Sunday Worship/Mark of the Beast

[Cliff2]

Why should that prevent you from addressing the implications of what you wish the text to say. We both know that the Sabbath is not in Genesis so there really is not debate. What I don't understand is why some think that the Sabbath is of no value unless it can be found in Genesis. The fact is that it means more to the Christian if it is not in Genesis because it the connection to the Exodus as a type of the Plan of Salvation links it to our salvation experience.

This is the second time you have made this claim about Moses but I know I never made it. That is enough. It may be best to stick to what I say rather than what you imagine I should have said. Pay attention to my chosen name.

That is dead set wrong, anti Adventist.

No SDA that I know believes that and should not be allowed to be said on an SDA Forum.

 

[payattention]

That is dead set wrong, anti Adventist.

No SDA that I know believes that and should not be allowed to be said on an SDA Forum.

Please make my acquaintance. I suggest you read what the Moderator posted. This is not an SDA Forum. It is not sponsored by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. It is not a mouthpiece of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is an area in this multi-denominational internet forum where Christians who identify more with the Seventh-day Adventist Church than any other group of Christians can meet for cyber fellowship.

 

[tall73]

Cliff, you do realize if we continue with those responses there won't be an SDA forum right? The administration has graciously allowed us to PROVE wrong people we disagree with, but not to label. So let's get on with proving wrong when they are wrong.

Now payattention,

If you disagreed the first time, why not clarify ? I did not see that you made great efforts to dispell this notion. Since you admitted that Moses wrote them both, why do you think that he quoted the part about blessing and making holy? Surely if it had no significance he not only wouldn't have quoted it, he would not have WRITTEN it.

yet every time you see the passage quoted you say..."He simply quit creating." You know this is not tue. He did not simply quit. He blessed and made holy. Your statement "do you think all the days of creation were not holy" was in fact an admission that you CANNOT DEAL with what Moses said. Since you continue to

a. ignore

b. change

what Moses said, how would you like us to think you interpret Moses? I am sorry if I misinterpreted you the first time. But let's not make the same mistake again.

Now, without building a straw man argument about the Sabbath term being used, DID GOD BLESS AND MAKE HOLY the seventh day? This is a simple question. There should be no confusion this time.

 

[payattention]

I'm not sure why you are asking this question. I recall an earlier post in which someone said at least I agree that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day. But that fact does not create a Sabbath day. One swallow does not a spring make. Genesis has not one mention of the Sabbath. We have sacred covenants being made and not one mention -- until we get to Exodus 16. Deuteronomy 5 remarks on the relationship between the exodus and the Sabbath. Hebrews notes the centrality of the rest that Christ provides. The overall teaching of the Bible is unmistakable.

 

[Cliff2]

Cliff, you do realize if we continue with those responses there won't be an SDA forum right? The administration has graciously allowed us to PROVE wrong people we disagree with, but not to label. So let's get on with proving wrong when they are wrong.

Now payattention,

If you disagreed the first time, why not clarify ? I did not see that you made great efforts to dispell this notion. Since you admitted that Moses wrote them both, why do you think that he quoted the part about blessing and making holy? Surely if it had no significance he not only wouldn't have quoted it, he would not have WRITTEN it.

yet every time you see the passage quoted you say..."He simply quit creating." You know this is not tue. He did not simply quit. He blessed and made holy. Your statement "do you think all the days of creation were not holy" was in fact an admission that you CANNOT DEAL with what Moses said. Since you continue to

a. ignore

b. change

what Moses said, how would you like us to think you interpret Moses? I am sorry if I misinterpreted you the first time. But let's not make the same mistake again.

Now, without building a straw man argument about the Sabbath term being used, DID GOD BLESS AND MAKE HOLY the seventh day? This is a simple question. There should be no confusion this time.

I am not sure that this is wrong, have another look at it.

That is dead set wrong, anti Adventist.

No SDA that I know believes that and should not be allowed to be said on an SDA Forum.

To claim that there was no Sabbath before the Exodus is dead set wrong and anti SDA.

I have shown that from Gen. 2:2,3 that God rested on that day, He made it holy (sanctified). I have shown from Ex. 20:8-11 that God has said the same thing regarding the 7th day. Have said the word Sabbath is not mentioned but that does not mean there was no Sabbath before the Exodus.

You know SDA's do have a right to say that a post is anti SDA if it is.

 

[tall73]

Nor do we have a law about murder and its punishment util Genesis 9, but we see that Cain was familiar with it, and God did not contest, way back when he killed his brother.

A commandment speaking specifically the term Sabbath in Exodus 20 does not make the 7th day any less blessed in Genesis.

If you TRULY agreed that God did something on the Sabbath day such as blessing and making holy, why did you

a. keep skipping that part saying all He did was quit
b. say all of them are holy anyway, implying it means nothing.

You obviously don't like the import of what it says. And what is says is that God did something on that day He did on no other. And the command given later makes express mention of it, hearkening back to the authority of that action.

If you have no problem with it, why do you keep skipping, belittling etc. what it says?

 

[payattention]

Now, without building a straw man argument about the Sabbath term being used,

Why would you say it is a straw man argument? You must be using this term with a special meaning with which I am not familiar. The fact is that it was not mentioned there nor in the rest of the book, and is first mentioned in Exodus 16 and numerous times afterwards.

 

[tall73]

cliff, what I know is that the administration has asked us to stop labeling things as non-SDA, and to stop implying that people cannot post here.

I realize that the truth is the truth, and to you it is quite clear. But if you agreed to the forum rules, then why do you dishonor God by going against the authorities in question? Is it really a matter of taking man above God to say that you must PROVE that He is wrong from the scriptures, rather than say He is not an adventist?

Or let me put it another way. If it is clear to everyone here, (and so far it seems to be) that you have proved his view wrong according to scriptures, then what difference does it make if He claims to be SDA?

Everyone can draw their own conclusions. But do not go against the agreement you made when there is no reason to.

 

[tall73]

Why would you say it is a straw man argument? You must be using this term with a special meaning with which I am not familiar. The fact is that it was not mentioned there nor in the rest of the book, and is first mentioned in Exodus 16 and numerous times afterwards.

It would be a straw man argument if you dodged my ACTUAL question to answer your one that I was not asking. I did not say you had yet used one, I said don't use one.

The question was, "do you think God blessed and made holy" the seventh day.
You seem to suggest that you do think that.

Of course, I seem to think the rest of your words do not say that at all. But hey, either way, I see quite clearly that God did. I also see that Moses quoted it as the VERY REASON for the command. So if you think it meant little, Moses surely did not. Nor did God who wrote the commandment.

 

[payattention]

To claim that there was no Sabbath before the Exodus is dead set wrong and anti SDA.

I have shown that from Gen. 2:2,3 that God rested on that day, He made it holy (sanctified). I have shown from Ex. 20:8-11 that God has said the same thing regarding the 7th day. Have said the word Sabbath is not mentioned but that does not mean there was no Sabbath before the Exodus.

You know SDA's do have a right to say that a post is anti SDA if it is.

I have shown that there was no need for a Sabbath before sin entered the earth.

I have shown that the Sabbath is never mentioned in the entire book of Genesis even though the patriarchs must have worshipped the Creator consistently throughout.

I have shown that the Sabbath is first mentioned in Exodus 16 in connection with the deliverance from slavery.

I have shown that Deut. 5 makes the connection between the Sabbath and the deliverance from slavery.

I was raised in this church and know all the arguments you make. But my pledge to be true to what the Bible teaches meant I could not ignore the truths above when I finally awakened to them.

 

[woobadooba]

Why would you say it is a straw man argument? You must be using this term with a special meaning with which I am not familiar. The fact is that it was not mentioned there nor in the rest of the book, and is first mentioned in Exodus 16 and numerous times afterwards.

Payattention,

Now please pay attention! When the 4th commandment reads, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbth day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8, 11

The word "therefore" indicates that something happened because of some other happening. The thing that happened is that the Lord rested the seventh day, and because he rested after creating the heavens and the earth He blessed the Sabbath day!

And now watch this, "And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all His work which He had done in creation." Gen. 2:2,3

Do you see a correlation here? Almost the same exact wording! And the interesting thing about it all is that Moses brought the Sabbath back to the garden of eden, thus making it known that that was the time in which the Sabbath day was made!

And even more striking is that Moses, by bringing it back to the garden, identifies the day that was blessed and hallowed to be the Sabbath day!

There is no denying the fact that when you compare the manner in whcih these verses are worded, that they are referring to the same day--the Sabbath day!

 

[tall73]

I have shown that there was no need for a Sabbath before sin entered the earth.

I have shown that the Sabbath is never mentioned in the entire book of Genesis even though the patriarchs must have worshipped the Creator consistently throughout.

I have shown that the Sabbath is first mentioned in Exodus 16 in connection with the deliverance from slavery.

I have shown that Deut. 5 makes the connection between the Sabbath and the deliverance from slavery.

I was raised in this church and know all the arguments you make. But my pledge to be true to what the Bible teaches meant I could not ignore the truths above when I finally awakened to them.

So what keeps enabling you to avoid the statement that God did something to the seventh day? You said He did it. What did it mean when He did it?

If it meant nothing, why did Moses quote it as the basis of the law?

And if Deuteronomy 5 makes the connection between the Sabbath and the delieverance from slavery, and you think that is VERY REVEALING, why is it not revealing that Exodus makes the connection to this very verse that says God blessed and made holy the seventh day?

Why is one allusion CRUCIAL, and the other, incidental? Why explain away the import of the one saying that all the days must have been holy?--a contention that the scriptures clearly do not say anything about. Is that really taking it as it reads?

Is this another example of you ignoring what you see to be human in the scriptures? Or are you ignoring this one for a different reason?


And yes Woobadooba, as one of my teachers used to say, when you see the word "therefore" you ought to see what it is there fore. It is obviously drawing a conclusion based on the foregoing.

 

[payattention]

I will bring this exchange to an end here and I will explain why. I do not appreciate having my integrity being called into question. If my decision to exercise my right to think within the rules of this forum is the reason why other members of the body of Christ will decide to falsely accuse me of adopting an icon to which I would not otherwise be entitled then for their sake I will keep my ideas to myself. I will not be the one to cause another brother to stumble. I would remind you that to refuse to see is to be blind. To refuse to think is to be enslaved.

I wonder what would have happened if I had expanded on Tall73's ideas on the scapegoat, which are expressly opposed to current Adventist thinking on the subject. I get this feeling that I am behind the Iron Curtain. When you are secure enough to tear it down we can continue.

 

[tall73]

I will bring this exchange to an end here and I will explain why. I do not appreciate having my integrity being called into question. If my decision to exercise my right to think within the rules of this forum is the reason why other members of the body of Christ will decide to falsely accuse me of adopting an icon to which I would not otherwise be entitled then for their sake I will keep my ideas to myself. I will not be the one to cause another brother to stumble. I would remind you that to refuse to see is to be blind. To refuse to think is to be enslaved.

I wonder what would have happened if I had expanded on Tall73's ideas on the scapegoat, which are expressly opposed to current Adventist thinking on the subject. I get this feeling that I am behind the Iron Curtain. When you are secure enough to tear it down we can continue.

I rather wish you would expand on it. I don't mind if you express yourself. But I wish you would express yourself in such a way that you come across clearly, rather than in a way that keeps you from losing your icon. It seems rather clear that you WON'T lose your icon. So why stress over that ? And I asked nothing that was in the Nicene creed expressly, so you can't be booted for violations in that regard either. But I figure if you are going to post on your views. they should be clear.

For that matter, I have not said I wish anyone to need an icon. Frankly, I think everyone should be able to post here, and say what they want. But the administration doesn't see it that way, so we comply. Now I do agree that some settings require some adherence to orthodoxy. I listed some of those. Bible teacher, pastor, etc. But forum participant? seems a bit extreme to me.

Do I think you are in all ways orthodox in the minds of some SDA? No, but then some of my views are not either. And the scapegoat one may be a good example. I used to worry about that. But I don't as much any more. If they can explain to me how Satan can make atonement for us in any way, I am more than willing to adopt the view. Otherwise, it is problematic.

I do agree though that the conversation has run its course, and could have been more civil. I apologize for that. Some of my questions were meant to draw you out. I don't consider you an adversary. But it is frustrating to have to guess at views that don't seem to be clearly stated, and I was thinking part of it was that you were not stating them because of fear of reprisal. I don't agree however that I am questioning your integrity. But I am questioning your method and conclusions, which are fair game.

 

[jonno]

Bash me over the head with a ten pound hammer if you think I'm unbiblical in any point.
1. God knows the beginning from the end.
2. God can and did set aside people and events before they ever existed.
3. God does not appoint holy times and places and things on the spur of moment.
4. From the text GEN.2 :3 there is no indication exactly when God 'hallowed' it.
"in it he had rested". It could be at the end of creation week. It could also be done with a future circumstance in mind. God's foreknowledge admitted.
5. The word 'remember' you so frequently emphasise could refer to the incident in Gen ch 16 and not eden.
6. THere is a deafening silence on something so important as the sabbath throughout the book of genesis from gen 2:4 and almost half the book of exodus. Many other moral violations are recorded as reasons for God's judgements on people. The breaking of the sabbath is conspicuously absent. Is it just possible it was not a command at this stage. Many zealous SDA's would agree that a person commiting violations like murder, theft, adultery, worshipping foreign gods and the like have no chance of eternal life with our Lord and saviour, yet would submit that many devout christians who worship on a Sunday instead of Saturday have lived holy lives. This commandment is in a way different from the others.
7. God can at HIs discretion and according to His will bestow Holiness upon times and people and things (covenantly)and then remove it or not have it applicable anymore although the motivating principle might still be in force.
Might this post be read with unbiased minds. No offence intended. Just ponder.

 

[payattention]

Tall73, even though I was responding to you my concerns were not raised by you. I think, though, that I have been absolutely clear in this post. It is not proper biblical scholarship to read the Sabbath into the Genesis account.

Let us look at this analytically. Eden was a sinless environment. Everything was in harmony with the will of God. Why would there be a need to bless anything? Why would God even need to say "This is good." Was there any chance it would be bad? Before you answer these questions consider this pivotal piece of evidence. In verse one Moses says that Elohim created the heavens and the earth. This implies that the name of the Creator was Elohim. That seems simple enough until one remembers that when Moses first met the Creator at the burning bush and asked for His name the name He was given was not Elohim. So, the authentic scholar is forced to ask what is happening here. In the period between meeting the Creator at the burning bush and writing the Pentateuch, the name Elohim had been adopted by the people. So, when he writes Genesis he uses Elohim, but remains true to the facts when reporting on the burning bush experience. He was conscious of his audience.

 

[payattention]

Only after careful consideration did I realize how unrealistic my view of Creation week was. Moses was not there when it happened but he wrote an account that would make sense to his readers. Only God was there at Creation. Why would He have to speak out loud and say "This is good?" Who would He be trying to convince. How would he bless and sanctify the seventh day if the sevent day did not exist? We also as if he held a big consecration service to bless the seventh day. Go back and recreate the conditions of Creation week and you will find that what you have in your mind is a set of circumstances that did not exist.

The same things happens with the fall. Most people subconsciously hold to the view that the serpent was interviewing Eve so that Adam could hear. When was the last time the devil tempted you that way? Do you have any idea what temptations the person next to you is dealing with at this moment? Let us return to cold reality.

 

[HoneyDew]

Pay, could you delve further into the Eve & serpent scenario? I am not sure where a person would have the view that you say they subconciously hold.

 

[tall73]

Alright, I am confused...does this mean we are not done with the discussion? Apparently not.

Jonno, I never used the word remember as an argument. I don't think it is meant in the sense of recall in this passage. I stated that earlier. I think it is used in the sense of observe, much the way it is used in other cases like this.

It is true Jonno that the account does not state the timing, which argument is perhaps a stronger one than was so far put forth. (stronger say than the notion that all of them were holy. )

But you all are still making the assumption that the Genesis account was written AFTER the exodus one. What evidence is there for that? And the language at the end of the commandment does seem to parallel the Genesis account quite well. So since it exists in both books, we have a few options.

a. Exodus was written first, and a comment was added in Genesis
b. Genesis was written first and quoted in the exodus

If you suggest Exodus was, what evidence is there fore reversing it other than silence on the question during parts of scripture?

It seems less likely to me that he would write a commentary note on the creation account and then seemingly quote that commentary note. So the only option you have is that he wrote exodus first, but the language even in that account sounds like it is referring to generally known facts...which would be generally known if he wrote Genesis first. But if Exodus was the first one, why would he mention the hallowing and blessing? Because if that was the case, THIS WAS the hallowing and blessing, or perhaps it was a day or two ago. That doesn't seem to fit as well to me as that He did it in Genesis first. Why would you say...I am making a holy Sabbath...because I made it holy. That is redundant. It seems are more likely he is referring to the event in Genesis.

Now Jonno, the idea that He blessed and hallowed it in foreknowledge...maybe. But don't you think Adam might have asked him about it? If God said that a day was something special, I would ask Him. So it is a possibility, but again, what evidence is there in the text other than silence?

So far the only evidence you have presented is NON-evidence in the form of no mention before Exodus, though of course some see the one in the garden as a mention. To me it is simply interpretation on your part. So let me state it this way.

If it did happen that way, it wouldn't particularly bother me. But I just don't see compelling evidence in non-statements. Which is why I have said several times I don't see why you feel free to interpret events and orders of events with the slimmest evidence.

Perhaps better evidence would be to look at the statements I posted earlier from Paul.

RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

GAL 3:15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Here we see Paul essentially saying the law was given 430 years after Abraham. Now of course, we also know his math is probably wrong, which would be interesting for the EGW thread, but he clearly believed that it was not made as explicit before Sinai.

In the Romans one he even goes so far as to say before that people did not sin by breaking a commandment.

And as I suggested before, the commandment WAS NOT as explicit. But for that matter, he seems to suggest that NONE of them were. So perhaps you are misunderstanding my view.

I don't think any of the commands given at Sinai were new. But i don't think they were given in rigid command form either. I think they were principles of God's kingdom that people knew by being with God. And I would include the Sabbath in that based on the account in Genesis. Now if it was new, and your speculations are right, it really doesn't bother my view of it. Because the command was not there explicitly before anyway. And according to Paul, neither were the others.

But since it is mentioned in Genesis, and since non-evidence is not convincing to me, I believe that, like the other commands which they had some understanding of, despite not receiving a hard command, they had knowledge of this one too. In fact, you are asking for evidence on the Sabbath question that you aren ot on the others? Are all of the others given in command form before this? Are all of them even referenced? I am trying to recall instances where God punished people for adultery in Genesis or early exodus. You have the lying of the Hebrew midwives, which was seemingly congratulated. And Abraham twice lied, and was BLESSED for it in Egypt. Now the people who were wronged by Abraham pointed out the injustice, but you don't see God enforcing some hard handed law. The only one that seems overly defined was Murder, which was outlined somewhat in the Cain case (and appeared to be familiar to him already) and codified to some degree in Genesis 9.

And finally, Payattention, I really don't get your view at all that sin necessitated the Sabbath. It is a day to spend with God that He gave to the inhabitants of a new planet. If He happens to make it on the day which commemorates the finishing of the creation, (and we all agree He did, at one time or another) why is sin necessary for that? You say it was for man, not for God, but then you make it sound as though man cannot benefit from a day with God unless he is busy slaving away. It is clear from the account that they had some duties, rigorous or not, in the garden. The Sabbath, if it was a special day with God each week, would simply be a more focused day with Him. Yes, it is obvious that they talked other days. In the same way that we, in limited scope, talk through prayer, focus on God etc. other days of the week, but give more time to Him on Sabbath. Even if we were not in a sinful world it might be that there would be things that we were doing that would not be totally focused on God every minute of every day.

So again, my problem is with your method and conclusions. If you want to speculate that it was given in a certain order, that is fine. But you can't expect us all to accept it with NO data as evidence.

And moreoever, you might want to explain how the Sabbath is different, if NONE of the commands had been given yet according to Paul.

and Jonno, Paul himself seems to indicate that adulterers, thieves, homosexual offenders, etc. can be sanctified and cleaned, so why would we say they cannot be saved either? I assume you are saying that some who are OVER zealous would say this? True, but an argument based on the most irrational in the community is not really proving anytning to the rest of us. If you want to say it is different, then perhaps it is different in the sense that it does not fall under Paul's description of those who not having the law, keep it in Romans. Ie. it is not the type of thing that would be intuitively known, born out by the conscience, etc. In that regard it is different, because it is not one that everyone would be aware to keep it.

Tempting eve....ok...unless you are going with the old idea that Eve and the serpent had sex, I really think there must have been SOME conversation going on there. And whether the snake could use telepathy, that again would be reading in something that is not stated.

 

[Sophia7]

Many zealous SDA's would agree that a person commiting violations like murder, theft, adultery, worshipping foreign gods and the like have no chance of eternal life with our Lord and saviour, yet would submit that many devout christians who worship on a Sunday instead of Saturday have lived holy lives. This commandment is in a way different from the others.

One thing I would clarify: Advenstists do not hold to the Catholic-like view that if we commit certain mortal sins, such as murder, we have no chance of eternal life. All sin leads to death, but if we repent, we can be forgiven by the grace of God. Living a holy life does not save anyone. The Sabbath commandment is no different from any other, other than the fact that it involves how we worship God rather than how we treat other people.