Understanding the Sabbath

[adam332]

Bachoichi should be quite interesting from anyones perspective, he is the only non-Catholic who has ever been admitted to the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of summa cum laude for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. That work also sets a precedent, being the only book ever published by the Pontifical Press by a non-Catholic.

This was all amazingly AFTER his graduation from Andrews University Theological Seminary(SDA!!) with a M.A. and a B.D. degrees. Many other items make him very unique, but he is a true scholar and teacher who has studied every aspect from some of the most ancient historical writings in existence.

He is in agreement with the RCC....if you are a protestant and you do not accept the Catholic church as your authority on faith, then by all means you should obeserve the Sabbath for it is the ONLY day that God ever intsructed man-kind to observe. The Sunday observance came straight from Catholicism and for their own and justifications. The historical records and Biblical facts indicate nothing less, besides the RCC's proud announcing of these facts. They feel no shame in providing information or proof that they alone authorized the change because they feel the authority was granted to them by God.

So, for those of you who like quoting ancient ECF writings and enjoy the search of this longstanding debate...I suggest you pick up a copy of the Sabbath to Sunday...written by an SDA and authorized by the Catholic church as an authorative representation of the facts concerning this issue. It is an place where two opposites have found the common truth that they can both feel comfortable sharing.

For those protestants who think SDA's are wrong and the the ECF are right...you better think again. The RCC has said point blank, that any protestant who does not accept the divine authority of the RCC yet continues in Sunday observance in substitution for the Sabbath is completely laughable in the eyes of any thinking man. They deem such behavior as hypcritical and evidence of your acknowledgment to their authority whether you actually think you do or not. I am inclined to agree with them.

 

[adam332]

Deu,
I don't need you to police my behavior, surely I know when I am being rude or aggressive just as that fellow knew he was gonna' perform a hit and run. I am here to discuss as you also appear to be, I don't care who it is, Sabbatarian or Sunday advocate, I don't have much patience for those who want to be heard but refuse to listen.

Also, you mentioned Rom. 14 again...as you and I have pointed out, that area is expressing a Biblical principal. The only thing that stands left with regards to it is; should we apply that principal to the Sabbath or shouldn't we. There is no point lingering on it since we have not discussed the other areas which we hold in opposition. The application of that principal can only be determined after said discussions are finished and then we will see whether it should or should not be applied. To try and discern it as applicable before the serious issues have even been touched upon is backwards and holds no value for either of us.

That said...lets move on to discussing Gal. 4... take your time and by no means do not put this forum before time with your wife. I will be here and regardless of my impatience I completely understand. I too have a wife who expresses the same and I might have to ask you to hold on from time to time for the same reasons.

 

[deu58]

Dr Bacciocchi ?

*When Dirk Anderson used the findings of Dr B to show the
errors of the Historical and the, I seen and I saws in Ellen G Whites
Great Controversy, on his website {ellen white org} Dr B became
outraged. The reason for the outrage was for one reason and one
reason only. That brother Anderson had posted it as proof
that Ellen G White did not posses the gift of prophecy nor was she
an inspired writer. brother Dirk is an ex Adventist and I believe
he was an SDA pastor. He is also the author of White Out;
a book that deals with the disappearance of the failed prophecies
and controversial statements that were in the original writings of
Ellen White.{ To see the article use the search tool at the top of
the home page at dirks site,type samuele bacchiocchi and hit go,
you should find 3links the second link will take you to drB fires back}
*
Dr.Bs letter to Brother Anderson was so un Christian in nature
that brother Anderson did not want to post it on his site But at
Dr B insistence he did. Brother Anderson also challenged dr B
to an online debate which dr B declined.

*DrB was the leading sda historical theologian. His primary job
was to find evidence to support the prophetic gift of Ellen White
than it was to research the Bible.

The Adventists have gone to great lengths to defend their prophet
Even as far as to changing the writings of the Bible. The SDA
Clear Word, by Jack Blanco, Is an Adventist attempt to integrate
the teachings of Ellen G White directly into the Word of God.
When it was first published it was called The Clear Word Bible
But there were so many people upset in and outside of the Sda
Church that they dropped the word Bible and now it is just
the called Clear Word. There are other sites that post some of the
many changes that the Adventists have made in this "Book"

1Cor 14:29KJV
Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge

Above is the teaching of Paul as to the testing of the Prophets
Below is the reedited verse in the SDA Clear Word

1Cor 14:29 Clear Word
No more than two or three should speak and only one at a time.
*then let the congregation decide whether what they said is according
to the Scriptures.

By reediting the Adventists no longer need two prophets
and now the congregation can now decide for themselves
if the prophets words are truly from God.

Dr B Agrees with the new teaching that a prophet of God
does not have to be accurate. In dr B's own words,

"Your arbitrary selection of my material, without explaining my
*position regarding the limitations of the gift of prophecy in the
NT, is pure deception."

Dr B does not feel that a prophet who claims to receive visions
from God because her mission was to lead us into all truth for
this present time really needs to accurate or correct all the time.

De 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD,
if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which
the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it
presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Apparently God does not agree.

Max Chugg an Australian who has done extensive research on
Ellen White had this to say concerning dr B's letter to Brother
Anderson, Brother Chugg may also be an ex Adventist pastor.
Brother Anderson is part of a group of ex pastors who have
been either put out or have left the SDA due to conflicts concerning
Ellen White who have come together to expose the falsehoods
Adventism

"The problem with this argument, and the texts given to support it,
is that it has skipped ahead of the first scriptural requirement that
you must test the prophet before you even consider the prophecies
that he made. If the prophet fails the test, he is to be rejected, along
with everything he has to say, and your attitude towards EGW is
supported by scripture, if not by Dr. B. To suggest that a prophet of
God will give a message that contains both truth and error, which
must be separated, is simply nonsense."

*And personally I agree. Although dr B is a very educated highly
respected man in his field, I still would not trust his findings due
to the fact that his loyalty is lays more with his prophet, which his
own findings even show she was not, than it does with the
Word of God. As stated, even though his own research proves
other wise here is Dr B,s assessment of Ellen G White in his own
words.
"Instead, you have reasons to grieve for serving the cause of the
Evil One, in attacking the immeasurable contributions of the
prophetic ministry of Ellen White."

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[deu58]

Deu,
I don't need you to police my behavior, surely I know when I am being rude or aggressive just as that fellow knew he was gonna' perform a hit and run. I am here to discuss as you also appear to be, I don't care who it is, Sabbatarian or Sunday advocate, I don't have much patience for those who want to be heard but refuse to listen.

Also, you mentioned Rom. 14 again...as you and I have pointed out, that area is expressing a Biblical principal. The only thing that stands left with regards to it is; should we apply that principal to the Sabbath or shouldn't we. There is no point lingering on it since we have not discussed the other areas which we hold in opposition. The application of that principal can only be determined after said discussions are finished and then we will see whether it should or should not be applied. To try and discern it as applicable before the serious issues have even been touched upon is backwards and holds no value for either of us.

That said...lets move on to discussing Gal. 4... take your time and by no means do not put this forum before time with your wife. I will be here and regardless of my impatience I completely understand. I too have a wife who expresses the same and I might have to ask you to hold on from time to time for the same reasons.

adam
There are many points that I have made including providing further information on things you rejected before hand claiming I had twisted scriptures and purposly provided
false information. I have no intentions of moving anywhere until all issues are covered.

I do not consider this a marathon nor will I abide by onesided rules. you have asked for proof and further explanations and I have provided it. I was delayed on working on what I had planned to work on but I have started on it. I would appreciate if you would provide me with sources for your interpretation romans 14:5. So far EVERY source and commentary I have consulted disagree's with you and agree's with me
this verse is important because it also reflects on what Paul was refering to in Gal and Coll. considering that he is the same author then what he meant in one he meant in them all.

As to policing you i have no desire to do so. I requsted that you let the holy spirit police you. but if your christian character in such a public place is not important to you that is a personal choice you are free to make. not me
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[CrossMovement]

Dr Bacciocchi ?

*When Dirk Anderson used the findings of Dr B to show the
errors of the Historical and the, I seen and I saws in Ellen G Whites
Great Controversy, on his website {ellen white org} Dr B became
outraged. The reason for the outrage was for one reason and one
reason only. That brother Anderson had posted it as proof
that Ellen G White did not posses the gift of prophecy nor was she
an inspired writer. brother Dirk is an ex Adventist and I believe
he was an SDA pastor. He is also the author of White Out;
a book that deals with the disappearance of the failed prophecies
and controversial statements that were in the original writings of
Ellen White.{ To see the article use the search tool at the top of
the home page at dirks site,type samuele bacchiocchi and hit go,
you should find 3links the second link will take you to drB fires back}
*
Dr.Bs letter to Brother Anderson was so un Christian in nature
that brother Anderson did not want to post it on his site But at
Dr B insistence he did. Brother Anderson also challenged dr B
to an online debate which dr B declined.

*DrB was the leading sda historical theologian. His primary job
was to find evidence to support the prophetic gift of Ellen White
than it was to research the Bible.

The Adventists have gone to great lengths to defend their prophet
Even as far as to changing the writings of the Bible. The SDA
Clear Word, by Jack Blanco, Is an Adventist attempt to integrate
the teachings of Ellen G White directly into the Word of God.
When it was first published it was called The Clear Word Bible
But there were so many people upset in and outside of the Sda
Church that they dropped the word Bible and now it is just
the called Clear Word. There are other sites that post some of the
many changes that the Adventists have made in this "Book"

1Cor 14:29KJV
Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge

Above is the teaching of Paul as to the testing of the Prophets
Below is the reedited verse in the SDA Clear Word

1Cor 14:29 Clear Word
No more than two or three should speak and only one at a time.
*then let the congregation decide whether what they said is according
to the Scriptures.

By reediting the Adventists no longer need two prophets
and now the congregation can now decide for themselves
if the prophets words are truly from God.

Dr B Agrees with the new teaching that a prophet of God
does not have to be accurate. In dr B's own words,

"Your arbitrary selection of my material, without explaining my
*position regarding the limitations of the gift of prophecy in the
NT, is pure deception."

Dr B does not feel that a prophet who claims to receive visions
from God because her mission was to lead us into all truth for
this present time really needs to accurate or correct all the time.

De 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD,
if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which
the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it
presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Apparently God does not agree.

Max Chugg an Australian who has done extensive research on
Ellen White had this to say concerning dr B's letter to Brother
Anderson, Brother Chugg may also be an ex Adventist pastor.
Brother Anderson is part of a group of ex pastors who have
been either put out or have left the SDA due to conflicts concerning
Ellen White who have come together to expose the falsehoods
Adventism

"The problem with this argument, and the texts given to support it,
is that it has skipped ahead of the first scriptural requirement that
you must test the prophet before you even consider the prophecies
that he made. If the prophet fails the test, he is to be rejected, along
with everything he has to say, and your attitude towards EGW is
supported by scripture, if not by Dr. B. To suggest that a prophet of
God will give a message that contains both truth and error, which
must be separated, is simply nonsense."

*And personally I agree. Although dr B is a very educated highly
respected man in his field, I still would not trust his findings due
to the fact that his loyalty is lays more with his prophet, which his
own findings even show she was not, than it does with the
Word of God. As stated, even though his own research proves
other wise here is Dr B,s assessment of Ellen G White in his own
words.
"Instead, you have reasons to grieve for serving the cause of the
Evil One, in attacking the immeasurable contributions of the
prophetic ministry of Ellen White."

yours in Christ
deu 58

I understand that you don't trust Dr.B , but on what ? Do you not trust him on the Sabbath ? Or just EGW ?

Is your point about Dr. B following EGW thought and the Sabbath , or just EGW and Dr.B ? Because this thread is about the Sabbath or something refering to the Sabbath.

I have never honestly read EGW book or message , I have heard about her. but never truly stop at her , so I can't command on that.

But I hope that you know that this man Dirk Anderson is still following the Sabbath ?

 

[Symes]

The Adventists have gone to great lengths to defend their prophet
Even as far as to changing the writings of the Bible. The SDA
Clear Word, by Jack Blanco, Is an Adventist attempt to integrate
the teachings of Ellen G White directly into the Word of God.
When it was first published it was called The Clear Word Bible
But there were so many people upset in and outside of the Sda
Church that they dropped the word Bible and now it is just
the called Clear Word. There are other sites that post some of the
many changes that the Adventists have made in this "Book"

I am not aware of the "Clear Word" ever being called a Bible. It is a parphrase of the Bible the same the the "Living Bible" is.

We have never tried to change the Bible.

I have never heard of Dirk Anderson, but if you want to know the truth it is best not to go to him.

Dr Bacchiocchi wanted to know the truth on the Sabbath so he went to the where the records on the Sabbath and the early Christian Church were kept. It was here that he was able to establish what and how the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

Dr. B. was not inspired like the writers of the Bible were and he is sure to have made some errors in his works, but the general thrust of what he has said is right.

EGW never ever claimed she was a prophetess. Others may say that she was and even believe it to be so. She did have visions from God and did predict the future but was humble enough not to claim to be equal with the Bible. She also said she is the lesser light leading people to the greater light. Which is God's Word and Jesus Christ.

 

[deu58]

Adam
These are your words
I expect no one to take my word as teacher or anything, the Bible
facts stand for themselves either it backs me or it doesn't. What I
said about your Gal. 4 and Rom.14 references were dead on. It is
not my opinion but a fact, you did try to pass off a single verse out
of a whole chapter whose subject was specifically referring to feasting
and fasting days ONLY! I am sure as ever, that you knew fully well there
was no mention of the Sabbath or anthing to do with any of his ten commands yet you tried to pass it off as applicable anyway...this makes your actions deceitful, unobjective and dangerous

Matthew Henry comment 1706
Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to
the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another —kept up a
respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts
of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized
them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some
religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these
things were abolished and done away by Christ’s coming esteemed every
day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord’s day,
which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account,
took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews.

James coffman New Testament commentary
Many Christians of Jewish background had faithfully observed the sabbaths, festivals, and celebrations of the Jewish institutions from childhood, and therefore counted such occasions more holy than others, continuing to mark and observe them even after their acceptance of Christianity, in such a manner "esteeming one day above another." Gentile Christians, on the other hand, more easily accepted the Christian teaching that all time is holy, every day of the week being sacred to the child of God; and thus, in that way, he esteemed "every day alike." The teaching of this verse does not relax the commandments to observe the Christian assembly, observe the Lord's Supper, and lay by in store "on the first day of the week." Nor does "esteeming every day alike" authorize the Lord's Supper to be observed on just any day. Paul was dealing here with an utterly different question, that of the Jewish holy days, such as various sabbaths. The Galatian churches had taken up such observances
and were vigorously condemned for it

These are two older commentaries showing the sabbaths were part of what Rom14:5is discussing. I decided to start with these to show that the teaching that Paul was talkingabout sabbaths and holy days is not new.

The Adventists are in the habit of capitalizing the S on the Saturday
Sabbath to distinguish it from the rest of the sabbaths. But the Saturday Sabbath in the kjv is not capitalized anywhere in bible to distinguish it from any other Sabbath

Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Mr 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Now you claimed that this verse actually establishes the Sabbath
so you already agreed that this verse does deal with the Sabbath.
your words are,

For your info, Col. 2 validates God's Sabbath immeasurably and
discredits the legalistic additions that are found in the Mishnah. Go
back a little further in this thread and look for posts of mine regarding it,
so I do not have to repeat myself simply because you want to read falsehoods into the scripture.

So I can only assume this means it validates the new moons
and all the other Jewish holydays. Remember this is the Earliest
days of the church so what other holydays could he be talking about?
which brings us right back to Rom 14:5. What other days could he
have been talking about.

I wanted to add from two newer commentaries I have but this post is startingto get rather long and I just posted a long post. But if you want to see more just ask. I have a few more commentaries if you want to see them.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[adam332]

Of course Sunday keepers commentaries would agree with you. I got my interpretation by reading the chapter and the rest of the Bible. It is a Biblical principal that you indicated you could apply to the Sabbath even though it may not have been specifically speaking of the Sabbath. I agree with that...as long as the subject criteria is met. But you had not established that it met the criteria. So I indicated that we see if it meets it or it doesn't.

Neither you nor I can use it, either for or against the Sabbath until we establish if the Sabbath meets the aforementioned criteria. In order to do that we have to finish addressing any questionable mentions about that Sabbath/Sunday that we hold. Then and only then can I truly show that it is not applicable or you could show that it is.

This is basic system of logic and reasoning, universal amongst scholars and taught in much greater depth to those who formally debate. In laymens terms it would be called; "Not putting your cart before the horse".

Most commentaries would not mention this, even Sabbatarian commentaries. this is why I applauded your indication that it is not a matter of specific context but of Biblical principal. You are going in the right direction but as with any Biblical principal that you try to apply other than the context at hand, the subject that you want to apply it to must meet the same criteria. So that is what I am urging us both to do. Thus Rom. 14 must be delved into AFTER we have sought out our other areas of disagreement.

 

[deu58]

I am not aware of the "Clear Word" ever being called a Bible. It is a parphrase of the Bible the same the the "Living Bible" is.

We have never tried to change the Bible.

I have never heard of Dirk Anderson, but if you want to know the truth it is best not to go to him.

Dr Bacchiocchi wanted to know the truth on the Sabbath so he went to the where the records on the Sabbath and the early Christian Church were kept. It was here that he was able to establish what and how the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

Dr. B. was not inspired like the writers of the Bible were and he is sure to have made some errors in his works, but the general thrust of what he has said is right.

EGW never ever claimed she was a prophetess. Others may say that she was and even believe it to be so. She did have visions from God and did predict the future but was humble enough not to claim to be equal with the Bible. She also said she is the lesser light leading people to the greater light. Which is God's Word and Jesus Christ.

hello symes

If you have never heard of him then how can you say if you want to know the truth do not go to him? How about Desmond Ford? Robert K Saunders? Walter Rea?

The clear word is not a paraphrase. A paraphrase is to change the wording without changing the original meaning of what you are trying to paraphrase. The clear word changes all most every verse in the Bible!

I had a friend loan me a copy and during the that time Two SDA pastors came over to argue with me about an article I had written and posted on my Web Site. They were trying to argue their position from the bible{non sabbath issue} and were not doing very well. I went into my room and got the clear word and handed that to them and said "here maybe you will have better luck with this."

They almost gagged when they saw that book. Neither one of them wanted any thing to do with it and even denied it was an Adventist publication! I said well if its not yours then whose is it. they replied Jack Blanco they were in a corner they did not want to be in so I let of the hook and did not press the issue any more. they left very soon after never to be seen again.

That verse is straight from the clear word I no longer have a copy myself because the woman who loaned it to did want it back. And they are all doozeyies but I have several more verses saved on disk. if you want I can post them all and you take a KJV bible and see for youself.

As to your claim that Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet actually you are correct.
"
Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; AND BECAUSE MY WORK INCLUDES MUCH MORE THAN THE WORD "PROPHET" SIGNIFIES."{ Review and Herald , July26, 1907}

"My commission embraces the work of a prophet ,but does not end there.
{Selected messages vol .1pg 36, 1906}

She actually claimed to be greater than a prophet!


yours in Christ
deu58

 

[adam332]

You are making me feel like I'm saying the same things over and over. Listen...if you are right about Gal.4 and Col. 2 and other areas that you hold as proof about the Sabbath/Sunday issue then by all means you have every right to apply Rom. 14. But, if you are wronf then Rom. 14 holds nothing for you! Don't go to a conclusion before we have established the correctness of your premise.

 

[adam332]

I don't own a commentary so I have nothing to share with you. Also, I don't read anyone elses ideas unless I have already studied the subject for myself and come to MY OWN CONCLUSION. Then and only then do I check around to see who might agree or disagree with me. I have no desire to debate Matthew Henry or that other guy, I thought we were in our own discussion. Do you have any original thoughts and conclusions that you came up with all on your own before you read ANYONE ELSES views on this matter. If not, than I'm not really discussing anything with you...am I? I would then be discussing it with someone who simply believed what he read about the Bible and not what he read from the Bible. Taught doctrine can appear very scriptural, while being totally baseless.

 

[deu58]

I understand that you don't trust Dr.B , but on what ? Do you not trust him on the Sabbath ? Or just EGW ?

Is your point about Dr. B following EGW thought and the Sabbath , or just EGW and Dr.B ? Because this thread is about the Sabbath or something refering to the Sabbath.

I have never honestly read EGW book or message , I have heard about her. but never truly stop at her , so I can't command on that.

But I hope that you know that this man Dirk Anderson is still following the Sabbath ?

hello crossmovement

yes he is. but not as a judgment against others. not thinking that any one who does not is worshipping the beast and condemned to hell. not making it a apart of your salvetion. He is worshipping on the Sabbath in spirit and truth now. As is hie Literally God given right under the law of Christ. That makes all the difference in the world

As to Dr B most of his work was an effort to prop up Ellen G White. That was his Job.
Just Like Nichols and Froom. not to seek real Biblical proof. Dr B does not believe it necessary for a prophet of God to always be correct and the things that they say if they do not come to pass thats ok to. Does that sound like some one who is trying to support biblical truth to you?

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[adam332]

I have seen a site that think that Dr. B is a RCC spy that has infiltrated the SDA church.

 

[deu58]

I don't own a commentary so I have nothing to share with you. Also, I don't read anyone elses ideas unless I have already studied the subject for myself and come to MY OWN CONCLUSION. Then and only then do I check around to see who might agree or disagree with me. I have no desire to debate Matthew Henry or that other guy, I thought we were in our own discussion. Do you have any original thoughts and conclusions that you came up with all on your own before you read ANYONE ELSES views on this matter. If not, than I'm not really discussing anything with you...am I? I would then be discussing it with someone who simply believed what he read about the Bible and not what he read from the Bible. Taught doctrine can appear very scriptural, while being totally baseless.

hello adam

Now let me see if I can understand this. you accused me of twisting the scripture because I was posting something that you said I knew for a fact nobody else supported. and now when I begin posting information from verifiable and reputable sources the best you can come up with is you dont have commentery,you do not use commentaries? and yet you so matter of factly stated you KNEW I was purposly twisting the scriptures? What do use for historical reference? Your imagination? genetic memory? are you really serious? you have to be reading something adam.
what are you using to back up your research? Nothing?
yours in christ
deu58

 

[CrossMovement]

hello crossmovement

yes he is. but not as a judgment against others. not thinking that any one who does not is worshipping the beast and condemned to hell. not making it a apart of your salvetion. He is worshipping on the Sabbath in spirit and truth now. As is hie Literally God given right under the law of Christ. That makes all the difference in the world

As to Dr B most of his work was an effort to prop up Ellen G White. That was his Job.
Just Like Nichols and Froom. not to seek real Biblical proof. Dr B does not believe it necessary for a prophet of God to always be correct and the things that they say if they do not come to pass thats ok to. Does that sound like some one who is trying to support biblical truth to you?

yours in Christ
deu58

For Dr.B judging people , I don't know , I don't know him that much , but I do know that the Vatican University , the Pope have gave him the approval that he was right about the Sabbath. If he is judging , well this is him , but he was true about the Sabbath , for the other thing that he his doing , well it is his decision and I am not a 100 % pro Dr.B. I will go to his seminar this year ,, And i'll see what you are talking about (it's better to see from myself than from others).

For EGW , I have never truly read her or read all the thing that Dr.B said to back her up ... Maybe he have judge others and back up EGW , honestly I don't know ... I will look up for this just to be sure of your answer.

But a thing that I know is that he was right about the Sabbath and the own Vatican University and The Pope had approved it , so from that point , I can't change this point of view , because it is obvious. He had access to unpiblished documents , they gave him the approval on all of this essaie , they said that he was right about this ... So for this , we can't say that he was wrong ... If he is wrong on this , then we must read those unpublished document , but they are not publish , so with the Pope and University approval on this essaie , we know that he was right.


I don,t know much about EGW , it never has been in my interest for now so like I said , I can't comment because I don't know much things about her (I know the "basic" of her work , but not her book , so no comment )
God Bless

 

[trucker]

[... as long as a substitution wasn’t being made.] Are you not being leagalist? and are you not adding to the Sabbath when worship should be included? My Bible says something to the order of ...in the cool of the evening. Nothing about an excluxive day when talking about God's fellowship with Adam. By the way "sabat" and "shabbath" are not the same thing.

 

[Symes]

deu

By the sound of things you have done much reseach into SDA's. Yes I do know Ford. I have listened to him often as a young fellow. I do not listen to him now. He claims to still keep the Sabbath. About Rea, I also have heard of but not Saunders.

On the inside of the Clear Word it says it is "An expanded Paraphrase of the Bible to Nurture Faith and Growth"

It does not in my edition make any claims to be a Bible. I would never use it to solve any doctrinal issues. When I do read it I use it more for devotional readings.

 

[deu58]

hello crossmovement
Here is a comment I have from dr B,s dissertation Sabbath to Sunday.
the page number is not given.


In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown that the
Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship, but he
did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the need
to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath
legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian.

*Notice the word pioneered. The bishop of Rome did not have the power
and authority the Pope has today. this was the beginning of the Roman bishops attempts to seize power over the church under the auspices that the Bishop of Rome inherited the authority of Peter. The church in Rome was beginning to be recognized as a central authority but it was far from the absolute authority that would later be manifested by the Papacy. Technically it is true that the Catholic church made the official decree to change the sabbath to Sunday through the Roman bishop due to persecution for there was no other church at that time. Even if it would have been the bishop of Podunck, still it would have been the Catholic church that made the change. It is in this manner that the Catholic church of today makes the claim that they are the ones who instituted the change

*We need to remember that the Catholic Church makes claims for everything
that ever took place in the history of the church for they also claim that Peter
is the first pope. Do you believe Peter was the first pope ? I do not. So then
it is left to us to sort through the many claims the Catholic Church makes to see which claims the church as it exists today truly has the right to make.

*What Dr B has a established is that the first record an official decree was made in 135 ad. But what remains to be established is when did the first Christians actually begin worshiping on Sunday.

Personally I believe the Bible is clear on this issue. It is simply the tendency of man to enforce his own personal doctrines and views on other men that makes the issue appear to be so confusing. I see people worshiping on both days in the early church.

Ro 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

This view brings these verses into proper context and in harmony with all the teachings of Paul and the Law of Liberty through Jesus Christ. For what Paul is saying is that those who would keep the Sabbath and other Jewish holy days should not judge those who do not do as they do. For we must remember this is the early church. The Pagans who were being converted to Christianity did not hold to things Jewish. At that time the early Christians
had only one holy day, that would have been the day they gathered together partake of the Lords Supper, but the Jewish Christians would have had other days that they still heldto being important. Thus leading to the admonitions Paul makes noted above

The important thing to note is he counsels neither group to stop what they themselves are doing and follow a certain prescribed manner but gives them permission to continue as they so choose but stop judging the other for not making the same choice. Which is essentially my very same position today.

We have no farther to look than our own present time to see the meaning of these verses. The Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ today still practice their Christianity in the same basic manner as the Jews in Paul's daypracticed theirs. They still keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, Passover and other Jewish days . They still study Torah {the Mosaic
Law} as can be seen right here on this site for there are a couple of Torah discussions going on right now. And we still judge each other by these things claiming each should do as the other does. So in that respect there is nothing new under the sun.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, what is most significant thing of the 135 ad decree was that that the freedom of choice that Paul taught under the law of Christ was removed. Thus 135 ad was a major step in the long journey that has brought us so far away from the true scriptural teaching of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.

As to how Ellen White got involved in this discussion, whenever discussing Adventist doctrinal positions it is only a matter of time before she is discussed because the doctrines of the Adventist church are based on her so called prophetic gift and inspired counsels. The present day Adventist
sabbath position is grounded more in the visions of sister White see my post to Symes using her writings to show this. you will find it on page 16 Post 158.

yours in Christ
deeu58

 

[deu58]

deu

By the sound of things you have done much reseach into SDA's. Yes I do know Ford. I have listened to him often as a young fellow. I do not listen to him now. He claims to still keep the Sabbath. About Rea, I also have heard of but not Saunders.

On the inside of the Clear Word it says it is "An expanded Paraphrase of the Bible to Nurture Faith and Growth"

It does not in my edition make any claims to be a Bible. I would never use it to solve any doctrinal issues. When I do read it I use it more for devotional readings.

Hello Symes

I have a file I downloaded of pictures of the original 1994 release of the Clear Word
the Pictures show Front, back,spine and inside fly page all very clearly labled as
The Clear Word Bible. Also a letter of concern from the Editor of Ministry magazine.


Clear Word "Bible"
A letter from David Newman, Editor of _Ministry_magazine. (1994)
July 28, 1994
Now for my personal reactions and you are free to quote me if you wish. Understand that this is my personal opinion and does not represent any official stance of the SDA Church.

Dr. Jack Blanco, chair of the religion department at Southern College and the author of the Clear Word Bible is trying to make the Bible clearer which is most commendable. He has done an outstanding job except for the problems I cite below.
He makes it clear in the first paragraph of his Preface that "This is not a new translation but a paraphrase of the Scriptures. It is not intended for in-depth study or for public reading in churches." Unfortunately most people do not read prefaces so this very important information will be lost. Already I am hearing reports of it being used in the pulpit and as a textbook in teaching religion.

Second the author misunderstands the meaning of the word "paraphrase." A paraphrase is not a loose rendering of someone elses' words with added commentary. A paraphrase whether you use the dictionary definition or the definition used in active listening simply means restating the words of another in your own words without adding to or subtracting from the original meaning.
A cursory examination of the Clear Word Bible reveals the prolific addition of many ideas not found in Scripture.

Thirdly, where Scripture is ambiguous the author removes the ambiguities. One is left not having to make hardly any interpretations for him or herself. The author has done it for you. God evidently intended that each reader struggle with the text and decide personally how to resolve these ambiguities and tensions. Two quick examples come to mind. In 1 Cor. 15:29 we find the difficult phrase baptized for the dead. The author resolves the difficulty by telling us that being baptized in the hope of seeing dead loved ones is meaningless if you do not believe in the resurrection. Revelation 1:10 no longer has us puzzling over which day of the week the Lord's day is. The author tells us that it is the Sabbath.

Fourthly, the author has intertwined so much of Ellen White into his commentary that the general effect has been to canonize Ellen White. The author adds to Scripture in Genesis 2:25 by following Ellen White and saying that Adam and Eve were clothed with a garment of light. Daniel 8:14 is now clear that the judgment began after 2300 prophetic years.

Fifthly, the title chosen for this work is most unfortunate. This is not a Bible. It is a personal commentary on Scripture but it is not the Bible. Yet the title clearly identifies it as a Bible. It is really a specialized commentary on the Bible.

Sixthly, while the author says it is a paraphrase the format inside is not that of a paraphrase but that of the King James Bible. While most modern versions format by paragraph this "Bible" is formatted verse by verse so that it clearly looks like a traditional bible.

Seventh, I fear what our critics will say when they find how much Ellen White has contributed to this "bible" without any credit being given to her at all. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of this work owes itself to Ellen White.
In summary. While I believe that the intentions of the author were honorable and while I am sure he has been greatly blessed I fear that this commentary will eventually confuse people more than it will help people. Already one person has brought it to my Sabbath School class and read from it.

_People_will_begin_memorizing_it_and_quoting_it_as_Scripture. I know that this was not the intent of the author but that is what the practical effects will be.
I am sure that the author does not believe that the words of Revelation 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." apply to this version. But since it is called a Bible some might draw the opposite conclusions. He should have made it far clearer on the conver and in the formatting that this is not another Bible but a personal commentary on Scripture. I hope that the author would withdraw or at the very least drastically revise this book.

Yours for the uplifting of God's true Word,
J. David Newman
Editor _Ministry_

 

[Symes]

due
Thanks for posting that letter. There are some things in the letter that Newman has got wrong. Such as the judgement begining after 1844 because of the Clear Word. That is far from the truth. The KJV clearly shows that the judgement begins after 1844 as well. So I am not sure where this Newman guy is coming from.

Daniel 8:14 is now clear that the judgment began after 2300 prophetic years.