Then we’re even. You have no proof that he didn’t know and I have no proof that he did. We’re both arguing from absence!
No. But proof from text could also show that he did know about it which is why he used it, rather than presume an inclusion! Ockham’s Razor? That tells me, that rather than being edited, it was used for a purpose at the time.
If you want my take on the creation, see my topic Genesis 1:1-2 as Applied through John 3
I didn’t say that I did. I meant exactly what it says. Presuming the creation account was using an ANE model to explain the creation, with suitable editing to profile Elohim’s message through inspiration, that it has nothing to do with 24/7 creation, but Cosmic Temple narration. The function of the days of the week are to frame the storytelling model explaining mankind’s relationship to the world (of people and their place in it, not material existence) and with their deity.
Part of that process is to establish methods of timekeeping suitable for farmers and herdsmen. While the days are used in a relational manner, the Sabbath is used for weekly, timed with the Lunar “clock” for seasonal calendar purposes while also being for religious establishment
In addition, Moses, being raised in Pharaoh’s court, was very likely one of the best educated persons in all Egypt. Religion (including Egyptian and surrounding ANE cosmology), Alchemy, Government, Engineering, Military, all of it. So the often presumed explanations that Moses wasn’t the inspired writer of the first five books, is ludicrous to me. Even in the Genesis account. Do I think even an inspired exilic writer knew more than Moses who spent forty-day in Elohim’s presence? (even if forty-day is symbolic? One would have been more than enough!) Beside, the several times it mentions Moses “writing” after Mt Sinai is enough of itself proof he knew and wrote Genesis…
Again, you are arguing from absence. Paul was a devout Jew, and scholar. He apparently followed the laws including the Sabbath. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any clear indication of a day of worship other than the Sabbath, excepting the celebration of the Resurrection. Following customs of the time, well established in Jewish communities, it would have been an adjunct to the Sabbath days, not a replacement of them!
I argue Paul would have contended that abandoning the Sabbath in favor of a Sunday was unnecessary. But again, this is one argument that is largely absent facts on either side. Therefore, “The Last Order Standing” seems to be in order.
The later change to the Sabbath (325-430 AD)began with anti-semitic and anti-Christian persecutions 140-300 AD. This started moving Christians away from looking too “Jewish” and look more like “normal” pagans.The various councils concerning the Sabbath carefully avoid the underlying anti-semitism.
They also reflected the ideology that Christianity was going to “take over” paganism by absorbing pagan ideals, worship places, and rituals by “Christianizing” them. Sunday (day of the Sun God) is part of that process whereas “The Sabbath” is uniquely non-pagan in source. Changing the date of Easter was a part of that to get away from the lunar Jewish Calendar. This has nothing to do with the sanctity of the “Resurrection Sunday” worship over the Sabbath!
(Mark 27:2) “The Sabbath was made for the Man, not man for the Sabbath” is not a refutation of use, but reminder!
He was doing exactly what Genesis is saying about the Sabbath. A refocusing of the Pharisaic overemphasis on the rules and regulations of the Sabbath, rather than the “Rest & Worship” (and doing good for others) for which the Sabbath was intended.
Respectfully:sunglasses: Ray