Did you notice the correlation between that and the exposition above about girdled rocks? They have something in common:
Mike Oard
Yes Adam, we all know what Exodus 20:11 says. But you are ignoring what Exodus 20:8-10 says.
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The Fourth Commandment is NOT telling you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears as its final, most essential command. It is simply about having a day of rest at the end of every week. The only thing it tells us about creation is that it’s a blueprint for that. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t require the days of creation to be 24 hours long and to claim that it does is to miss the point of those verses entirely. Especially not when you have verses such as 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 giving a different perspective on it.
What you are doing here, Adam, is quote mining.
Your treatment of that text is illustrative of how you treat all of scripture: you twist it to fit your preconceived notions that derive from demanding that God all those centuries ago looked forward and decided, “I’d better conform My inspiration to fit Adam’s worldview”.
Rubbish. Hebrew “לִוְיָתָ֑ן” is singular in every single instance that it appears. It only has singular pronouns associated with it. It isn’t plural, it isn’t dual, it’s singular.
Scripture is not your toy to play with regardless of how much YEC loves to tell God which worldview He was required to use for inspiring His writers.
Not so. Mostly people have ignored this little ploy because it shows such a shallow understanding of scripture it isn’t worth the effort to respond to you – but it has been answered.
Hevel havelim. That’s justification, not theology. Leviathan is Leviathan.
As I have said to someone else here who loves to twist the scriptures to fit a certain view: enough.
1 Like
And “justification theology” – twisting linguistics and literature and more to fit a desired outcome.
1 Like
- So what? Are you going to leave this forum if no one does in the next 24 hours? I dare you.
- Neighbor to neighbor, IMO, you need to cage your rabbits. Your alleged “Biblical beliefs” are, like uncaged rabbits, eating the carrots in some folks’ yards. In spite of your best efforts, I’m persuaded that you’re giving Christ and Christianity “a bad name”, … and worse, IMO, you’re bearing false witness to the Gospel and against a lot of folks you don’t know.
2 Likes
That’s my major issue with YECists, at least the noisy ones, not so much their silly science and myopic eisegesis.
1 Like
His positions are exactly what were the greatest cause of students leaving the faith when I was in university; as they encountered actual science and did actual science they found that the YEC construct was false. As I’ve related, I helped a few fellow students through that crisis, but others by the hundreds had no one to lean on.
False doctrine – as YEC is – either requires people to remain in a fortress-like shelter where they can plug their ears against the world (and the Spirit) or will lead to shipwreck. Its only defense is to insist that all others are unbelievers and liars.
2 Likes
What I find peculiar about attempts by Christians and other fellow theists to appeal to Einstein to defend their belief in God is that if you actually read what Einstein believed, he appears to have basically been a less polemical version of Richard Dawkins. This is not to say that he was anti-religious, but that he had almost zero inclination towards belief in a personal creator-god or special creation. For Einstein, the universe is all there ever was, is, or ever will be. That is not to say that Einstein did not have an almost religious awe for the order he saw in the universe, much like Carl Sagan. Einstein did have a habit of using God as a metaphor for the scientific laws governing the universe, which is admittedly confusing for those interested in his beliefs about God. Considering this fact about Einstein, trying to defend the compatibility of belief in God and science by appealing to Einstein makes about as much sense as defending their compatibility by appealing to Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell. Defending the compatibility of science and belief in God by appealing to a modern scientist who actually believed in God, like Asa Gray, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Georges Lemaître, or Theodosius Dobzhansky makes a lot more sense.
4 Likes
And then, even with some (all?) of those the actual character invoked would spin in his grave to see his work enlisted in these sorts of apologetics projects because that was not why they did the work they did… Except in the most general sense that all good work is done to the glory of God.
1 Like
The Sabbath is given to us as a reminder of our creation (summed up by the words “for in six days the Lord made the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the Seventh Day”).
This is where the book of Hebrews comes into this discussion and its explanation of the sanctuary. The importance of the Sabbath is because it directly refers to Christ and his atonement for sin. When we “bodly walk in before the throne” of God, we are judged as sinless because of the cloak of Christs righteousness. This cloak is represented by the Sabbath (perhaps you are not familiar with this doctrine) and this is why Christ is Lord of the Sabbath and the critical importance of that statement. This is also why SDA’s fundamentally are YEC…its largely because of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a critical part of the creation account because it is a reminder of our creation in six literal “evenings and mornings”
I would suggest you study John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt [pitched His tent or tabernacled] among us, and we beheld His glory,
John 10:9 Jesus said, “I am the gate”
Revelation 7 So he replied, “These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15For this reason,
they are before the throne of God
and serve Him day and night in His temple;
and the One seated on the throne
will spread His tabernacle over them.
The entire point of the sanctuary service was a reminder of the wages of sin…that Christ would come and die to pay the price for sin (a physical death). As was the case after creation, our Creator rested on the Sabbath in his death. That is really significant God didnt just throw out a "end of week day of rest for the heck of it, he sanctified and hallowed the Sabbath as a reminder of our Creator and creation!
EDIT…I realise this has gotten offtopic. i will try to stick with the original post as i think its important enough to keep on the straight and narrow.
I did some quick looking up for the theory of Causation…and found the following. I havent read all of the article referenced in depth yet and wish to start with the opening statements below and then ask the question…does the article referenced disaggree with what Einstein said in the OP quotation?
Causation and inductive inference have been linked in the philosophical literature since David Hume. The Department’s contribution to the foundations of causation and causal discovery over the past two decades has transformed the subject and is having influence not only within philosophy, computer science, and statistics, but also in the social sciences, biology, and even planetary science. The basic idea is that, although correlation or statistical dependence cannot determine the causal relationship between two variables, it can, under plausible assumptions, determine some causal relationships when three or more variables are considered. That allows for algorithms that can sometimes recover features of the causal structure of an unknown system from patterns of correlation alone.Theory of Causation - Department of Philosophy - Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences - Carnegie Mellon University
- Which, of course, is why the fourth commandment is referred to so frequently and emphatically in Acts 15.
2 Likes
you are forcing me to stray again so i will keep this brief…(i really am more interested in making sure i dont continue to get into theological offtopic debates on other questions outside of the Einstein quote in the OP). However…quickly…you mean this?
Acts 15:19It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. 21For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
- Nay, Judaizer: I mean this:
- “22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.”
- “22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
I can’t stop laughing – that’s excellent!
Though it’s sad that someone would deliberately ignore the critical piece of the chapter to take something and twist it to mean what the context clearly does not support.
1 Like
None of the texts you have quoted support your claims…not a single one. The passage quoted earlier in this thread in Acts 15 has nothing to do with the doing away of keeping the Sabbath…that is hopelessly underwhelming argument which is easily refuted as it should be…the passage is about circumcision…any individual should be able to see that as its stated in the first verse! So i think you are laughing in your ignorance of what sound theology actually is?
The reason why i am so strong in defense of my beliefs on this is because i cannot reconcile what jesus even did for those who do not believe in physical death of Christ on the cross as paying the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and in fulfillment of Revelation 14:!2…“here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus”. Revelation 14:12 specifically points back to the fall of Adam and Eve…its talking about the redemption of mankind…redeeming us from what? The wages of Sin…a physical and spiritual separation from God (which results in our death) that started with the Fall of Adam and Eve and the entrance of death into this world. Note what Revelation 21 says…
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:
“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,
and He will dwell with them.
They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them as their God.b
4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c
and there will be no more death
**> **
> or mourning or crying or pain,for the former things have passed away.”
I would like to have you explain exactly how you are saved and from what? Its probably offtopic for this thread so perhaps you are willing to expose your beliefs to criticism by creating a new one?
The argument in Act 15 isnt about the day of worship its about circumcision.
tTe first verse of Acts 15 defines the problem which was being addressed…(it is nothing to do with Sabbath worship…that wasnt the argument being debated)
“15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
If you are basing your entire Sunday worship doctrine on one or two vaguely related texts against an overwhelming number of texts supporting sabbath worship because it is instituted as a reminder of creation and our Creator, then your theology is deeply flawed. The ONLY reason why TEists do this is because they must in order to support Old Age beliefs.
Might i remind you that this passage in Acts is repeatedly used by Sunday worshiping churches in an effort to discredit SDA sabbath-keeping beliefs…im sorry but it’s already been shot to pieces by SDAs in other forums with overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary. The reason why TEists have a theological opening for their theology is exactly because of a watering down of the Sabbath commandment to a point where its been superceded by Sunday worship. SDA’s have been making this claim since the middle to late 1800’s and here we have it fulfilled.
BTW do yourself a favour and google “commandments” and see what comes up in the top responses. If it isnt the 10 commandments" i will whistle dixy! So even google knows that all 10 are referred to in Revelation 14:12 a text that very specifically defines those who are saved at the second coming!
-
Once again, so what?
-
Not the least of your problems is the fact that you are unaware that I am an eclectic, unchurched believer in the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth. Nota Bene: Unchurched. In others words, this entire paragraph:
- “If you are basing your entire Sunday worship doctrine on one or two vaguely related texts against an overwhelming number of texts supporting sabbath worship because it is instituted as a reminder of creation and our Creator, then your theology is deeply flawed. The ONLY reason why TEists do this is because they must in order to support Old Age beliefs.”
is irrelevant.
- You may but you’re wasting your time deflecting my charge: you’re a judaizer, and an unpersuasive one at that.
- Thanks for a moment of laughter at the end of your rant.
- When the sound and fury ceased and the dust from argument settled, what did the apostles and elders do? They sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: a letter in which this sentence stands out –
- “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements”
- If the “sole issue” was about circumcision, why say anything more than "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with circumcision. (Period, end of sentence.)
- If you and your family choose “Sabbath worship”, then by all means do so, but don’t add more to the words of the Apostles and elders than they themselves published in their letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
1 Like
So you disagree with the Holy Spirit – because it’s the Spirit who said (as Terry quoted),
That’s it – that’s the entire Old Testament requirements reduced to four items, and the Sabbath is not on there. You can’t claim it is, because it is part of the Law of Moses, and that was exactly what was at issue:
" “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”"
The entire Ten Words (‘commandments’) is part of the Law of Moses. That Law is what the Holy Spirit reduced to the four items above, and the Sabbath is not on there!
You are arguing against the Holy Spirit – not against Terry, not against me. The text of the scripture stands, and you can’t weasel away from the Spirit’s own declaration.
No, it isn’t – you don’t get to cut out pieces of the New Testament that you don’t like! It plainly says:
" “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”"
There are two different covenants in question, that of circumcision as commanded to Abraham, and that of Moses. And the Holy Spirit overruled both of them and reverted back to the last covenant that had applied to all people, the covenant with Noah, plus one about sexual immorality.
Yes, the original item is in the first verse, but what came before the Council is both Abraham and Moses. This is made clear when Peter speaks:
"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? "
What is the “yoke… neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”? It wasn’t circumcision; all male Jews were circumcised and it wasn’t a burden at all! So it was the Law of Moses that was at issue.
So I am laughing at your refusal to see what you don’t want to see, whether it’s what others here have written or whether it’s in the scriptures, and Terry hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. The Holy Spirit Himself set aside the Law of Moses, which includes the Sabbath, and all who refuse to honor His words are rebelling against the Lord!
The rest of your post I will not dignify with a response since it boils down to you insulting myself and by extension everyone else here who disagrees with you.
1 Like
And rather than repent and apologize, you lie again!
I’ll try to make this plain . . . again:
NO ONE HERE BASES “SUNDAY WORSHIP DOCTRINE” ON “OLD AGE BELIEFS”!
You KNOW that because we have TOLD YOU that. You insult us by lying when you say we use science to interpret plain scriptures, and then you lie about the text itself by ignoring what the Council of Jerusalem was actually about, which according to Luke’s inspired pen was “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” That’s the statement that was set before the Council, yet you act as though it isn’t there – which is especially egregious because it is a case of the Holy Spirit inspiring Luke to set down the Spirit’s own instructions in plain language:
" For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Good for them – but that means that the entire denomination is doing what you have demonstrated: ignoring the plain words of the Holy Spirit.
And the Spirit’s declaration in Acts 15 is devastating because His words make plain that there is no appeal to anything in the Old Testament (after Genesis 9) because He just reduced it all to four items, and on that brief list there is no Ten Words (commandments), no Sabbath, no Temple, no sacrifices.
And that is the core of the Gospel: JESUS is our Word(s), our Sabbath, our Temple, our Sacrifice! Insisting that the Spirit did not say what He plainly did say is not just denying the Spirit, it is saying that we need words other than Jesus, that there is some divine rest apart from Jesus, that our Temple is something other than Jesus, and that there is any Sacrifice other than Jesus!
It is for that reason that the church through the ages has insisted on adhering to the Spirit’s words in Acts 15, because to deny those words is to deny the Gospel. It is fortunate that most SDA members are good at cognitive dissonance, so they believe that Jesus is the Word and the Sabbath and the Temple and the Sacrifice despite the fact that their critical doctrine denies that!
Not relevant: the Spirit had cranked things back to the covenant with Noah (with some slight modification), so nothing after Genesis 9 matters – God has said so.
Paul argues later that the Law is a whole; you either have to take the entire thing or none of it. The doctrine you assert here denies Paul’s point by trying to insist on some of the Law while ignoring the rest, but the Holy Spirit has said that isn’t an option: when He reduced the covenant with Abraham and the Law of Moses to just four items, He excluded all the Law! We don’t have to be careful not to make clothes out of two kinds of material, we don’t have to bring sacrifices for various aspects of human life, we don’t have to worry about whether a leather strap is made from pigskin, we don’t have to worry about a lot of things – because we have Jesus! The Spirit can throw out what was on the tablets of stone because we have Jesus instead! He can throw out the entire Temple and altar because we have Jesus instead!
And that puts the Sabbath in its proper perspective, which the church did faithfully until the Roman church started changing things – the ancient church honored the Sabbath as the day of contemplation (cf. a couple of different sermons by St. John Chrysostom) but held the Day of Resurrection as greater because it celebrates our true Rest, the divine Rest promised through the ages; indeed the Orthodox continue that even today.
So the SDA has a point against Rome, which idiotically declared that Sunday is now the Sabbath – an error missed by most Protestants (notable exceptions were some Lutheran theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and a few since). But they make the error of going too far to correct something and miss that the Day of Resurrection is the beginning of the true divine Rest that has been promised.