Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

LarryP2 said:

I would say the sum total of her message is to be ever vigilantly on-guard against any Scripture that contradicts the "Present Truth." And during the late 1800's, the "Present Truth" would often diametrically refute the "Prior Present Truth" that was only a few years old. Or less.

So I propose a translation guide for the meaning of these terms:

Present Truth = The doctrines the Church holds right this very instant.

Future Present Truth = Presently unknown Present Truth, which once apprehended, may well convert Present Truth into Past Present Truth.

Past Present Truth = Truth that was once Present Truth, but has been superseded by more up-to-date Present Truth.

Present Present Truth = Present Truth that has been contradicted by other Present Truth, but has preserved the latter Present Truth into the category of potential Future Present Truth.

Click to expand...

I always thought truth never changes. So if something else comes along and is called the truth which is contrary to something in the past, is and or was it really the truth?

from scratch said:

I haven's seen your rebuttal about Larry's quotes in response to your saying those people fully support the Ten Commandments. Why is this? Are his quotes lies or something?

Click to expand...

If I could just get you to ignore his dodging of my quotes for just a moment [heheheh....I'm learning from the master, SEE?], and concentrate on Victor C's and my local competition for the most insane and disturbing Ellen White statement. You will immediately see why Bob simply ignores every question about his real Seventh Day Adventist sources, and pretends like we are fooled by the reputable Protestants that he quotes instead.....

"You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat"......[OH!, The Horror!]".... and then your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions."....["Animal Passions" are her prim, Victorian-era code words for: "cause the dirty-necked little urchins to touch profusely"]....."and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children..... How high do your prayers go?".....[DUNCE! NUMBSKULL! You think God is going to let it slide that your kids ate eggs? You need learn to backhand the brats, and get with the program!]
......
"unless you take your children and shut them up, or go into the wilderness where they will not be a burden to others....."[You mean, like take them into the wilderness and LEAVE THEM THERE? SERIOUSLY? To get snacked on by wild tigers and hungry carnivorous birds because they thoughtlessly insisted on scrambled eggs for breakfast?] ..... and where your unruly, vicious children will not corrupt the society in which they mingle."..... (Testimonies, Vol. 2, p. 362) [I'm confused. I have been around plenty of "unruly, vicious children" lately. A couple of two-year olds had a nasty fight in Church Sunday. But so far I have not had a single urge to strap on a AR-15 and Combat Boots, jump up on the front counter of the local bank, and start screaming and pointing the gun - "Which one of you losers think they are going to live forever?"]

Ellen, why don't you just come out and say what you REALLY think? Hows: Take your little cross-eyed Satan-clones and dump them in the wilderness, where they can touch and eat eggs to their heart's content. You may as well. Since God isn't going to hear your prayers anyway, as long as your "unruly and vicious" hellions eat hot dogs.

I kid you not. She really did say the stuff in quotation marks. You think I am kidding don't you?

I am not kidding!

This is the founder of a church who advised a little girl it would be best for everyone to lay down and die, because she had been forcibly sodomized by a Seventh Day Adventist Preacher.

Now do you see why Bob avoids any association with the founders of his Church, and tries to hide his heretical Ebionite ideas behind a cloak of respectable non-Adventist Preachers? If you were Bob in a public forum, you would not touch anything Adventist with a ten foot pole either.

from scratch said:

I haven's seen your rebuttal about Larry's quotes in response to your saying those people fully support the Ten Commandments. Why is this? Are his quotes lies or something?

Click to expand...

You have to click on the links to see the posts

[FONT=&quot]1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. [/FONT] #[FONT=&quot]628[/FONT]

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )

3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

OR to put it another way --

=====================================

your own pro-sunday groups denounce your idea of war against God's Ten Commandments including your opposition to the 4th commandment today and also starting in Eden in Gen 2:3.

your own sunday-groups denounce your opposition to God's Ten Commandments though they try to edit/bend/wrench the 4th commandment (but only AFTER the cross) to point away from the seventh day (as God gave it) to week-day-1 (as man would have it)

Which is exactly what I have said about them - as [FONT=&quot]we saw - #149 the 7 point list that even the pro-Sunday Sources affirm. (The same seven point list that we also find here -- #2)

And here #150 -- with an example of D.L. Moody affirming those very same 7 points

And of Course here - #67 where the Baptist Confession of faith affirms those very same 7 points.

And now we have this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed.

And of course even the Catholics seem to love all SEVEN of the primary Baptist Confession of Faith points on the TEN commandments. #167

Seven points - where ALL those at war with God's Ten Commandments - find themselves at war with all 7 points listed. (Which includes the Sabbath binding in Gen 2:3 in Eden - for the people of God as all TEN still are for the saints today).

From-Scratch -- As it turns out - "details matter" when in a debate discussion.

Often these sources admit that the moral law of God is at the heart of the Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"[/FONT]

from scratch said:

I always thought truth never changes. So if something else comes along and is called the truth which is contrary to something in the past, is and or was it really the truth?

Click to expand...

Well, calling anything Adventist "the truth" is almost always a complete falsehood to begin with. I have posted an analytical matrix elsewhere that takes Adventist statements down through a ten-step analysis to determine the layers of deception. But it is also wise to just let your mind play and imagine what you might think is the maximum number of lies in any given statement.

Then double or triple your wildest final number. That is likely to be accurate.

BobRyan said:

OR to put it another way --

=====================================

your own pro-sunday groups denounce your idea of war against God's Ten Commandments including your opposition to the 4th commandment today and also starting in Eden in Gen 2:3.

Click to expand...

So you're going to follow their example of a 'sabbath' on Sunday?
That's desperation. You're so desperate that you're going to continue your personal war against the covenant from Mount Sinai Moses called the Ten Commandments! Exodus 20:11 proves a creation origin to be a myth you can't support. Tell me, why can't you find a reference to the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis record?

We already know the answer.

OR to put it another way --

=====================================

your own pro-sunday groups denounce your idea of war against God's Ten Commandments including your opposition to the 4th commandment today and also starting in Eden in Gen 2:3.

your own sunday-groups denounce your opposition to God's Ten Commandments though they try to edit/bend/wrench the 4th commandment (but only AFTER the cross) to point away from the seventh day (as God gave it) to week-day-1 (as man would have it)

Which is exactly what I have said about them - as [FONT=&quot]we saw - #149 the 7 point list that even the pro-Sunday Sources affirm. (The same seven point list that we also find here -- #2)

And here #150 -- with an example of D.L. Moody affirming those very same 7 points

And of Course here - #67 where the Baptist Confession of faith affirms those very same 7 points.

And now we have this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed.

And of course even the Catholics seem to love all SEVEN of the primary Baptist Confession of Faith points on the TEN commandments. #167

Seven points - where ALL those at war with God's Ten Commandments - find themselves at war with all 7 points listed. (Which includes the Sabbath binding in Gen 2:3 in Eden - for the people of God as all TEN still are for the saints today).

From-Scratch -- As it turns out - "details matter" when in a debate discussion.

Often these sources admit that the moral law of God is at the heart of the Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"[/FONT]

VictorC said:

So you're going to follow their example of a 'sabbath' on Sunday? '

Click to expand...

Until you actually click on the link and read the point that your are supposedly responding to.

And find this...

================================

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.[/FONT][/FONT]

VictorC said:

So you're going to follow their example of a 'sabbath' on Sunday?
That's desperation. You're so desperate that you're going to continue your personal war against the covenant from Mount Sinai Moses called the Ten Commandments! Exodus 20:11 proves a creation origin to be a myth you can't support. Tell me, why can't you find a reference to the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis record?
We already know the answer.

Click to expand...

You got to understand: The whole goal of The Sabbath Cult Porn Product industry is to devise newer, more improved lies. Its just a a big quasi-religious scam industry that creates (or steals older ones) new and exciting religious doctrinal products and hucksters them. No legitimate theologians (including Adventism's own theologians) have ever found any biblical basis for any of their ludicrous trash. Its just all historical and biblical hoaxes validated by Ellen White's Freak Show On-Demand "Visions," with James White serving as an amiable Carnival Side Show Barker. They had the full-scale range of Carnival entertainment: "The Great Disappointment of 1844" was like the Bearded Lady; The Book of Daniel's 2300 Days Prophecy was a scarier, stinkier and uglier version of the oozing Reptile Man. This Professional Grifters and Confidence Racket couple took their hairy lady and Reptile man onto the road, and made a mint.

Too often we look at it as just another Christian denomination, when in reality, it has far more in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses theologically and from a brilliant business marketing standpoint.

LarryP2 said:

Just to lighten things up a bit, you ought to turn to an interesting competition where the "winner" is the one who can come up with the most repulsive and insane quote of Ellen White's. And I vote we should all have some sympathy for BobRyan and his valiant efforts to skillfully dodge and deflect away any association with this incredibly vile, dreadful, deplorable, despicable and obviously-insane woman. And how he tries to blame the entire aberrant and poisonous Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath Doctrine onto the Bible, an unsuspecting Seventh Day Baptist woman, various Protestant Ministers, and Catholic sources.

The most stomach-churning and incredibly-vile statement was one where she advised a child-molesting Preacher who committed outrageous acts of forcible sodomy on a very young girl to "keep it quiet." And condemned the girl for cooperating in the experience. This taken verbatim out of Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, p. 68:

"Any youth who would submit her body to be handled by a man is in no way fit for the kingdom of heaven."

Additionally, quite possibly the most vile quote in religious history, Ellen White here denounces the girl in even more stringent terms:

"If I were forced to choose whether these children should be exposed to these temptations, educated in these evil practices, or be cut down by death, I would say, Let them die in their innocency."

And here is her advise to the Molesting Preacher to just energetically sweep the whole incident under the rug:

"You ask me if you shall make a public confession. I say, No. Do not dishonor the Master by making public the fact that one ministering in the Word could be guilty of such sin as you have committed. It would be a disgrace to the ministry. Do not give publicity to this matter by any means. It would do injustice to the whole cause of God. It would create impure thoughts in the minds of many even to hear these things repeated. Defile not the lips even by communicating this to your wife, to make her ashamed and bow her head in sorrow."
Most repulsive Ellen White quote? - Atheist Nexus

Of course, as everyone already knows, Ellen White is the certifiably-insane source of Adventism's horrifying and anti-Christian Sabbath Doctrine.

It might just be easier to admit it.

Click to expand...

Can you give me more info on this quote?--On page 68 this is what comes up
Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, Page 68

daughter has pledged herself to Walter C in marriage, and to break her marriage vows would be far from right. She cannot now disannul her obligations to him.
You say that Walter was engaged to some young lady in Topeka. I cannot speak concerning this, for I have not heard Walter’s reasons for breaking his engagement, if he did so. But I had a personal knowledge of his former relations with his first wife, Laura. Walter loved Laura far too well, for she was not worthy of his regard. He did all in his power to help her, and sought in every possible way to retain her as his wife. He could not have done more than he did do. I pleaded with her, and tried to show her the inconsistency of her course, and begged her not to obtain a divorce; but she was determined and willful and stubborn, and would have her own way. While she lived with him she sought to secure all the money possible from him, but she would not treat him kindly as a wife should treat her husband.
A Right to Happiness—Walter did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man. I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He has a right to the affection of a woman who, knowing his physical defect, shall choose to give him her love. The time has come when a sterile condition is not the worst condition to be in. I see wives who have borne large families of children, and they are unable to give them proper care. These women do not have time to recover from the weakness of bearing one child before they are with child again.
Many of these women are the wives of poor men who have not sufficient means to support their increasing families, and I am at the present time helping them to feed and clothe and educate their children. But notwithstanding their inability to support their offspring, children are

«Back «Prev. Pub. «Ch «Pg Pg» Ch» Next Pub.» Hit» Forward»

mmksparbud said:

Can you give me more info on this quote?--On page 68 this is what comes up
Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, Page 68

daughter has pledged herself to Walter C in marriage, and to break her marriage vows would be far from right. She cannot now disannul her obligations to him.
You say that Walter was engaged to some young lady in Topeka. I cannot speak concerning this, for I have not heard Walter’s reasons for breaking his engagement, if he did so. But I had a personal knowledge of his former relations with his first wife, Laura. Walter loved Laura far too well, for she was not worthy of his regard. He did all in his power to help her, and sought in every possible way to retain her as his wife. He could not have done more than he did do. I pleaded with her, and tried to show her the inconsistency of her course, and begged her not to obtain a divorce; but she was determined and willful and stubborn, and would have her own way. While she lived with him she sought to secure all the money possible from him, but she would not treat him kindly as a wife should treat her husband.
A Right to Happiness—Walter did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man. I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He has a right to the affection of a woman who, knowing his physical defect, shall choose to give him her love. The time has come when a sterile condition is not the worst condition to be in. I see wives who have borne large families of children, and they are unable to give them proper care. These women do not have time to recover from the weakness of bearing one child before they are with child again.
Many of these women are the wives of poor men who have not sufficient means to support their increasing families, and I am at the present time helping them to feed and clothe and educate their children. But notwithstanding their inability to support their offspring, children are

«Back «Prev. Pub. «Ch «Pg Pg» Ch» Next Pub.» Hit» Forward»

Click to expand...

You actually have to have the book. On the internet, it has been blanked out with repeated "Private Message of Counsel not for public viewing" or some such other warning. Apparently it is just too embarrassing and shocking to have the public looking at Ellen White's more candid moments without supervision.

VictorC said:

So you're going to follow their example of a 'sabbath' on Sunday?
That's desperation. You're so desperate that you're going to continue your personal war against the covenant from Mount Sinai Moses called the Ten Commandments! Exodus 20:11 proves a creation origin to be a myth you can't support. Tell me, why can't you find a reference to the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis record?

We already know the answer.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Until you actually click on the link and read the point that your are supposedly responding to.

And find this...

Click to expand...

So you're endorsing their 'Sunday sabbath'. If nothing else, you've shown an undying commitment for extra-Biblical mythology. Isn't this why you can't find a reference for the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis record?

VictorC said:

So you're endorsing their 'Sunday sabbath'. If nothing else, you've shown an undying commitment for extra-Biblical mythology. Isn't this why you can't find a reference for the Sabbath anywhere in the Genesis record?

Click to expand...

You can't argue or reason with a Sabbath Spam-generating computer set on automatic.

mmksparbud said:

I will say this---am very glad to have run into Larry and Victor and these others--it has made me make sense of some things through their venemous, deceitful attacks. This statement becomes very clearly imaginable because it has happened:

"Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.—The Great Controversy, 588.

Click to expand...

What you're calling "venemous, deceitful attacks" on my part have been honest questions and observations made with one eye on the Law God ordained as the old covenant, and the other eye on your posts that contradict the Law as often as they can. And your response to those questions have been continual deflection that reveal there isn't any basis for your views.

You're telling us that satan is going to deceive us, and yet the same source (Ellen White) is telling us to reject the Bible if the Bible conflicts with the 'Spiritualism' Adventism relies on as their 'Present Truth' that can't be reconciled with Scripture. Let's place the blame where it belongs: Ellen White is the source of "Spiritualism", and is the source of the deception that has blinded the mind of Adventists who will do anything to reject the Bible. In effect, Ellen White is the satanic deceiver.

Yes, that's Ellen White's message. Enough quotes have been furnished lately that this point is obvious. You reject the Bible because Ellen rejected the Bible, and told you to do the same. The result is the Bible is "venemous, deceitful attacks". It has been displaced by 'Present Truth' that is anything but the truth of God.

Rome has its theological problems. Their doctrine of Purgatory stems from the similar rejection of God's redemption of our transgressions under the old covenant (Hebrews 9:15) that Adventism relies on for the Investigative Judgment. The same vacuum of Biblical evidence annoys those who want to conjure venal sins that don't exist, and those who dream of vindicating the Law you already showed on this thread you haven't the faintest interest in abiding by. Haven't you ever noticed Rome's theology matches Adventism, and neither can be reconciled with Scripture? You have become the very thing you show obsessive hatred for.

Sunday sacredness? Go find that in my posts. There's no such thing as Sunday sacredness, and I have pointed out that a Sunday sabbath variant of Sabbatarianism is as rife with errors as Saturday Sabbatarianism.

mmksparbud said:

The venom spuwed forth here shows clearly how easy it is now for the SDA to become the "harlot", the demonic, deceitful non-christian cult who is keeping the world divided instead of unified unto one faith with the Pope--Joseph did hug his brothers--and they bowed to him as to a Pharoah. Brilliant choice of a biblical story to depict the new church.

We say that we are saved by grace alone and through our love for God, we keep His commandments and do His works, and we are deceitful--when all these denominations got together with the Pope and said it--it was wonderful--because it's all under Sunday worship.

Click to expand...

We have pointed out that your claim of keeping the commandments of God is in direct conflict with reality. You redefined God's commandments to formulate an excuse to leave Christianity and embrace the basic tenets of Judaism. And then you chop those tenets up to reject the Law when it suits you, throw another 'jesus' into the mix, and call the result "the Remnant".

The unredeemed is the reality. You've seen Ellen White's soteriology that is direct conflict with your latest claims. Adventism is a cult fighting against the Gospel of God's redemption.

LarryP2 said:

If you cannot comprehend the vile, despicable raw evil of what was done and said as advice to that girl, then God help you. And then to completely sweep it under the rug and the Preacher gets mere brief period of probation? There is no jurisdiction in the United States where that pervert would not get Life without Possibility of Parole in Prison today.

"A little time of probation is still granted you; make the most of it in searching the Word."

Every state in the United States in 1897 that prohibited the "Infamous Crime Against Nature" (nearly all of them) punished Sodomy with the Death Penalty. In fact, in those days it was punished far more severely than it is today. There are plenty of places in the South in 1897 where that vile-pervert would have been lynched to a tree after a short trial. There was no mercy for Shephards who committed such a horrific vile act against one of their own sheep. You are just kidding yourself to think otherwise.

"There is no indication that he raped her--it is considered rape today if under the age of consent--back then there wasn't any such thing as statutory rape."

That is an utter lie. ALL states had laws against underage sex, and ALL of them occasionally deployed the "Infamous Crime against Nature" laws against child molesters. That carried the potential of the Death Penalty.

And this was a preacher doing it! Don't you get it: He committed SODOMY, not mere "underage sex!"Can you comprehend the truly ghastly implications of such a thing?


Ellen White, by giving this advice, let a child molester skate who deserved nothing less than the Death Penalty under the existing laws of the time.

Face it, this advice was given only to protect the reputation of the Church. An extraordinarily serious crime was committed. Sodomy means what it says and says what it means. Ellen White enabled a very grave crime to go unpunished. A criminal who committed one of the most heinous crimes on the books at the time never saw the inside of a courtroom, let alone the appropriate hangman's noose.

That ought to make you sick to the stomach.

Click to expand...

You know--all you have to do is google the subject--the age of consent differed from state to state in some it was 12-others up to 14. This country lagged behind in raising the age of consent compared to France and England, and even Sweden. Sodomy laws, if you do the research, was highly punishable--and dealt almost exclusively with males. There were some punishable by death, other laws were from 5-10 years in prison, depending on how many boys were involved. It was very difficult to prove as most laws required prove of penetration and the presence of sperm. Even when brought to trial, many got away with it, because it was so hard to prove. When it was proved, they were dealt with. I had to look things up to find out for myself what was happening legally back then. And, as is still the case today--most victims dont say anything to anyone. Back then, I doubt the girl informed anyone of what had happened--This came directly from him, which I wonder why he mentioned it. At that time, they would have made no such confession to anyone, much less to a woman.

I find your post highly offensive and sickens my stomach. You don't care about anything except being a very angry man--EGW said what she did for her times--she did not sweep it under the rug as modern catholic priests and other churches have done--you obviously did not read what she said to him. She minced no words in her denouncement of his actions. All you want to do is blow angry smoke in everyone's eyes. Were this to happen today--the guy would have been hunted down. It didn't happen today it happened in 1897. There is no mention of the age of this youth--she was also trying to save this mans soul, which I would not care about if it was today--I'm not that good a Christian. I have no idea if she even knew the name of the girl and if she went to her. I doubt he would have named her. It took everything I had to eventually forgive my father. She was interested in keeping him away from other young women and in his not being able to become a preacher--he was not one yet and her reporting it to the pastor made sure of that. And the pastor then told the guys mother--nothing swept under the rug--the pastor and his mother probably kept him under binnoculars from then on.
Tell me, were you, also, molested by some SDA--as I was?? There is much anger in you and it is poisening your soul, your whole mind set.
Strange--you never mentioned a word about the unions of faith with the Pope--you can find the video on Youtube.

mmksparbud said:

Tell me, were you, also, molested by some SDA--as I was?? There is much anger in you and it is poisening your soul, your whole mind set.

Click to expand...

The SDA don't keep the Law. The Law imputes sin via transgressions that you, of all people, know full well doesn't stop those transgressions.

SAAN said:

He needs to also show where along with Adam, where did he tell Noah or Abraham that command as well?

Click to expand...

As if creating it wasn't good enough. Please stop condemning Moses.

All of Gods laws are good. Accept God or reject Him.


If you want to go kill, steal and commit adultery, that is your choice against God. Otherwise, agree with Gods law and love one another, instead of trying to pick fight's.

VictorC said:

The SDA don't keep the Law.

Click to expand...

Opinion's. Let's let God be the judge.

pyramid33 said:

Opinion's. Let's let God be the judge.

Click to expand...

The judge in this case is the Law Adventists have affirmed no intent on compliance with. The Law isn't subject to anyone's opinion.
Besides this, God has already rendered His judgment concerning those He gave the Law to: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).

pyramid33 said:

Opinion's. Let's let God be the judge.

Click to expand...

Indeed and have faith in the WORD of God.

For example - many have seen this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed. There the BCF says it started in Eden as the 4th commandment - Sabbath - seventy-day of the week. But then the BCF says the commandment was bent, edited "Changed" at the cross. Which is an example of "Bending" and "Breaking" that Christ also condemned in Mark 7:6-13 when the Jewish "Magisterium" tried it with their own church tradition.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
Even the BCF points to the scriptures that declare the Sabbath Commandment starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden - Gen 2:3 post #219

Sabbath in Eden Gen 2:3 found in the Bible itself for "All mankind' even in the OT: (As we see in the "other" post #2)

BobRyan said:

Sabbath in Eden Gen 2:3 found in the Bible itself for "All mankind' even in the OT:

Click to expand...

An hour ago you affirmed Genesis 2:3 wasn't the Sabbath. You can't seem to make up your mind today!