The attempt to define a 'forest' seems to be part of human nature--the desire to order things, to create a system. However, doing so can be both speculative and subjective. When it comes to the Bible, I am extremely reticent to make the attempt. The 'forest' a student creates may not be the 'forest' God intended.

Dave

Yeah, that's a leap all right.

You will never get to a meaning of any passage if you focus word-by-word, because a passage is always more than one word.

You object to my literary passage. A responsible approach would be to propose an alternative, something you repeatedly refuse to do. My 5YO grandson can say "no" repeatedly.

So, what is the literary unit? (Hint: the whole book of Isaiah is just another dodge).

Jesus did...Paul did also:

Jesus:

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Paul:

11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12 Would that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?”

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

I am forthwith cautioned in any attempt to find meaning in the Bible.



And I would say, entirely successful.

Just to re-emphasize..... and get this thread back on track....

You're right, but there are so many people who do not agree with this at all.

When God told Adam not to eat of a specific tree, human reason could not come up with a reason for choosing that particular tree, any more than human reason can up with a reason for God's choosing Saturday as the day we should rest on. Human reason can accept the reasonableness of resting one day a week, but why only on the seventh day? Human reason wants to argue the matter: Why not on Sunday? What is "rest"? What is "holy"? Why not Friday? What difference does it make? Is God really that particular? What is He, a legalist?

I was talking about how to approach people on the street about the gospel, Robert. That is what your original remark was about:

"Here, try this test - only make sure the person is smaller than you:

Go up to someone and say, "I have news for you!" And he/she will say, "what's that?" And you reply, "from head to foot you are completely rotten - there's nothing good in you." You better run because you have just insulted that person. "

Robert, the difference is that Paul and Jesus weren't out there trying to insult people-- they were just telling the truth, but as Ellen White points out, Jesus had sadness in his voice when He told people the truth about themselves. Jesus' voice did not give anyone the impression He was enjoying telling them they were lost. It was their lostness that was breaking His heart. I think that is almost always missing when we do it, and maybe that has something to do with why more people don't listen to us.

Back on track? The original issue, as I recall, had to do with some kids playing near the church on Sabbath. The question arose, how should the situation be dealt with? Various suggestions were made. Then, the idea was proposed that it is okay to play on Sabbath. That was relevant to the issue, and was worthy of consideration. The statement was made in support of that idea, that the Bible had been translated wrong in Isa. 58:13. That, too, was worthy of consideration. It has been considered.

"On track," then, looking at the original premise of the thread, had to do with youth playing games at church on Sabbath. So far, two issues have been addressed: the core issue of whether or not it was okay to do so, and the separate issue of how it should be handled when observed.

In reading your post, it appears to this observer that you want to take the thread in another direction, perhaps a more general discussion of what is appropriate for adults to do or not do on the Sabbath?

Dave

Accuracy in understanding the words themselves is at the core of careful Bible study. Any attempt to create a construct for a portion of Scripture CANNOT be inconsistent with the words. The next step after words is phrases, then sentences, all of which are OUR attempt to assign meaning, since neither sentences nor phrases (nor even individual words) were signified in the original. The possibility of error increases almost exponentially when a student attempts to create a construct for a portion of Scripture.



I have done so. Nothing complicated about it. God lists a series of concerns in a discourse covering several chapters. One of those concerns is carelessness about the Sabbath, which pops up a number of times throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah. In ch. 56 through 58, a litany of concerns is mentioned by God, one of which is the Sabbath. So, my alternative is to recognize the discourse as God's 'laundry list.' That it is, I believe indisputably. To attempt to find additional bases of interconnectedness is, IMO, speculative AND subjective.

Dave

Traditional Adventism creates too many dos and don’ts concerning the Sabbath. Try to make the day different, that's all.

Robert