What part of "requirements of the LAW will be FULFILLED IN US" don't you get?

[Cribstyl]

this text dose not prove what you are say. it was added BECAUSE OF transgression.

it is important to note that the word transgression means to willfully violate. if something is being willfully violated or transgressed then a standard must have existed prior to the adding of the law to violate.
No one would argue that murder or stealing or adultry or coveting or idolorty extisted prior to the 10c's being written, but for some reason they have a problem with the Sabbath. if you are going to reason that then you must be consitstant. The what was coedified in the law was what Righteous people already knew was wrong. remember the was was written for the unrighteous not the righteous.

Dont allow commentary take you too far away from the facts Ice.

These texts below proves that the law was added to the promises, so we learn here from Paul that the law came 430yrs after Abraham
Gal 3:16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19 KJV)

The law came after the people were set free from slavery and 3yrs out of bondage in Egypt. Their trangression was to constantly tempt a God who was doing miracles among them. God was with them in a the cloud in the day and a fire at night.



Exd 13:21And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

Exd 13:22He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, [from] before the people.

Exd 40:38For the cloud of the LORD [was] upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.
---------------------------------------------------------


Who is reasoning ICE? Your argument becomes smoke when texts prove sabbath as different from all the other commandment.

Did God say that sabbath is a sign between Him and and all nations of the world? NO He did not... He said....Exd 31:13-18 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:



SDA reasoning about the sabbath results in contradictions that causes people to be bitter and ignor texts in other books of the bible.

 

[believehim]

No, they are not Biblical. Dictionaries and concordances should be distinguished from the Bible. Though helpful, they were are not inspired.

Well I respectfully disagree with you, just as well as a modern dictionary such as the one below would disagree with you. The words and the definitions are dirived from the bible and the times they lived in. Oh and by the way, the languages spoken in the bible is still spoken today.

1. of or in the Bible: a Biblical name. 2. in accord with the Bible. 3. evocative of or suggesting the Bible or Biblical times, esp. in size or extent: disaster on a Biblical scale; a Biblical landscape.

1. Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible.
2. Being in keeping with the nature of the Bible, especially:
   1. Suggestive of the personages or times depicted in the Bible.
   2. Suggestive of the prose or narrative style of the King James Bible.
3. Very great in extent; enormous: a natural disaster of near biblical proportions.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You seem to refer to concordances and dictionaries as "Biblical." In contrast, I would classify them as "helpful."

I to refer to them as helpfull aswell as biblical. As a great majority

There are a number of folks who feel qualified to render their own translations using concordances and dictionaries. I personally do not place a lot of weight on such arguments.

Well I find that to be another issue altogether and not part of our discussion. But for the record, I have ran across such fokes and have use the Greek and Hebrew to show them there errors.

Since I've said that they are helpful,I clearly have not knocked them.

Ok

It was a verbal comand. It was not intended to be "eternal" (as so many claim the law to be). It was not intended to have a "universal application" (as so many claim about the law). It was a verbal command.

BFA

Don't you believe the ten commandments where verbal commands at one point? I think they where and I could be wrong but i feel you know they where as well. And I also feel you know they where not eternal by the way you wrote. And as far as what God told Adam it was universal seeing they where the first and only. God gave them other commands as well. It was law to them. But of course you don't trust what Stongs or Thayers say about it because such Hebrew resources refer command and law to be one and the same when it comes to what God said. Just as when I give my children instruction on what to do in our home and behaviors out in public, its law in our family until I say otherwise.

The following is what you said in a previous post.

I find no Biblical basis for this position. The law was added 430 years after Abraham. Since Abraham lived after Adam, the law was added after Adam.

So are you suggesting that Abraham had law?

Now do you care to answer the following question that you skipped over?

With all do respect, thats not what I asked you. Do you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day?

-b

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Don't you believe the ten commandments where verbal commands at one point?

Some of the principles found in the ten commandments can be found in the Scriptures as verbal commands from God that existed before the law was added. Joseph knew it was wrong to commit adultery. Cain knew it was wrong to murder. Abraham knew it was wrong to lie. The existence of such principles does not negate the fact that the law was added 430 years after Abraham. The reality is that sin existed before the law was added.

I think they where and I could be wrong but i feel you know they where as well. And I also feel you know they where not eternal by the way you wrote.

The ten commandments were not eternal. They were added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come.

So are you suggesting that Abraham had law?

No. The law was added 430 years after Abraham.

Now do you care to answer the following question that you skipped over?

I answered your question. Apparently, you didn't care for my answer. That's certainly your prerogative. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

Lots of things are based on the Bible. Songs are based on the Bible. Plays are based on the Bible. Sermons are based on the Bible. Books by post-canonical authors are based on the Bible. The fact that a form of communication is based on the BIble does not automatically indicate that the form of communication is itself the Bible. You can quote definitions as you wish, but I will not find them to be persuasive if they contradict something expressly written in the Bible. Dictionaries and concordances are helpful; they are not inspired.

I think we have already agreed to disagree on this point. Perhaps we can move on?

BFA

 

[Cribstyl]

You tell em BF1.......

I know you love em.......

 

[believehim]

Some of the principles found in the ten commandments can be found in the Scriptures as verbal commands from God that existed before the law was added. Joseph knew it was wrong to commit adultery. Cain knew it was wrong to murder. Abraham knew it was wrong to lie. The existence of such principles does not negate the fact that the law was added 430 years after Abraham. The reality is that sin existed before the law was added.



The ten commandments were not eternal. They were added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come.



No. The law was added 430 years after Abraham.



I answered your question. Apparently, you didn't care for my answer. That's certainly your prerogative. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

Lots of things are based on the Bible. Songs are based on the Bible. Plays are based on the Bible. Sermons are based on the Bible. Books by post-canonical authors are based on the Bible. The fact that a form of communication is based on the BIble does not automatically indicate that the form of communication is itself the Bible. You can quote definitions as you wish, but I will not find them to be persuasive if they contradict something expressly written in the Bible. Dictionaries and concordances are helpful; they are not inspired.

I think we have already agreed to disagree on this point. Perhaps we can move on?

BFA

Sure we can move on. Its not my intentions to ruffle feathers here. But I strongly disagree with you on these points. The bible tells us clearly that Abraham had law. We know this by scripture.

(Gen 26:5) Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The bible plainly tells us in Romans 5:12 sin entered in by one man and death by sin. The word sin even means offense.

It even tells us in 1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

But you would have us to believe that according to Romans 5:12 that sin without some sort of law, entered in through one mans offense which was not against a law, and that death passed upon every man for a sin that had power without a law? That is what you are basically saying which is not according to scripture.

Unbelievable

Now I know you want to leave this subject alone. But let me leave you with this small nugget, concerning this issue. A clear reading of the text below with what your understanding is about the matter will bring a honest man to his knees as being convicted of God himself about the truth of the matter. And I do feel you are a good honest man.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


So ask your self this.

If the above passage says death passed upon all men and all men died because of Adams sin, But until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no law, but death ruled from Adam till Moses and over those who had not sinned as Adam then why did babies die who had done nothing? According to the text sin is not imputed where there is no law. According to the text death is by sin. According to the text in 1 cor 15:56 the power of sin is the law. So why did babies die who had done nothing? You may answer if you like. And I would like any body who feels like they want to answer to please answer.

What is Paul saying here? Don't you think he had something in mine when he wrote that? Don't you see he knew those who would give the same arguments would say such? Answer if you would like I would really like to here your answers, but if not I understand. I even expect a scolding from somebody.

One truth the passage above shows is that the written Mosaic law came after another law. We have not a clue if that law was written, but they had some sort of law as the Gen 26.5 passages proves. I would like any body to answer.


-b

 

[Avonia]

The bible tells us clearly

The bible plainly

If the Bible is so plain and clear about the law, why are intelligent, well-intentioned, people having so many disagreements about it, and coming to so many different conclusions?

Said another way, why isn't what's plain and clear to you, plain and clear to everyone reading the same text?

When we come to terms with this, we will understand something about laws derived from our perception of God versus the Law of God.

Here's a hint. If it can be broken, it's not God's Law. Think about it for a while. It's quite provocative. But you have to get WAY outside the matrix.

 

[freeindeed2]

The ten commandments were not eternal. They were added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come.

Hey BFA. Spot on. And it would be tough to have an eternal law when we know that the Sabbath was MADE for man (an oft misused text in SDAism).

 

[believehim]

If the Bible is so plain and clear about the law, why are intelligent, well-intentioned, people having so many disagreements about it, and coming to so many different conclusions?

Good queston Avonia. And there could be a number of reason to your question as well. But my remark was specific and not general. Here's what I was referencing.

(Gen 26:5) Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Said another way, why isn't what's plain and clear to you, plain and clear to everyone reading the same text?

Let me ask you that same question to my specific text.

(Gen 26:5) Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Now is anything clear there? why or why not?

When we come to terms with this, we will understand something about laws derived from our perception of God versus the Law of God.

You got no argument from me.

Here's a hint. If it can be broken, it's not
God's Law. Think about it for a while. It's quite provocative. But you have to get WAY outside the matrix.

Ok. I've thought about. And you seem to have a play on ideas. But I do see your point. Is it ok to say its standard has not been reached save Christ?


-b

 

[believehim]

Sorry but can you point me to where you answered this question? I must have missed it and cant find it.

With all do respect, thats not what I asked you. Do you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day?

-b

​

 

[believehim]

Sorry but can you point me to where you answered this question? I must have missed it and cant find it.

With all do respect, thats not what I asked you. Do you infer Thayers Greek Definitions are not based on the meanings of the literal language and cultures of that day?

-b

​

 

[Avonia]

Now is anything clear there? why or why not?

There are people who let their children die by refusing to seek medical assistance because God spoke to them clearly on the issue. All derivatives makes sense if you fully occupy the space held by the person deriving. I can occupy a space where SDA conclusions make perfect sense. And I can occupy a space where SDA conclusions make no sense.

I usually occupy a space where it doesn't matter.

Ok. I've thought about. And you seem to have a play on ideas. But I do see your point. Is it ok to say its standard has not been reached save Christ?

Of course it's OK for you to say that! However, what I'm suggesting is that everything in creation meets the standard because there is no way not to. Kind of like trying to "violate" gravity.

 

[believehim]

There are people who let their children die by refusing to seek medical assistance because God spoke to them clearly on the issue. All derivatives makes sense if you fully occupy the space held by the person deriving. I can occupy a space where SDA conclusions make perfect sense. And I can occupy a space where SDA conclusions make no sense.

I usually occupy a space where it doesn't matter.

If this is the case...it more subjective.

Of course it's OK for you to say that! However, what I'm suggesting is that everything in creation meets the standard because there is no way not to. Kind of like trying to "violate" gravity.

Once again...its become a form of relativism to you. You and I are talking about two different things. And if you're suggesting the sabbath is natural, then....


-b

 

[Avonia]

If this is the case...it more subjective.

No - anything but. You can reduce all the way to pieces-parts in two different frames-of-reference and end up with two valid arrangements that are irreconcilable from either frame. Light as a particle or wave is a great example. That's not subjective.

Once again...its become a form of relativism to you.

Let's hope so since we are all in infinite relationship.

 

[Avonia]

And if you're suggesting the sabbath is natural . . .

Years ago I heard this one-liner: "Only the natural can stem from nature."

Are you suggesting there is a wellspring outside of God?

We are sloppy when we use "unnatural" to describe things that are foreign.

 

[believehim]

No - anything but. You can reduce all the way to pieces-parts in two different frames-of-reference and end up with two valid arrangements that are irreconcilable from either frame. Light as a particle or wave is a great example. That's not subjective.

Its a little off topic but yes it is. The light that is. It bends because of it subjectivity to gravity. The two irreconcilable arrangements are subject to laws. And yet they are based on external facts. So now we are at square one.

Let's hope so since we are all in infinite relationship.

But based on what? Subjectivity?

 

[believehim]

Years ago I heard this one-liner: "Only the natural can stem from nature."

Are you suggesting there is a wellspring outside of God?

We are sloppy when we use "unnatural" to describe things that are foreign.

Can I just borrow your telescope for a while? I'd like to see too. But I did see somethings years ago when I did the orange sunshine. I needed not a scope back then. But I'm beyond that now.

-b

 

[believehim]

Years ago I heard this one-liner: "Only the natural can stem from nature."

Are you suggesting there is a wellspring outside of God?

We are sloppy when we use "unnatural" to describe things that are foreign.

But seriously. The sabbath was created. Did it have a real or spiritual existence or both?

-b

 

[Avonia]

But seriously. The sabbath was created. Did it have a real or spiritual existence or both?

-b

Part of our confusion comes because when talking about the meaning of Sabbath we insist on focusing on the "origin." Much has happened since the slaves needed to learn the power of pause.

 

[Avonia]

Can I just borrow your telescope for a while? I'd like to see too. But I did see somethings years ago when I did the orange sunshine. I needed not a scope back then. But I'm beyond that now.
-b

That's funny. Yes, you can borrow the scope. But some things that may be seen with the Orange Sunshine are not easily seen through the scope.

But many things viewable with the Orange Sunshine are viewable if you do enough meditation. It just takes a lot longer.

 

[Avonia]

But based on what? Subjectivity?

We all come from the One. Everything is a part of everything else.