Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[rmwilliamsll]

Please don't tell me what to tell you or not tell you. I am taking Genesis in its simple and most literal sense. I am not a Sabbatarian. God created the entire world and all that is in it about 6000 years ago, IN SIX DAYS, and this was the basis for the Sabbatarianism of Adam, Noah, and Moses.

and the Sabbatarianism of Jesus, and Calvin, and the Puritans and the Westminster Confession. all anchored in the creation mandate of Gen 1, which 99% of the modern American evangelical church ignores, by reinterpreting the verses to fit modern cultural sensibilities.

If you are not Sabbatarian then you are not taking Genesis 1 in it's most obvious, simple, literal sense.

period.

and this doesn't require the gymnastics of a Bishop Ussher. this is obvious. so why isn't the modern evangelical church teaching the Sabbatarianism of Genesis 1? it is not to the Jews it is to all mankind, to Adam before the fall.


.....

 

[Critias]

where is the word man in the verse?

There doesn't need to be a separate word just for man within this verse for it to be understood. The use of ez enos and anthropon within the sentence makes this quite clear.

it says from one or some manuscripts says from one blood.
it does NOT say from one man. that is an extrapolation, you even wrote the verse and still insist on inserting "one man" why?

It is the correct way to understand the Greek. The Greek is not just like the English in structure. Ethnos anthropon means multitude of mankind and the context denotes all mankind. Ez enos means of one and is refering to anthropon.

ethnos is NOT the modern nation state, it is racial/linguistic/cultural group.
for instance, the USA is NOT an ethnos, Hebrew or Persian is.
you are reading into the verse.

Who said ethnos means a "modern nation state"? I did not state that, I stated nation as is a multitude of people. You allowed your modern understanding to come into play on what I stated.

I am simply reading the Greek and telling you what it exactly states.

do you have any idea the depth of division that this verse has engendered over the centuries? it is certainly not simple, history alone testifies to that.


....

Division is not cause because the Greek is not clear in what is being stated. It is because people, like yourself, do not want to accept what it is stating.

As I said, you can reject it, you can deny it, you can call Paul wrong or in error, but it says what it says.

And BTW, the Greek I wrote, was not the whole verse, but just the piece in question.

 

[Critias]

and the Sabbatarianism of Jesus, and Calvin, and the Puritans and the Westminster Confession. all anchored in the creation mandate of Gen 1, which 99% of the modern American evangelical church ignores, by reinterpreting the verses to fit modern cultural sensibilities.

If you are not Sabbatarian then you are not taking Genesis 1 in it's most obvious, simple, literal sense.

period.

and this doesn't require the gymnastics of a Bishop Ussher. this is obvious. so why isn't the modern evangelical church teaching the Sabbatarianism of Genesis 1? it is not to the Jews it is to all mankind, to Adam before the fall.


.....

Actually, the Sabbath came from the Ten Commandments, who God Himself wrote. The six day creation wasn't to uphold the Sabbath, the Sabbath used the historical six day creation as an example.

 

[Floodnut]

and the Sabbatarianism of Jesus, and Calvin, and the Puritans and the Westminster Confession. all anchored in the creation mandate of Gen 1, which 99% of the modern American evangelical church ignores, by reinterpreting the verses to fit modern cultural sensibilities.

If you are not Sabbatarian then you are not taking Genesis 1 in it's most obvious, simple, literal sense. period.

and this doesn't require the gymnastics of a Bishop Ussher. this is obvious. so why isn't the modern evangelical church teaching the Sabbatarianism of Genesis 1? it is not to the Jews it is to all mankind, to Adam before the fall......

No, Genesis is NOT all about the Sabbath, nor is it primarily about the Sabbath. The Sabbath was instituted by God, indeed, but Genesis is primarily about BEGINNINGS, the beginning of the universe and the earth, the beginning of marriage, of man in Adam and Eve, the beginning of the face of the earth as we know it after the Flood, the beginning of the distribution of mankind after the Tower of Babel, and the beginning of the Nation of Israel.

I am sure there are threads about the Sabbath elsewhere in CF, but this one is about ORIGINS THEOLOGY, which refers to the issue of creation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No, Genesis is NOT all about the Sabbath, nor is it primarily about the Sabbath. The Sabbath was instituted by God, indeed, but Genesis is primarily about BEGINNINGS, the beginning of the universe and the earth, the beginning of marriage, of man in Adam and Eve, the beginning of the face of the earth as we know it after the Flood, the beginning of the distribution of mankind after the Tower of Babel, and the beginning of the Nation of Israel.

I am sure there are threads about the Sabbath elsewhere in CF, but this one is about ORIGINS THEOLOGY, which refers to the issue of creation.

please read the posting.
not Genesis. i wrote Genesis 1. not just once but 3 times in the posting you quoted. look again, it is about origins. Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 indeed is focussed on the Sabbath.
despite YECism contention that it is about days, and what happened. it is about how God established the Sabbath.

 

[Scholar in training]

please read the posting.
not Genesis. i wrote Genesis 1. not just once but 3 times in the posting you quoted. look again, it is about origins. Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 indeed is focussed on the Sabbath.
despite YECism contention that it is about days, and what happened. it is about how God established the Sabbath.

Indeed; as YECs are the most apt to point out, the plain reading is always the correct reading.