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28850899&postcount=159

 

[JAL]

We have lots of labors and responsibilities in life perhaps this co-worker of yours felt it was her job in part to be with her husband.

Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.

 

[ThreeAM]

Ok, so days can only mean years when Adventist say they should right? Why cant days be years in the Genesis account? Why cant a day be like 1,000 years in this case?

UUUMMM, maybe because death did not exist.. I mean we are talking about eternity here give me a break.

.................................
I have no problem with your view on a young earth and a literal six 24 hour day creation. Now when you raise up these arguments that make no sense is when i start to question.

Wow! You mean when Adam and Eve ate a pear that pear continued to live even after their bodies digested it. Hmmmmm I don't think God equates the death of a plant to the death of an animal do you?????? I mean plants aren't souls are they?

I mean did every plant that Adam and Eve consumed continue to live?? That's just a wild concept you have there Minus....maybe you need to rethink it.


Plants growing and reproducing fruit with out photosythesis is much like humans living without oxygen. A night that is the eqivalent of 500years of our time with plants surviving seems an extreme strech. It is more logical to realize that God knew the length of our day and provided light and dark in cycles of 12 hours each. God gave us a 24 hour sabbath each 7 day week.


Gen 1:12 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.

Peach trees don't produce fruit without cross pollination from insects and don't produce fruit without photosynthes. Many many plants are the same way. 500 year long nights or thousands of years without insects and still having fruiting trees doesn't compute.

 

[JAL]

Well if you look back at my posts I have already addressed this ridiculus line of reasoning in my post 159 when you first posted it ..perhaps you missed it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28850899&postcount=159

Your unsatisfactory response was debunked by me in posts 160 and 161. Bottom line - you DON'T take the command "work six days" literally. Or, to put it differently, you have REDEFINED what a literal reading of these words would entail, in such a way that it "justifies" a five day work week, and assorted vacations. And that's fine - as long as you admit that the non-sabbatarian is equally justified in redefining what it means to literally accept the REMAINDER of the verse (the supposed "Saturday" portion of the verse).

 

[ThreeAM]

Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.

Absurd and reasoning on your part.

And it was the Lord that with held Manna one 24 hr day each week for 40 years so no work of gathering would be done on that day. That day was the Sabbath. Therefore it is the LORD that has identified the appropriate length of the sabbath.

 

[JAL]

Now back to Radiometric dating. OE supporters would estimate the earths age at about 4.567 billion years. I simply believe that God made the earth from old material as old as 4,567 billion years old. I believe he gathered those materials from the universe and formed the earth. So it should be of no surprise then that we find all the radioisotope forms of all elements on our earth. So when were find lead we can't automaticaly say since we find lead the earth has to be X years old. Rather when we find lead we know know the materials used in the creation of the earth is X years old instead. God took old matter and gave it form. Sort of like if we build a house and use a beam from a 200 year old oak. Is the house now two hundred years old or is the material used to build the house 200 years old. Of course the answer is the material is 200 years old and the house is brand new.

Well, to begin with, your position really isn't substantially different from OEC. Since I'm an OEC myself, it might be hasty for me to regard your postion here as indefensible. On the other hand there is the larger issue that sabbatarians claim we are supposed to follow God's example set forth in Genesis. According to Sabbatarians, in regard to the "act of creating" God:
(1) worked 6 24-hr periods and rested
(2) and now He is resting from that act seven days a week.
Or, if you prefer, He is now working seven days a week in non-creative activities. Either way, this does not set an example that we should follow. It either has us resting seven days a week, or working seven days a week, but not resting one day a week. Whereas in my view, the six days are not 24-hours, the seventh day is eternal, and God rests ONE day of the week. Logically and exegetically, my view seems preferable.
Now, back to your "old material" theory. Substantially, then, you postulate an earth which is, in a sense, 4.5 billions years old - for what purpose would God do this? To systematically deceive us? To systematically confuse us? Your position is VERY confusing it seems to me. You said, " I simply believe that God made the earth from old material as old as 4,567 billion years old. " Ok, so how do you conclude that the material is 4.5 bil years old? Apparently, then, radiometric dating was reliable enough for you to reach that conclusion. Ok, this now creates for you a logical difficulty. If God made the earth from 4.5 billion year material, and if radiometric dating "works", then we should have only two categories of material
(1) material 4.5 bil years old
(2) material that looks either 0 to 6000 years old, or, perhaps, looks
to be 4.5 bill plus 0 to 6000 years old
but we would NOT expect to be able radiometrically identify a steady gradation of dated material RANGING from 6000 years old gradully (in the fossil strata, as we descend through layers) to an age of 4.5 billion years old - which is precisely what we find.

 

[JAL]

Absurd and reasoning on your part.

And it was the Lord that with held Manna one 24 hr day each week for 40 years so no work of gathering would be done on that day. That day was the Sabbath. Therefore it is the LORD that has identified the appropriate length of the sabbath.

As I can discern no connection between this comment and mine, it's difficult to responid to this one. Where did I deny that Moses gave TO ISRAEL a 24 hour sabbath analogically symbolic of God's non-24 hour sabbath? That's what in fact I insisted!

 

[ThreeAM]

As I can discern no connection between this comment and mine, it's difficult to responid to this one. Where did I deny that Moses gave TO ISRAEL a 24 hour sabbath analogically symbolic of God's non-24 hour sabbath? That's what in fact I insisted!

You didn't and if you had that would have been incorrect because God never said any thing about it being a symbolic analogy to a non 24 hour sabbath. That is your creation not God's sorry. God called the 7th day Sabbath HIS Holy day. Less you forget the 7th DAY was made HOLY at Creation.


Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

NIV Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

[Zeena]

The sabaoth is threefold!

It includes trusting, resting and abiding in the Lord Jesus Christ

EVERY day is a Sabaoth with Jesus Living His Holy Life in and through us!!!

 

[ThreeAM]

Anyway, repeatedly I asked ThreeAm to answer the following question (paraphrased here), "When reading the ten commandments, must we, in each case, take the WHOLE verse literally? YES or NO?" In other words, do we take literally only those parts of the verse most tasteful to us - in this case the part about RESTING as opposed to the part about WORKING six days? ThreeAm has had every opportunity to answer this question.He has abstained. I came into this thread with the suspicion that this argument devastates the sabbatarian position. ThreeAm's conspicuous silence to my repeated question (a simple Yes or No question) has been, for me, the most confirmatory factor that I could hope for.

Therefore (unless I get really bored), I am finished with this discussion.

Your unsatisfactory response was debunked by me in posts 160 and 161. Bottom line - you DON'T take the command "work six days" literally. Or, to put it differently, you have REDEFINED what a literal reading of these words would entail, in such a way that it "justifies" a five day work week, and assorted vacations. And that's fine - as long as you admit that the non-sabbatarian is equally justified in redefining what it means to literally accept the REMAINDER of the verse (the supposed "Saturday" portion of the verse).

LOL Hmmmm JAL, Which is it, first you try to tell people I abstained from responding and somehow you were comforted by that fact. Now you say my response was unsatisfactory. I responded to your ridiculus post and you deem my response unsatisfactory [ the response that you said I abstained from making] then you say that you debunked my response [in your opinion] If I abstained from responding just then just how what in the world did you did you "debunk" in your opinion.????? Please be accurate at least.

Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.

Not at all and please don't try to put works in my mouth. Women working in their home have just as much of a job as you or I do daily and probably more. The first 6 days of the week are set asside for our daily duties and work the 7th day is dedicated to God.

NLT Exo 20:9Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, 10. but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you.

 

[Zeena]

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.