Well, the fact, my friend, is that you [Mr. Koot] gave no satisfaction for not answering my questions. But was presenting questions for me to answer, which I did and you didn't comment on my answers. And among these answers of mine I already deal with these "arguments from silence" that you resort to.

Am I not sticking to the issues under discussions?

Two basic problems that I notice so far in your reasonings are: the "arguments from silence" that apply just to the Sabbath question. Of course Abraham never heard about 10 Commandments, as formally delivered to the people of Israel later, but the principles of God's law were written on the hearts of God's people, as we read in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith and other Christian documents. And that is what is implicit in Gen. 26:5, since there is no list of what laws, commands, rules Abraham was given.

I don't quote these Christian documents and authors as a final and absolute word on Bible interpretation, but to show you how this semi-antinomian theology of Ratzlaff & Co. is in the wrong way regarding this point (and others. . .), even among those who don't agree with Seventh-day Adventists regarding the day of rest issue.

The other problem is to "spiritualize" the Sabbath keeping from Christ on, alleging that it was transformed into something of mere symbol of "salvation in Christ", which releases the Christian to dedicate a special day to God. This is very poorly argued, based on texts that simply don't say that. Hebrews 4 simply doesn't leave the least hint that Christians are FREED from the Sabbath commandment because of certain allusions to the Sabbath rest as a metaphor to the rest of salvation.

This argument I have covered fully in my discussions, and it's a shame that we have to be repeating, repeating, repeating the same points because the error is also repeated, repeated, repeated.

If the people of Israel had, as a nation, entered in the spiritual rest for accepting the Messiah, my friend, that wouldn't be a reason for them to be released from the Sabbath. Two evidences of that: those within Israel who did enter the spiritual rest of salvation, didn't feel they should do without the Sabbath because of that. On the contrary, as David expressed in Psa. 40:8, to obey God's law was a pleasure to him, because he had it written on his heart (which is exactly the promise of the New Covenant in Heb. 8:6-10).

On the other hand, when we read Isa. 66:22, 23 it's clear that the nation would be keeping the Sabbath faithfully in case they had reached the Messianic Age. The text now applies to those who enter the spiritual rest and in the Earth made new will continue honoring God's memorial of creation. Of course, there is no reason to erase the "memorial of creation", since this creation, and its Creator, continue for ever more. Why this "monument" should be eliminated from the experience of God's people who will be enjoying forever God's handiwork? And why a way of expressing love to God wouldn't be the dedication to Him of a whole day?

So, these "arguments from silence" are a very poor argumentative tool you resort to, as we have seen, besides this poor allegation that for some strange and unjustifiable manner, the "love to God" aspect of God's law is restricted to just three of the four commandments of the "first table", since the beginning of the Christian era.

Not only the Sabbath continues serving the material aspect of physical and mental rest, so much needed to God's creature, especially in these agitated and stressing times of ours, as its spiritual role has no reason to be eliminated, since GOD DESERVES being thus honored, with an entire day dedicated to Him, as has been the understanding of the most representative Evangelical/Protestant confessional documents, besides Bible commentaries and statements by important Christian leaders. The fact that they wrongly reapply the principle to Sunday (the old Sun holiday of the Romans) doesn't change the ideological basis of the principle.

Even today we see this 10 Commandments Commission promoting a return to a dedication to the Decalogue as the rule of life for the Christian. Well, either we have a bunch of "legalists" in the leadership of the Evangelical/Protestant movement of our time, or they are engaged in an important revival of "back to basics" of the Bible teaching, and those who renounced to what has been the understanding of the Christian community along the centuries should revise their position.

As I said in one of the discussions above, this campaign to establish a "10 Commandments Day" (set to be the 1st Sunday of May) is really veeeeery embarassing to Ratzlaff & Co.

Would you, Mr. Koot, be willing to join the over 333.500 who already signed the petition for the establishment of this "10 Commandments Day" (remember, a non-Adventist initiative)? I asked Mr. Ratzlaff whether he would be willing to participate of such campaign. His response was, as always, TOTAL SILENCE... Why?!

Gal. 4: 3, 5 speaks of the same thing: "Even so we, when we were children [spiritually under age], were in bondage under the elements of the world," but God sent Jesus "to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

The same word translated here as "elements" ["basic principles"--NIV] occurs in the NT only in Gal. 4:3,9; Col. 2: 8, 20; and Hebrew 5: 12.

In Hebrews 5: 12, it is used to describe the ABCs or first lessons of the gospel: ".... elementary [beginning] principles of the oracles of God" (NASB).

That is a statement of your opinion, unsupported by Scripture. The fact is there is no record of such prior to Mt. Sinai.



Those are not acceptable sources for this discussion. The Bible and the Bible only. That was addressed at the beginning.



That is a non-sequitur. One cannot say that since something is not specified, then it must mean a specific item. Do you understand that? I wish to point out that from my standpoint, this is not a 'debate' in the form which you seem to be following or referring to. I am interested in facts, not theories or argumentation. Let's stick with the facts.

The FACTS are that God gave Abraham a number of comamndments and ordinances. The story begins in Genesis 12, as I recall. They are listed there. That is evidence. Those commandments and ordinances are the logical antecedent and basis of God's statement about Abraham. That is an observable fact.



That statement says nothing. It is a bald statement of opinion, and has no significance to the resolution of the issue. This discussion is NOT about hurling opinions back and forth--at least not from my standpoint. Your statement is conclusionary and only your opinion.



Actually, the passage nowhere instructs Christians to keep a weekly sabbath. Nowhere does it say that. It does, as you have acknowledge, give "allusions to the sabbath rest as a metaphor (sic) to the rest of salvation." I would say a more accurate word would be an Old Testament type of the rest of salvation. In fact, the passage mentions Israel, David, etc., in regard to entering God's rest.



Your presentation is one of your opinions. All you have presented is your opinions. There are many opinions, across the board. You have established nothing, other than present your opinions. Repeating an opinion does not make it truth. Please do not AGAIN repeat your opinions. Let's see some facts, and some solid exegesis.



That is a statement of your opinion.


Well of course not!! They were under the Old Covenant!! And Jesus SCRUPULOUSLY observed the terms of the Old Covenant when he was here.



David was very careful, at times, to follow the precepts of the Old Covenant. AT the time, the Old Covenant was a statement of God's will and plan for His people. That included the sacrifices and ordinances, as David very often describes his diligence in following those.



The 'laws' mentioned in Hebrews 10 are NOT specified. This is a *New Covenant.* It is *different* from the Old Covenant. New Covenant, New Principles. The new covenant is found in John 3:16. It is belief in Jesus and acceptance of Him as Savior. The focus is on belief and faith. New Covenant, new principles written in the heart. The Ten Commandments are NOT specified in Heb. 10.



The verse says, "From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me."

If you are wanting to apply this to New Testament Christians, then that includes the new moons. You can't just take part of it. ARe you suggesting that Christians should also observe the new moons? Have you not read where Paul the apostle addresses BOTH? Col 2:16, where he instructs believers NOT to observe the new moons or a sabbath day. Paul links the two, just as Isaiah links the two. Whatever the application of Isa. 66 (conditional prophecy for literal Israel, for example) we are now talking about NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS, who are specifically instructed NOT to observe the new moons or a sabbath day.



No, that is not what I have been saying. The 'two tables' which were the 'tables' of the Old Covenant have been abolished at Calvary. The new law as enunciated bby Jesus and expounded on by Paul, embraces MORE than the old covenant, and also is the spiritual reality which the shadow of the old covenant pointed forward to.

The rest of your post is commentary on recent trends in America, thus immaterial to this Bible discussion.

Dave

My friend

You are just repeating the old "arguments from silence" as before, which prove NOTHING, but to deny what we teach and to establish what YOU teach.

When I present a certain point that you don't want to agree with, then it's MY OPINION. The funny thing is that this "my opinion" is followed by both Bible texts or Christian documents which back what "my opinion" says.

For example, was men's ethics before Sinai dependent on just what God dictated personally to each one? Wow, what a wonderful old world that should have been!. . . For each one, God gave private instructions on what to do and what not to do. . . No code of laws, no moral referential, but just wait for supernatural interventions in communicating individually the rules for life. Very strange allegation, indeed.

Did Abraham get rich because he simply stole cattle from his neighbors? Well, the Bible says that he was greatly blessed by God, but by this kind or allegations, there is no proof that he acted under any scruples of not taking his neighbor's cows or calves. May be what the Bible means is that he was blessed to be smarter than others to round up the most cattle that belonged to others, to his own advantage, since there was no rules against not stealing. . .

Well, Luther said, in his Treatise Against the Antinomians: ". . .can it be imaginable, that there should be any sin, where there is no law? Whosoever abrogates the law, must of necessity abrogate sin also. If he must suffer sin to be, he must much more suffer the being of the law. For the Apostle saith: Rom. 5: Where no law is, there is no sin. If there be no sin, then Christ is nothing. For why died he, if there were no law nor sin, for which he ought to die? Hence you may see, that the Devil intends, by this Ghostly Gambold to take away, not so much the law, as Christ, the fulfiller of the law".

Well, but let's see whether there were or not principles of God's law clearly delineated and KNOWN by the children of God previous to the Sinai event:

"The Hebrew word Torah is used in such previous passages of the Old Testament as Genesis 26:5; Exodus 12:49; Genesis 35:2 and 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16. [Genesis 4:26; 14:22; 31:53 are cited for the principle of the third; Genesis 2:3 and Exodus 16:22-30 for the fourth; Genesis 9:6, for the sixth; and Genesis 2:24 for the seventh.]

"The Decalogue may therefore be regarded as the full and solemn declaration of duties which had been more or less revealed previously, and this public enunciation took place under absolutely unique circumstances. We are told that the ‘ten words’ were spoken by God’s own voice (Exod. 20:1; Deut. 5:4, 22-26); and twice afterwards ‘written on tables of stones with the finger of God’ (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:16; 34:1; 28; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:1-4), thus appealing alike to the ear and eye, and emphasizing both their supreme importance and permanent obligation".

Well, I am repeating the words of a non-SDA scholar, from the Moody Bible Institute, which is not HIS opinion, but a clear exegesis of the Bible, with several backing texts.

So, let's do this: Since we have so many points to cover taking the entire Bible, how about defining the beginning of the Bible story first of all regarding this subject of God's law?

* Prove to me, Mr. Koot--

* that when God rested on that first creation Sabbath, it was a holy day only to the Creator, while the creatures were engaged in "secular work", not dedicating that day to the Lord;

* that the fact that God sanctified that first Sabbath meant NOTHING to man, no "memorial of creation" at all, just a day for the benefit of the Creator, with no conection with the creature's well being at all;

* that to "sanctify" did not mean to separate for sacred use in the case of that first Sabbath;

* that when Jesus addressed the Jewish leaders saying the "the Sabbath was made because of man", He didn't have in mind all men, only the Jewish men, and His statement has no connection with Creation;

* that only NINE precepts of the TEN commandments were known and obeyed by God's people before the Sinai;

* that when it is said that Abraham obeyed God's commands, precepts, rules, laws (Gen. 26:5) that ONLY applies to NINE of the 10 Commandments. Only the Sabbath principle is excluded.

Let's make clear just these points related to the origin of the Sabbath law, before we can advance some more to the other points.

Best regards.

Please cut the rhetoric.




That is an offensive and judgmental statement. Here I thought you were a Christian pastor. I would have expected better of you. The issue is NOT whether I agree with your opinions or not. The issue is that they are ONLY YOUR OPINION.



Not your opinion statements. Are you really familiar with the process of Biblical exegesis?

But as for 'Christian documents,' they are outside the purview of this discussion. The Bible and the Bible only. At any rate, there are various schools of thought within the Christian community.



All of that is neither here nor there Scripturally. It is a statement of your opinion. It may be fine in a Sunday (Saturday) sermon for a congregation, but it is not scholarship.



Please stick with Scripture.




Exegesis? That's not exegesis. That is on the level of a homiletic commentary. It is not exegesis. Once again, are you familiar with exegesis?

Here, let me give you a start, from a more authoritative source. Here are excerpts from the NIDOTTE (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis) article on TORAH:

"ANE It is a debated point whether torah is derived from yarah1, throw, shoot (H3721) or yarah3, instruct, teach (H3723). The latter appears more likely, although the matter is inconclusive. It may also be a loanword from Akk. têrtu'm', direction, order, instruction. The Sam. form is tura. The root also appears to be related to Aram. 'orita' and Eth. 'orit. The Arab. loanword is taurat.

OT The nom. occurs approximately 220x in the OT, distributed as follows: Pent. (54x; 36x in Lev and Deut; 1x in Gen [Gen 26:5]); the historical books (63x; most often in 2 Chron [16x] and Neh [20x], 8x in Josh; 10x in 2 Kgs); Ps (36x; 24x in Ps 119; 3x in Ps 78; 2x in Ps 1:2); wisdom literature (12x in Prov; 1x in Job [Job 22:22]); prophetic literature (46x; 12x in Isa; 11x in Jer; 6x in Ezek; 4x in Dan; and 13x in the Minor Prophets [5x in Mal]). Its only other occurrence is Lam 2:9.

To begin to understand the theology of torah in the OT, it is helpful to outline the various ways in which the term is used in the OT. Generally speaking, torah designates some divine standard of conduct for God's people. The term is not limited to cultic or ceremonial matters, but also includes civil/social law, and eventually the narrative portions of the Pent. as well. At times, torah pertains to the words of prophets, and even includes the words of instruction from a father or mother to their child. An outline of the uses of torah in the OT is as follows.

1. Cultic/ceremonial matters. Cultic/ceremonial torot cover a fairly wide spectrum of regulations. They are divine commands that pertain to the manner in which one's proper relationship to the Lord is to be maintained.

(a) Sacrifices and offerings. The book of Leviticus especially describes in great detail the torot, laws, that regulate the offering of sacrifices. There are regulations for sin offerings (atonement for specific unintentional sins; Lev 6:24 [18]; 7:7; see Num 15:29). There are guilt offerings (for certain unintentional sins; Lev 7:1, 7), burnt offerings (atonement for sin and act of voluntary worship; 6:8 [2]; 7:37), grain offerings (expression of thankfulness for God's provisions; 6:14 [7]), and fellowship offerings (thanksgiving and fellowship with God; 7:11). The purpose of these regulations was to restore and ensure continued fellowship with Yahweh. According to Leviticus, the regulations were to be observed in the Tent of Meeting.

(b) Sabbaths and feasts. There were also specific regulations governing the celebration of Sabbaths and feasts. Neh 8:13 refers to the "words of the Law" in which Ezra found the Mosaic legislation for the observance of the Feast of Booths (H6109 a; v. 14; cf. Exod 23:16; Lev 23:34). Nehemiah also makes reference to the "just laws" that were given to Moses on Sinai concerning the Sabbath (—> ).

(c) Temple worship in general. Ezek 43:11, 12 and 44:5 refer to the "law of the temple," which concerns the general design and regulations for temple worship found in Ezek 40-43 (gates and rooms in the temple). Related to this is the law referred to in Ezra 3:2 and Neh 10:34 [35] concerning the altar.

(d) Clean vs. unclean. The designation of certain facets of everyday life as clean or unclean was commanded by Yahweh to maintain the separateness of his chosen people. Just what things were considered clean or unclean was outlined according to certain torot, particularly in Leviticus. There were regulations concerning food (Lev 11:46), purification after childbirth (12:7), contact with mildew (13:59), skin diseases (14:2, 32, 57), purification after a semen emission, a woman's monthly period, or sexual relations between a man and a ceremonially unclean woman (15:32-33). Num 19:2 speaks of a law pertaining to the "water of cleansing" (v. 21) for someone who has come in contact with a corpse. Related matters concern the regulations governing the cleansing of spoils of war (against the Midianites) by fire and the water of cleansing (31:21), and the "law of the Nazirite" regarding his separation from the rest of the Israelites (6:13, 21). (Clean and Unclean: Theology)

(e) Passover and the consecration of the firstborn. The regulations governing the celebration of the Passover (Exod 12) and the consecration of the firstborn (ch. 13) are referred to as torah in 12:49; 13:9; 2 Chron 30:16; Neh 10:36 [37]. (Passover: Theology)

(f) Exclusion of foreigners. Both Ezra and Nehemiah refer to a regulation that precludes a close association of Israelites with foreigners. Ezra 10:3 appears to appeal to a law that disallows marriage to foreigners. The precise identity of this law is uncertain (perhaps Deut 7:3), although the reference may be to the proper manner to divorce one's wife (24:1-4). Neh 13:3 more generally refers to the exclusion of foreigners from the assembly on the basis of the law in Deut 23:3-6.

(g) Idolatry. Jer 16:11 makes an explicit reference to the law governing the worship of other gods. Such an act is more commonly referred to as a breach of the covenant.

2. Civil, social, and judicial matters. Although one should exercise great caution in making the distinction between "sacred" and "secular" spheres in ancient Israel, it is helpful to juxtapose the cultic/ceremonial uses of torah above with its civil uses elsewhere in the OT. It should be kept in mind, however, that a rigid distinction between the two is difficult to maintain, since civil responsibilities in ancient Israel were as much under the aegis of God's law as were cultic regulations. The difference between the two was not in their sacredness, but in the spheres of life they covered. Cultic regulations pertained to the Israelites' relationship to God, whereas civil regulations pertained to communal or social concerns. Nevertheless, the latter were still dictated by the standards of God's rule over his people.

In Exod 18, Jethro advises Moses to choose seventy elders to help him administer day-to-day affairs. Moses was to teach these elders the proper regulations (torot) for settling disputes (v. 16) and other duties of daily life (v. 20). According to Deut 17:11, cases too difficult for the judges were to be brought before the Levites. Their decision was to be binding: "Act according to the law (hatorah) they teach you." The judges appointed by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 19:10) were to serve the Lord faithfully by properly administering whatever cases the people brought before them, including "bloodshed or other concerns of the law." Isa 51:4 juxtaposes the coming of law (torah) and justice (mishepat) as characteristic of the Servant's rule (cf. 2:3; 42:4). Habakkuk cries out to Yahweh about his apparent reluctance to punish the injustices committed in Judah: "The law is paralyzed" (Hab 1:4). In Mal 2:9, the priests are chided for their show of partiality in administrating matters of the law.

3. Deuteronomy. Throughout Deuteronomy and the deut. literature, torah, along with various other titles, seems to refer to the book of Deuteronomy, or at least to the legal material contained therein. For example, Deut 4:44 introduces the Mosaic legislation of the remainder of the book as hatorah (cf. 1:5 and 4:8). The various ways in which torah is used in the titles given to Deuteronomy are:

"Law" (Deut 1:5; 4:8, 44; 17:18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58; 29:29 [28]; 31:12; 32:46; 31:11; Josh 1:7; 22:5; 2 Kgs 17:13 [?]; 23:24 [pl., 17:34, 37]);
"Book of the Law" (Deut 28:61; 29:21 [20]; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 1:8; 8:34; 2 Kgs 22:8);
"Book of the Law of Moses" (Josh 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6);
"Law of Moses" (Josh 8:32; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 23:25);
"Book of the Law of God" (Josh 24:26);
"Law of the LORD" (2 Kgs 10:31 [see also Ps 1:2]).


Similar titles appear elsewhere in the OT, but there the exact referent is not as clear as in the deut. literature. For example, some titles include "Law" (2 Chron 15:3; 14:3 [4]; 34:19; Neh 8:2, 9); "Book of the Law" (2 Chron 17:9; 34:15; Neh 8:3); "Book of the Law of the LORD" (2 Chron 34:14; cf. Neh 9:3); "Law of the LORD" (2 Chron 12:1; 35:26); "Book of the Law of God" (Neh 8:8, 18). Although many of the titles are the same, the content of torah in Chronicles and Nehemiah is by no means necessarily identical to its content in Deuteronomy, Joshua, or Kings. In fact, it appears that by the postexilic period, in which Chronicles and Nehemiah were composed, these titles designated more than simply the contents of Deuteronomy. For example, Neh 10:34 [35] calls for the proper maintenance of wood on the altar "as it is written in the Law." Although the exact referent for this law is not entirely clear, it likely stems from Lev 6:12-13 and not from Deuteronomy. Whether these titles refer to the Pent., however, or to the legal material in the Pent., or something else is difficult to judge.

4. Human instructions for godly living. Once again, although the dichotomy between "sacred" and "secular" in ancient Israel is difficult to substantiate, one particular use of torah found throughout Proverbs is neither cultic nor judicial in nature. The son is admonished to listen to the torah of his father (Prov 3:1; 4:2; 6:23; 7:2) and of his mother (1:8; 6:20). Other passages seem to refer to the teaching of the wise teacher (13:14; 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18). In 31:26, the teaching of the noble wife is in view. The context of these passages suggests that the contents of torah pertains to wise, godly instruction aimed at encouraging wise conduct. Similarly, Ps 78:1 begins with the psalmist urging his people to listen to his teaching. Such uses of torah give us a glimpse at the diversity the term enjoys in the OT.

5. Other. In addition to these four fairly well-defined categories, there is a host of uses of torah that do not lend themselves easily to such categorization. Rather than artificially reduce the diversity of the term torah in the OT to fit under these headings, it is perhaps wiser to mention separately some of the other ways in which torah is used.

A curious passage is Gen 26:5, where Abraham is said to obey, among other things, God's torot (see the similar use of tsavah, command, in 18:19). Genesis, however, does not specify precisely what these laws are, a fact that might suggest that either 26:5 presents a post-Mosaic picture of Abraham or that these laws are general divine norms that have nothing to do with Mosaic legislation. Other uses of torah include: a reference to the stone tablets (Exod 24:12); regulations concerning the gathering of manna (16:4, 28); test for an unfaithful wife (Num 5:30); the manner in which God deals with people (2 Sam 7:19). Also, as mentioned above, many of the uses of torah simply defy clear categorization (see also Jer 9:12; 26:4; 44:10; Lam 2:9). Not every mention of torah means the same thing. Hence, when torah is used without further specification, it is often difficult to say with certainty precisely what the content of this torah is. What appears to be certain, however, is that torah refers to an authority and standard that was recognized by the community as binding and at least generally of divine origin. This includes "human" instructions, such as Proverbs (Waltke, 65-78) . . .


"If one were to attempt to capture the essence of torah in the OT, "instruction" or "teaching," rather than "law" with its particular modern connotations, may be terms that best do justice to the variety of uses. torah is instruction, whether cultic or civil, whether in the form of specific legal stipulations or less formal words of guidance from parent to child, whether a clearly defined corpus such as the book of Deuteronomy or torot that are less easy to define precisely."


At any rate, the article is very long, but the foregoing is an excerpt. As you can see, torah has a very broad range of meanings. Now THAT is a starting place. Next, you would need to go through the Hebrew OT and identify all occurrences of the word. I can provide you with a list if you like.

I need to head off to do some visits, so will get back to this later.

Cheers.

The Bible records that the Ten Commandments were given by God at Mt. Sinai, as stated in Exodus 20. That is what the Bible says, and that is how it reads. End of issue.




Your line of questioning here appears to be argumentative and speculative. You appear to be going beyond the Scriptural record and engaging in speculation. I will not participate in that. The Bible as it reads.



The Bible records that the Ten Commandments were given at Mt. Sinai. Prior to that, the only Scriptural record we have is of specific instruction God gave to individuals, from Gen. 1 and 2 onward.



No referent is stated in that passage. 'Torot' as occurring in the passage is a very general word which is used in reference to any instruction. Genesis is replete with such. See the NIDOTTE article which I excerpted earlier.

Dave

Well, if you can't answer my questions, coming up with this escuse that I am just "speculating", then give us YOUR PERSPECTIVE of how was life at those pre-Sinai times, in terms of knowledge of what to do and what not to do (the idea of God communicating His law to each one, as He did to Abraham, seems ludicrous, but is the only explanation left to these opinions you are advocating here).

How did Joseph know in Egypt that adultery was wrong (Gen. 39:9)?

If you refuse to answer my questions then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I have other forums with fierce opponents of our message to deal with, so, let's wait and see if you one day decide to answer these relevant enquires.

Don't fool yourself, they are important. Not being able to answer them simply show the limitation of those who object to the Sabbath message.

Then, let's wait for the next Ratzlaff publication's analysis, and if you have any comments to add to what I will write, it's okay with me.

Our many readers will judge who left questions unanswered here. I really have a big workload in terms of Adventist apologetics to face in other Internet environments.

Best regards

That is a misleading statement. I said that your questions are argumentative and speculative, and that I choose not to engage in such when it comes to the study of the Word--"the Bible as it reads."



A very inappropriate characterization of another's motives. A cheap shot. Please, stick to the issues and avoid such personal put-downs. They do not help your case.



I choose to stick with the Bible as it reads. A long-standing rule of sound Biblical scholarship is to avoid speculating as to matters which are not stated in Scripture.



Certainly it is not the only explanation. However, one thing is very certain. All of that is far afield from the questions at issue here, about a weekly sabbath. I will, however, get to those questions later today.




I'm, sorry, but you do not control this discussion. This is a public forum. If you were running a private forum, then no doubt you could control the discussion. But here, you have invited discussion, you have thrown out a challenge in fact, and it is taking place--and it will take place, and be followed through by whomever chooses to participate, whether you choose to participate or not. Your alternative would be to set up a private forum with active moderation, perhaps.

What it looks to me like is that you are calling it quits. Unless I agree to answer *your* questions, you are not going to spend more time on this discussion. Well, right now, your case doesn't look very strong. If you choose to back out, very well, I will continue. I will be summarizing what seems to have developed thus far, a bit later today.

Cheers.

Continuing with the topic under discussion . . .

I would like to summarize some points:

1) Nowhere in Genesis ch. 1 or 2 did God command Adam and Eve to keep a weekly sabbath.

2) God DID command them to do or not do other things. Thus, the absence of a weekly sabbath command seems significant.

3) Nowhere from Eden to Mt. Sinai is there any record of God commanding the patriarchs to keep a weekly sabbath. There IS a record of God giving them other commands pertaining to worship and ethical behavior. For that reason, silence re any sabbath command appears significant.

4) Nowhere between Eden and Mt. Sinai is there any record of the faithful keeping a weekly sabbath. There is a record of the faithful offering sacrifices and performing other acts of worship. Therefore, the silence regarding any weekly sabbath observance is significant.

5) Terah and his family resided in Ur of the Chaldees. The Chaldeans had recognized standards of ethical behavior. Their culture influenced Terah and his family. The patriarchs generally were, to greater or lesser degree, influenced by and were creatures of the predominant culture in which they lived. The Genesis record contains a number of examples of these cultural practices.

6) The first recorded instance of God commanding a weekly sabbath observance is found in Ex. 16. This was included in the old covenant which God made with Israel in Ex. 19 and 20. The tables of the old covenant are stated to be the ten commandments.

7) The weekly sabbath is stated to be one of the feasts of the Lord, along with the other feasts, in Lev. 23.

8) The weekly sabbath is stated to be a sign between God and the nation of Israel, pertaining to their status as God's covenant people. Thus, the weekly sabbath pertained specifically to the Jews.

9) The weekly sabbath is associated with the new moon observance, compare Isa. 66.

10) The old covenant was abolished at Calvary. The old law was part of the old covenant. The weekly sabbath was part of the old covenant. The feasts were abolished at Calvary. The weekly sabbath was one of the feasts.

11) When the Jews finally rejected God, as recorded in Acts 7, at the end of the 70 prophetic weeks of years, they lost their status as God's covenant people (Rom. 9 - 11) The weekly sabbath was a sign of their covenant status. Since the covenant with the Jews is abolished, the sign of the covenant is also abolished.

12) Paul the apostle instructs Christian believers not to be concerned with the new moon observance and the weekly sabbath. He links the two, as does Isaiah.

13) Paul the apostle instructs believers not to be concerned about observing days or other festivals.

14) There is no record of the apostles instructing the Gentiles to keep a weekly sabbath, neither in the Jerusalem council, nor in the writings of Paul, Peter, John, etc. The apostles DID give lengthy instruction about the worship of God and Christian living. Thus, their silence about any weekly sabbath is especially significant.

15) There is no record of the early Christian church keeping a weekly sabbath. There is a record of Paul the apostle reaching the Jews by attending synagogue on the sabbaths. However, Paul nowhere instructs new believers to keep a weekly sabbath.

16) New Testaments beleivers are under the new covenant, based on God's grace and belief in Jesus as Savior (Jn. 3:16; Romans 3; Galatians) The new law which Christ enunciated does not mention a weekly sabbath observance. Like all the laws which God announced, including the ceremonies of the old covenant, it is based on love. The ethical standards of the new covenant are broader and more comprehensive than the old law. They also incorporate the spiritual fulfillment of the old covenant, in Jesus Christ. the typical, the object lessons of the old, have given way to the reality which is in Christ Jesus.

17) Hebrews 4 identifies a weekly sabbath as a figure of the true spiritual rest which believers have in Christ, and invites believers to enter into God's rest. This is a daily experience, not confined to any particular day.

Regards,

Dave

So, if the foregoing settles the matter, I am prepared to move on to the next phase of this question. I would like to give a little more time and opportunity for response to the 17 points listed above first, however.

Dave