Posted on 05/22/2009 1:58:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
It is the purpose of this study to examine the records of Scripture and history to determine once and for all whether it is true that the Bible Sabbath was not observed between Adam and Moses, or whether the real truth is that there is considerable evidence of Sabbathkeeping in the books of Genesis and Exodus before the giving of the Ten Commandments.
In addition to Scripture, we shall call as witnesses many authors, men who were not at all biased in favor of the seventh day, but whose honest statements support what we believe to be the truth.
The Sabbath was created at the very beginning of human history. In Genesis 2:1-3 we read that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."
There is no denying that God was here setting aside the Sabbath as holy time. Is it logical to believe that God first created man, then the Sabbath, and then failed to mention to man that the seventh day was holy time? Certainly not! God must have immediately explained to Adam all about His sacred seventh day. We might say that God preached a sermon to Adam and Eve on the first Sabbath of human history, telling them how to observe His day as He wanted it to be observed.
Speaking on this point, John Newton Brown says:
"When it is therefore said by the inspired historian that God 'sanctified the seventh day,' I must understand him to say that God set it apart (from the other six days of labor), to be religiously employed by man." (2)
Jonathan Edwards says in one of his sermons:
"What could be the meaning of God's resting the seventh day, and hallowing and blessing it, which He did, before the giving of the fourth commandment, unless He hallowed and blessed it with respect to mankind? . . . And it is unreasonable to suppose that He hallowed it only with respect to the Jews, a particular nation, which rose up above 2000 years after." (3)
In Mark 2:27, Jesus says: "The Sabbath was made for man." The Greek has an article before "man," so the phrase could be rendered, "The Sabbath was made for the man." This is a likely reference to Adam, the first man and representative of the whole race that descended from him. This reasonable conclusion — that Adam kept the Sabbath — is held by Jewish writers. Solomon Goldman says: "Both Philo and the Rabbis assumed that the first man emulated his Maker and rested on the Sabbath." (4)
John Kitto says:
". . . the most judicious commentators agree that Adam and Eve constantly observed the seventh day, and dedicated it in a peculiar manner to the service of the Almighty; and that the first Sabbath . . . was celebrated in Paradise itself, which pious custom [was] transmitted from our first parents to their posterity." (5)
The Pulpit Commentary tells us:
"Precisely, as we reason that the early and widespread prevalence of sacrifices can only be explained by an authoritative revelation to the first parents of the human family of such a mode of worship, so do we conclude that a seventh-day Sabbath must have been prescribed to man in Eden." (6)
These are sensible and logical conclusions. It is just not reasonable to think that God would make the Sabbath for man and then keep it from him for over 2000 years until Moses. So the only fair conclusion is that Adam and Even were keeping the Sabbath from the very beginning.
The very fact that the seven-day week existed, is good evidence the Sabbath also existed. Joseph Scalinger is quoted as saying: "The septenary arrangement of days was in use among the Orientals from the remotest antiquity." (7) The arrangement of time into weeks of seven days carries with it the Sabbath, and Scaliger's statement is only one of many from authorities that the seven-day week is as old as the human race.
Here is another valuable statement from a magazine that the week is a "time unit that, unlike all others, has proceeded in absolute invariable manner since what may be called the dawn of history." (8)
A week of seven days is frequently met with in Scripture. In Genesis 7:4 and 8:10 and 12 we see that Noah was acquainted with a seven-day week. Unless the Sabbath was their pivot of time, people then could not have used such a measure of days. In fact, the marginal rendering of Genesis 7:10 is "on the seventh day," a reference to nothing but the Sabbath. We may be sure that Noah, a just man who walked with God (Genesis 6:9), knew about and kept God's seventh-day Sabbath.
In Genesis 29:27-28, we read that Jacob fulfilled a week for Rachel. The week here is not synonymous with the seven years Jacob served Laban for Rachel, nor does it mean seven years passed before Jacob married Rachel. The language shows Jacob married Rachel one week after he had married Leah, and then he served Laban another seven years, as explained in verses 29-30.
In Genesis 50:10, we find that Joseph mourned for his father Jacob seven days, that is, one week. So Joseph knew about the seven-day week.
Exodus 7:25 mentions a seven-day period in the time of Moses just before the Exodus. This is certainly an exact week, for we read, "seven days were fulfilled." In addition, Numbers 12:14-15 mentions a seven-day period following Israel's departure from Egypt and before they arrived at Mt. Sinai.
Again, in Judges 14:10-18, we read that Samson's marriage feast lasted for seven days, another reference to the week.
Once again, in Job 2:13, we are told that Job's three friends sat and grieved with him for seven days and seven nights — a complete week.
So it is obvious that a seven-day week with the seventh-day Sabbath was familiar to the patriarchs. It is as John Dudley has written:
"Adam, when put in the Garden of Eden, was placed in a state of trial, and must have been subjected to the same laws, both moral and religious, as now are and ever have been obligatory on all his descendants." (9)
Of course he was subject to the same laws, and so were and are his descendants. And one of those unchanging laws is the law of the Sabbath.
Martin Luther wrote: "Adam . . . held the 'seventh day' sacred; that is, he taught on that day his own family." (10) Luther is right. Having been told by God that the Sabbath was to be observed, he not only did so himself, but he certainly would have taught his family by precept and example to do the same.
This is proven in Genesis 4:3-4:
"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD, and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof."
The words "in process of time" are translated from the Hebrew mikkets yamim, meaning "at the end of the days." This can only be telling us that on the Sabbath, Cain and Abel, with the rest of Adam's family, gathered to worship God. Adam Clarke says,
"it is more probable that it means the Sabbath, on which Adam and his family undoubtedly offered oblations to God, as the divine worship was certainly instituted, and no doubt the Sabbath properly observed in that family." (11)
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown say it was "probably on the Sabbath." (12)
Another commentary has this to say:
"More likely this phrase denotes the Sabbath . . . the end of the weekdays. And as it is plain that the Sabbath was observed as holy time since its formal institution by God in Paradise, it was doubtless kept holy by such appointments of worship as would distinguish the day." (13)
There is nothing in nature that can be pointed to as measuring the week; only the Sabbath marks it. And only the Sabbath could come "at the end of days." Clearly, the family of Adam and Eve kept every Sabbath sacred unto the Creator.
There is another interesting corroboration of the meaning of "at the end of the days" in 2Samuel 14:25-26. We read that Absalom "polled his head . . . ." The Hebrew for "at every year's end" is "from the end of days to days," that is, at stated times. This reference, while of course not a reference to the Sabbath, nevertheless shows such Hebrew expressions as are found here and in Genesis 4:3, refer to definite and specific stated times, one of which is the Sabbath. (14)
James Gilfillian, in his book on the Sabbath, has some valuable things to say about the account of the worship of Cain and Abel. He says:
"Cain and Abel came together for Divine service. They were not the only persons present, as appears from Cain's postponement of his murderous deed till he and his victim were out of the sight of others in the field." (15)
He goes on to point out that:
"the Hebrew word for 'brought' is used never in reference to private and domestic sacrifices, but always of such as were in the times of the Jewish polity brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (16)
As Gilfillian remarks earlier: "The prevalence of public worship, with its various accessories, necessarily implies the obligation and observance of a Sabbath." (17) Yes, without question, Cain and Abel, like all the family of Adam, regularly observed the Sabbath. In so doing, they were keeping an institution given to Adam at the very beginning.
The next man of God with whom we meet, was certainly keeping the Sabbath, is Enoch. In the Old Testament apocryphal books, in Jubilees 4:18, we read of Enoch that he "recounted the Sabbaths of the years." (18)
Lange, in his Commentary, says: "Enoch, we cannot hesitate to believe, kept holy Sabbath, or holy seventh day . . . ." (19)
Genesis 5:24 says Enoch walked with God. Hebrews 11:5 says he pleased God. Unless he was keeping God's laws, including the Sabbath, Enoch could have neither walked with God, nor pleased Him. To suggest that he did not know about the Sabbath when his ancestors did is to suggest God dealt differently with men from generation to generation, something utterly contrary to God's nature.
Here is an interesting quotation from the Church Father Tertullian, who was certainly no friend of the Sabbath:
". . . Adam observed the Sabbath . . . Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the Sabbath; . . . Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the Sabbath . . . ." (20)
Next we come to Noah. We have already seen that he was well aware of the week. This man who walked with God (Genesis 6:9) certainly knew and kept the Sabbath. The reference to Noah building an altar to worship God in Genesis 8:20, follows Sabbath references in verses 10 and 12, which suggests he built an altar and worshipped God immediately upon leaving the ark, very possibly on the following Sabbath.
Here is another proof that Noah kept the Sabbath. Peter calls Noah a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Psalm 119:172 says of God: "All Thy commandments are righteousness." So righteousness amounts to being a commandment keeper. If Noah preached commandment-keeping to those around him, then he kept the commandments himself, and one of the commandments he certainly was keeping was the Sabbath.
Our next witness is Job, a man we have already seen knew of the week. This man is described by God Himself in Job 1:8 and 2:3 as perfect and upright, fearing God and eschewing evil, a man like whom there was no one else in the earth. Job was so careful about the possibility of sin that we read in Job 1:5 that he offered burnt offerings for his children after they had feasts because they might have sinned and cursed God in their hearts. He did this continually. Here was a man who truly feared and served God. Such a man certainly would have kept God's Sabbath.
We even find hints that Job may have been directly involved in conducting worship. In Job 4:3-4 we read that he had "instructed many" and his words had "upholden him that was falling." The patriarch says of himself in Job 30:28: "I stood up, and I cried in the congregation." Finally, in Job 42:8-9, God commands Job's three friends to offer seven bullocks and seven rams as a burnt offering while Job prays for them. When they did this, God accepted Job. All of this could have taken place the very next Sabbath.
Moving on from Job, we pass through the patriarchal period, a time when some claim there is no hint of Sabbath observance. But this claim is unfounded and will not stand up. Matthew Henry says in his Commentary:
"Sabbaths are as ancient as the world; and I see no reason to doubt that the Sabbath . . . was religiously observed by the people of God throughout the patriarchal age." (21)
Lange, whom we quoted above, says this:
"To object that the Bible, in its few brief memoranda of their [the patriarchs'] lives, says nothing about their Sabbath-keeping, any more than it tells us of their forms of prayer and modes of worship, is a worthless argument." (22)
Joseph H. Hertz says:
"Abraham . . . Isaac . . . Jacob. The Patriarchs are often represented as having observed the Sabbath." (23)
In a prayer used in Jewish afternoon Sabbath services, the following statement occurs in reference to the Sabbath: "Abraham was glad, Isaac rejoiced, Jacob and his sons rested thereon." (24)
Cunningham Geikie has this to say about Abraham:
"No details are given of the creed of Abraham, but . . . it must have included all that was true in the popular beliefs of Chaldea. This would imply his knowledge of the Sabbath; for the seventh day, by a tradition handed down from Eden, was 'holy' in his Eastern native land, and was honored by the cessation of all work on it." (25)
Of course the patriarchs kept the Sabbath. What do we read of Abraham? In Genesis 26:5, God says, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." That has to include the Sabbath.
Furthermore, Abraham would have passed on the true worship of the true God to his children and their children, including Isaac and Jacob, for we read in Genesis 18:19 that God said: "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD."
One function of patriarchal worship we find mentioned a number of times is the building of altars: Abraham in Genesis 12:7-8, 13:4 and 18, and 22:9; Isaac in Genesis 26:25; Jacob in Genesis 33:20 and 35:1, 3 and 7. Also, Genesis 21:33 tells us that Abraham planted a grove and called on the name of the everlasting God. In every case (except probably the sacrifice of Isaac) building an altar and calling upon God must have included Sabbath worship.
Next we come to Moses and Aaron. It is frequently suggested that Israel, while living so long in bondage in Egypt, forgot the Sabbath and perhaps were not even able to keep it under the hardships of their slavery. But there is considerable reason to think this is not true.
Certainly Joshua 24:14 tells us at least some of the Israelites served false gods in Egypt. But there is no reason to assume this means every one of them did. God always preserves for Himself a remnant, however small (cp. I Kings 19:18). While some or many of the Israelites may have worshipped Egyptian idols, the family of Moses is proof that not all did, and Exodus 1:17 mentions the midwives who feared God.
Furthermore, the Midrash records the following:
"He [Moses] saw that they had no rest, so he went to Pharaoh and said: If one has a slave and he does not give him rest one day in the week he dies; similarly, if thou wilt not give thy slaves one day in the week rest, they will die. Pharaoh replied: Go and do with them as thou sayest. Thereupon Moses ordained for them the Sabbath day for rest." (26)
Further along we find this:
". . . the Israelites possessed scrolls with the contents of which they regaled themselves . . . each Sabbath, assuring them that God would redeem them. Thus because they rested on the Sabbath, Pharaoh said to them: Let heavier work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein: and let them not regard lying words . . . let them not take delight or rest on the Sabbath day. " (27)
In Exodus 5:1 and 10:9 we read that Moses and Aaron said to Pharaoh that he should let Israel go to keep a feast unto God. Gilfillian points out the feast may have been the Sabbath because of Pharaoh's words in Exodus 5:4-5: "Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? . . . ye make them rest [sabbatize] from their burdens." He then adds that immediately upon leaving Egypt they kept the Sabbath (Exodus 16), and that in Exodus 12 the Passover references to seven days, to rest from work, and keeping a holy convocation, all suggest Israel was already well acquainted with such things. (28)
Perhaps the most striking proof that the Sabbath was well-known before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, is found in Exodus 16, three to four weeks before Israel arrived at Mt. Sinai. In this chapter the Sabbath is seen as something known and accepted. But whether new or not, this is emphatically before the giving of the Ten Commandments.
In verses 22-24, Israel was told to gather enough manna for two days and promised that it would not breed worms or putrefy (stink). In verse 25 Moses tells them the next day is the Sabbath, and he repeats it in verse 26. When some of the people broke the Sabbath by looking for manna on that day, verse 27, God angrily demands to know how long Israel was going to refuse to keep His laws, specifically the Sabbath, verses 28-29. So then the people rested on the Sabbath, verse 30.
If the Sabbath was so new to Israel, just announced to them in fact the day before, it is understandable some could have been confused about its proper observance. In such a case, God's anger hardly seems justified if He had just introduced the Sabbath the day before. No, Israel had long known of the Sabbath, and God's anger was aroused because some of the people failed to honor His day as He had directed.
The Sabbath was a well-known institution in Israel, something they had been acquainted with long before this time. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:
"The Sabbath is first met with in connexion [sic] with the fall of the manna . . . but it there appears to be an institution already well-known to the Israelites." (29)
Adam Clarke has this to say:
"There is nothing in either text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now first given to the Israelites, as some have supposed: on the contrary, it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been generally observed." (30)
Joseph H. Hertz, speaking of Exodus 20:8, comments:
"The use of the word 'remember' may indicate that the institution was well-known to the Israelites, long before their manna experiences; that it was a treasured and sacred institution inherited from the days of the Patriarchs." (31)
Samuel Wakefield, in discussing the mention of the Sabbath in this case, says that it was
"the recognition of an institution which had been observed from the beginning, and had never been either forgotten or suspended."
He adds,
"There is not the slightest intimation in the passage that the event which it records was the original institution of the Sabbath,"
but rather, he says,
"The contrary seems to be the natural inference from the whole narrative. The Sabbath is spoken of exactly in the manner in which a historian would speak of a well-known institution." (32)
Yes, when God says in Exodus 20:8 to "Remember the Sabbath day," He is referring to something Israel already knew, or they could not have "remembered" it. Sir Charles Marston writes: "The very word 'Remember' presupposes that the Sabbath day was already in existence . . . ." (33)
Another writer observes:
"The use of 'remember' in connection with the fourth commandment implies that the weekly rest day was not a new institution. It was observed before Sinai was reached. The Sabbath was a recognized institution long before the days of Moses." (34)
Wakefield, in discussing the giving of the Ten Commandments, makes the following remarks:
"We are not to suppose that the Decalogue imposed new duties upon men which had never been before required. It only enjoined those which had been previously instituted . . . The giving of the Decalogue, therefore, did not originate the laws which it contains, but was only a republication of them in a new and convenient form, and under circumstances which were calculated to make them most solemnly impressive." (35)
He then offers these cogent observations:
"The fourth commandment contains two distinct allusions to the previous institution of the Sabbath. The first is in the clause 'Remember the Sabbath day,' which represents the Sabbath as having been previously instituted . . . . The second is in the reason assigned for keeping the Sabbath. It is 'the Sabbath of the LORD thy God' the day in which He 'rested' from all His creative work. 'Wherefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' Thus the seventh day was set apart from the beginning as a holy day of sacred rest." (36)
Charles Buck says the fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned in the patriarchal age is no proof against it, any more than "it is against its existence from Moses to the end of David's reign, which was near 440 years." (37)
We have seen that the Sabbath was generally observed from Adam to Moses, and, as Buck says, it was certainly observed during the reign of David, a man after God's own heart (1Samuel 13:14). There are many references in the Psalms to worshipping before God and in God's house, all of which imply Sabbath worship and Sabbath-keeping.
The evidence is now complete, irrefutable, and satisfying to any honest mind. The Sabbath was kept by God's faithful people from Adam to Moses, honored and observed by those who walked with God. To say there is no indication of Sabbath observance between Adam and Moses is to show a total lack of knowledge of the facts.
1. Benjamin Davies, ed., Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p. 554.
2. John Newton Brown, The Obligation of the Sabbath, p. 48.
3. Jonathan Edwards, Sermon XIII, Works, Vol. II, p. 95.
4. Solomon Goldman, The Book of Human Destiny, Vol. 2, "In the Beginning," p. 744.
5. John Kitto, An Illustrated History of the Holy Bible, p. 47.
6. The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. I, p. 36.
7. Joseph J. Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, lib. 1, quoted by James Gilfillian, The Sabbath Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History, pp. 364-5.
8. Nature, June 6, 1931.
9. John Dudley, Naology; or, a Treatise on the Origin, Progress, and Symbolical Import of the Sacred Structures of the Most Eminent Nations and Ages of the World, p. 47.
10. Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. I, p. 139.
11. Adam Clarke, Commentary, Vol. I, p. 58.
12. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary . . . on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. I, p. 20.
13. Melanchton W. Jacobus, Notes . . . on the Book of Genesis, p. 133.
14. On this, see Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible . . . with Explanatory Notes, Vol. II, p. 152.
15. James Gilfillian, The Sabbath, p. 281.
16. Ibid., pp. 281-282.
17. Ibid., p. 281.
18. Jubilees 4:18, in R. H. Charles', Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 18.
19. John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. I, p. 197.
20. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. IV, "Of the Observance of the Sabbath," Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 155.
21. Matthew Henry, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. I, p. 8.
22. Lange, op. cit.
23. Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, p. 579.
24. Samuel M. Segal, The Sabbath Book, p. 122.
25. Cunningham Geikie, Hours With the Bible, Vol. I, p. 258.
26. Midrash Rabbah, Exodus, Soncino ed., on Exodus 8:28, p. 35.
27. Ibid., on Exodus 5:18, p. 98.
28. Gilfillian, op. cit., p. 284.
29. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, art. "Sabbath," p. 288.
30. Clarke, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 386.
31. Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 297.
32. Samuel Wakefield, A Complete System of Christian Theology, p. 503.
33. Sir Charles Marston, New Bible Evidence, p. 207.
34. Henry T. Scholl, quoting H. Clay Trumbull, New York Christian Observer, December 24, 1913.
35. Wakefield, op. cit., p. 505.
36. Ibid.
37. Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, art. "Sabbath," p. 403.
The Authentic Tradition is from G-d on Mt. Sinai. The traditions of other religions with other sources are the inventions of human beings.
Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
No.
Did God specify how far apart to place your feet when you're waving and heaving? Did he specify the exact angle your head should be at? Did he specify the exact distance that your fingers should be spread? Did he specify the exact length the hairs on your arms needed to be when you waved or heaved? Is there no authentic tradition for these things?
There is an authentic Tradition from G-d's Mouth on just how exactly to perform each of the rituals (including the "waving" of Aaron's sons, which I doubt you could do just from your King James Bible). Evidently you are having trouble even understanding what I'm saying because you just now seem to be getting this and you're hurling it at me as if it is somehow supposed to be destructive of my argument.
I supported from scripture that the tabernacle could have been built and was built without tradition. I showed that God infused people with his spirit to give them the wisdom and knowledge of how to do the things he wanted done. And your response is to dismiss it by comparing my spirituality to biblical figures? Do you not think God could do the same thing to a lowly sinner like myself if he so chose?
No, you compared yourself to Biblical figures, saying that you could do it as well as they. And by the way, thank you for acknowledging that G-d had to impart wisdom and knowledge not found in the written Bible. I guess I win the argument after all, though I doubt you will notice that.
It is pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even notice that your position is itself imposed on Scripture from the outside, that the Bible contains no inspired table of contents (meaning that after G-d dictated the Torah to Moses all other Biblical books had to be approved by some human authority in order to be included), and that evidently the KJV and the "holy spirit" never seem to say the same thing to any two people. What a foundation of air on which to build a religion.
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest. And Moses was not just a prophet. He was the man who spoke with G-d "face to face," which means his authority is greater than that of any prophet and the Revelation vouchsafed to him is higher than any other revelation.
Holy tradition Batman! You know that Catholics make the exact same arguments. And the MESSIAH said:
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
There is an authentic Tradition from G-d's Mouth on just how exactly to perform each of the rituals (including the "waving" of Aaron's sons, which I doubt you could do just from your King James Bible). Evidently you are having trouble even understanding what I'm saying because you just now seem to be getting this and you're hurling it at me as if it is somehow supposed to be destructive of my argument.
I'm just taking your example to it's conclusion. You say that tradition dictates how things are done. If something isn't mentioned in tradition is it unimportant? Has tradition preserved everything that God ever wished to convey to mankind? How are new traditions created? What is the newest traditions?
If you are a Jew you've surely encountered these same questions. Even Jews disagree as to their importance and Jews disagree on their traditions. So what flavor of Judaism do you agree with and what makes your belief superior over any other Jews?
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest.
Is that tradition?
So what do you mean by "authentic?" Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
The Authentic Tradition is from G-d on Mt. Sinai. The traditions of other religions with other sources are the inventions of human beings.
Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
No.
Holy tradition Batman! You know that Catholics make the exact same arguments.
So? Mormons make the same arguments you make, whether invoking a book they accept a priori to having a "burning in the bosom" that convicts them of "truth." I guess if the fact that Catholics appeal to tradition invalidates all tradition, then mormons' (and moslems') appeal to scripture invalidates all scripture, right?
Are you even capable of thinking logically?
And the MESSIAH said:
For the hundred millionth time, your appeal to an authority I do not acknowledge is fallacious. How would you try to convert a native of some far away Pacific island who had never heard of chr*tianity? By just start in with "J*sus said" and start quoting Matthew? What are you, some sort of KJV-only Seventh Day Pentecostal Calvinist?
I'm just taking your example to it's conclusion. You say that tradition dictates how things are done. If something isn't mentioned in tradition is it unimportant? Has tradition preserved everything that God ever wished to convey to mankind? How are new traditions created? What is the newest traditions?
And this is your argument against the idea that G-d has prescribed in the Oral Tradition exactly how the rituals are to be carried out? Wow.
If you are a Jew you've surely encountered these same questions. Even Jews disagree as to their importance and Jews disagree on their traditions. So what flavor of Judaism do you agree with and what makes your belief superior over any other Jews?
And how do you know you are right and the Baptists, churches of chr*st, J-- Witnesses, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Amish, etc., are wrong?
How do Biblical interpretations get started? Who makes up Biblical interpretations? What is the newest Biblical interpretation?
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest.
Is that tradition?
Duh, Sherlock. It's also in the Torah (only the first two commandments are in the First Person). Where in the Bible do you derive your "Bible only" idea? And if you think to do so by quoting the "new testament," what has the "new testament" got to do with the issue of whether Israel was given Oral Laws at Mt. Sinai? Even if chr*stians are, as Protestants claim, forbidden to stray beyond what is written, how do you know that this was true before chr*stianity came into existence?
Unfortunately, my friend, you can't even read the Bible. You can only read a translation, and a translation of the Bible is just that--a translation of the Bible, and not the Bible itself. The Bible cannot be translated because doing so removes the precise letters written by Moses at G-d's dictation.
Did you even read my earlier argument that the purest and most authoritative form of G-d's Word is a hand-written Torah Scroll, and that these Scrolls must be written in accordance with a strict set of rules (which are not recorded in the Bible)? Did you? Do you understand that how every single letter is to be written is carefully prescribed and if even a single letter is copied incorrectly the Scroll can't be used? Did you know that the first letter in the Torah is written large? Did you know that there are two yods in the word vayiytzer to teach that G-d created man with both the good and evil inclination? Did you know that any number of words are apparently "misspelled" but that they cannot be corrected but must be written exactly as they have always been written, "misspelled?" Are you going to declare all of this nonsense and say that all they needed was a Thomas Nelson published KJV?
Sunday was my tenth anniversary on Free Republic. During that time I have devoted a great deal of time to defending people like you from, and pointing out the hypocrisy of, your critics. But I must tell you that your absolute refusal to provide a single logical non-fallacious reason for what you believe reminds me that that there is some truth in all stereotypes and I can see why so many people don't like you.
Nope. And once again there's nothing wrong with tradition. But when man made tradition is elevated to scriptural status it's dangerous because then you have men who are purporting to speak for God.
Are you even capable of thinking logically?
Are you capable of having a discussion without resorting to petty insults?
And the MESSIAH said: For the hundred millionth time, your appeal to an authority I do not acknowledge is fallacious.
I don't care what you believe. I believe Jesus is and was the messiah. I'm not ashamed of that. I embrace his words and report them because they are the words of God.
How would you try to convert a native of some far away Pacific island who had never heard of chr*tianity?
I don't have the power of the means to convert anyone.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
And this is your argument against the idea that G-d has prescribed in the Oral Tradition exactly how the rituals are to be carried out? Wow.
They were serious questions.
If you are a Jew you've surely encountered these same questions. Even Jews disagree as to their importance and Jews disagree on their traditions. So what flavor of Judaism do you agree with and what makes your belief superior over any other Jews? And how do you know you are right and the Baptists, churches of chr*st, J-- Witnesses, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Amish, etc., are wrong? How do Biblical interpretations get started? Who makes up Biblical interpretations? What is the newest Biblical interpretation?
I don't believe any one group has it totally right. However there are identifying characteristics associated with with those who have God's spirit and characteristics associated with those who don't know God. Patience and longsuffering for example are Godly characteristics.
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest. Is that tradition? Duh, Sherlock. It's also in the Torah (only the first two commandments are in the First Person).
That's not how it's written. But why do you seem to be arguing against this notion in the other thread you mentioned. You seem to be making the case over there that God spoke to everything in scripture directly to ALL the people.
Did you even read my earlier argument that the purest and most authoritative form of G-d's Word is a hand-written Torah Scroll, and that these Scrolls must be written in accordance with a strict set of rules (which are not recorded in the Bible)? Did you?
Of course. Did you read my response?
Sunday was my tenth anniversary on Free Republic. Congratulations on your ten years freeping newbie. I just passed 11 years myself.
During that time I have devoted a great deal of time to defending people like you from, and pointing out the hypocrisy of, your critics.
I appreciate that.
But I must tell you that your absolute refusal to provide a single logical non-fallacious reason for what you believe
Your not understanding or agreeing doesn't mean that my answers aren't logical or fallacious.
reminds me that that there is some truth in all stereotypes and I can see why so many people don't like you.
If people don't like me because of some character flaw I have then I'll repent and ask God to show me my character faults and if he's merciful he will and I can overcome them with his help.
BUT if they don't like me because I'm standing up for the bible and the Lord Jesus Christ then that's fantastic and a joyful thing indeed:
Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
Luk 6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
First of all, I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness for losing my temper and being so abusive to you in our dialogue. I forgot some very important things from my own days as a Fundamentalist Protestant.
FP's have a bit of a quandary. They insist that, since everyone in the new testament was an adult convert then all chr*stians must be adult converts. However, in the new testament chr*stianity was new and all its converts had to be intellectually converted. This is something today's FP's can't identify with because the vast majority of them were raised believing in all the tenets of chr*stianity, but since they must be "converted" as adults they have developed the "born again experience" as a mystical/emotional adult conversion for people who have been believing chr*stians all their lives. Thus the idea of having to be intellectually converted to chr*stianity is literally outside the FP worldview. Instead at a certain point in their lives after hearing or reading a few bible-verses the electricity starts playing up and down their spine and they are "converted." It is for this reason that FP's know one and only one way to prove anything--by quoting bible verses. The idea that not everyone believes the Bible, that you must first use an argument external to the Bible itself in order to establish its authority before you can begin quoting it to prove anything, is simply alien to their world view. Hence your refusal to argue in any other way or to "prove" anything in any other way than very large quotes from the nt in red, in the expectation that the reader (if he is one of the "elect") will experience "conviction." But what you don't realize is that the nt can't convict anyone who doesn't believe it is the word of G-d. You have to first prove that it is by arguments external to the nt itself. Once you have thus convinced your opponent that the nt is what you claim it is, then and only then can you prove points by merely quoting it.
Second, you evince an inability to even peek outside your own worldview for just a few seconds in order to defuse someone else's argument. When I said that the fact that the Torah doesn't specify how sacrifices (or people) are to be "waved" or "heaved" and that therefore there must be an authoritative Tradition you assumed I meant that this was an excuse for people to make stuff up, because this is the only definition of "tradition" you know. I meant know such thing. I meant that obviously, by sheer logic, G-d must therefore have Himself given instructions as to how these ritual actions were to be performed. Oral Torah is just that Torah that was not written down, not stuff made up by people. But because of your argument with the Catholics and Orthodox you know only one definition of "tradition"--inauthentic stuff made up by people. I am not saying that G-d's silence gives man a license to make stuff up. I'm saying that G-d obviously was not silent, that He must have specified how these things were to be done, and that this part of the Torah was not written down in the Scroll. This is not the same thing as "G-d didn't say, so we'll make something up." Have you ever read Deuteronomy 12:21 where G-d mentions having given instructions about slaughtering animals which are not found written down anywhere in the Torah?
At this point you may object that G-d would not say anything without having it written down in the Bible because that wouldn't be fair; not everyone would have the information. But Israel would have the information, and Israel is the only people the Torah was given to. The Torah was not given to mankind; the "ten commandments" weren't given to mankind--these are the exclusive heritage of Israel and no one else. Where did you ever get the idea that the Torah was given to all mankind? It was addressed to the Nation of Israel gathered at Sinai, not to mankind as a whole, and it even begins with the words "I am HaShem your G-d Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." And if you say that this cannot be so, because if it were how else could anyone other than Israel be saved (in which case I congratulate you, because you are moving outside the Bible itself to argue from logic), I must remind you that the Torah is not about being "saved" in the chr*stian sense at all. The purpose of Torah observance is to channel G-dliness into the material world, not to "save souls" (there's nothing in the Hebrew Bible at all about "saving souls" in the chr*stian sense, and if you think that's what the ancient Israelites were all about then you do believe in oral tradition after all).
But finally, we come to why any further argument with you is useless. You said that it doesn't matter what I (or by extension) anyone else believes; you simply believe that J*sus was the messiah. No reason given. You just believe. And as has often been pointed out, you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Which raises the question of why you're trying to convert me or anyone else when you can't convert anyone. I've always wondered why Calvinists would try to convert anyone.
However, after defending your beliefs with no reason given other than that's what you believe (how would you like a mormon to say "I just believe in the book of mormon and that settles it"?) you make one very curious final statement. You don't believe anyone has it all right. That's a very liberal, archaeological way of looking at religion, but one that is inevitable when one rejects the idea that G-d gave no oral instructions. So does this mean that you may not have it all right either? In which case what are you arguing about? You'd best be correcting your own mistakes.
It's not worth it. It's not worth the blood pressure and it's not worth me getting all frustrated and abusive to a fellow human being.
Farewell, and may G-d, according to His own Will, draw you ever further into His Truth.
Again, I apologize for my abusive language directed to you and ask your forgiveness.
Plus of course the most important point, which no chr*stian understands, is that the Prophets are not a higher form of Revelation than Torah, but lower. No Prophet may overrule the Torah nor shall it ever cease to be valid. Many, many prophecies were uttered in ancient times (always under the Spirit of Prophecy and never face to face as with Moses) but only the ones in we have in the TaNa"KH were canonized by the 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah (the Men of the Great Assembly) because their fulfillment awaits the days of Mashiach. Once Mashiach comes they will have been fulfilled and will no longer be read as Scripture (not that they won't be available for study, but their purpose will have been fulfilled). Any "prophecy" that predicted a higher law than the Torah would never have been canonized.
Chag Shavu`ot sameach!
As per the Torah being written before the Universe was created...don’t the Books of Moses contain reference to events that happened after Creation? Was this added by Moses or known to G-d and prophesied by him?
It's Shavu`ot. Time to go.
All history and all that ever is, was, or shall be is encoded in the Torah. It is the logos.
I thought you were Jewish?
I am! Just not particularily observant. I should also know this stuff from my academic background (English Lit).
Sorry for the length of time getting back to. The preparation for and the double sabbaths this weekend prevented me from a timely response.
Thank you for your three humble and heartfelt apologies and I apologize for any ungraciousness in tone or demeanor that I might have exhibited.
FP's have a bit of a quandary.
I'm not a fundamental protestant. I'm not even a protestant. You've raised a number of interesting issues which are probably not best answered in sound bites. In most cases you're attributing these same types of beliefs to me and in most cases it's not what I believe. So bear with me and I'll try to explain as fully as possible given the limited forum and the limited time we both have.
They insist that, since everyone in the new testament was an adult convert then all chr*stians must be adult converts. However, in the new testament chr*stianity was new and all its converts had to be intellectually converted. This is something today's FP's can't identify with because the vast majority of them were raised believing in all the tenets of chr*stianity, but since they must be "converted" as adults they have developed the "born again experience" as a mystical/emotional adult conversion for people who have been believing chr*stians all their lives. Thus the idea of having to be intellectually converted to chr*stianity is literally outside the FP worldview.
I agree completely that Christianity is more than just a mystical/emotional feeling. The process of conversion encompasses the heart, soul and mind. I agree completely that you must be intellectually converted. And being converted is impossible without the indwelling spirit of God.
It is for this reason that FP's know one and only one way to prove anything--by quoting bible verses. The idea that not everyone believes the Bible, that you must first use an argument external to the Bible itself in order to establish its authority before you can begin quoting it to prove anything, is simply alien to their world view.
USUALLY I don't engage in debate with Mormons, Catholics OR Jews exactly because they don't hold the bible to be their source of authority. That's why I said back in post 96: "I simply can't debate tradition. It's pointless." We don't have a common frame of reference.
But you pegged it on authority. When it comes to belief, there HAS to be an authority in which to place your trust and belief. Trusting in ourselves...our thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is folly. We naturally don't have Godly wisdom, understanding or logic. We lack the capacity to understand and embrace Godly things.
Putting your faith in others thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is even more of a folly. It's the blind leading the blind.
Scripture IS the guidebook for Godly living and behavior. It is HOW God speaks to us today. It is God's revelation to us. It's what he wanted preserved. Is it everything that God said and did? Of course not. There's no storage medium capable of holding that much information.
So I quote scripture to prove my points because MY thoughts and feelings are irrelevant. They don't mean jack. They're human based thought and human based reasoning.
Hence your refusal to argue in any other way or to "prove" anything in any other way than very large quotes from the nt in red, in the expectation that the reader (if he is one of the "elect") will experience "conviction." But what you don't realize is that the nt can't convict anyone who doesn't believe it is the word of G-d. You have to first prove that it is by arguments external to the nt itself. Once you have thus convinced your opponent that the nt is what you claim it is, then and only then can you prove points by merely quoting it.
This might be a valid viewpoint concerning some people, but not me. I'm not trying to convict or convert anyone. It's not my goal. In the grand scheme of thing I couldn't care less if you agree with what I'm putting down here. It's not my job to convert or convict anyone to what I believe. BUT.
But it IS my job to present the information. It IS my job to make sure the information is out there and available to those whom God is calling. Those who recognize that calling and heed it WILL be led to the truth by God. They'll study, they'll learn and they'll PROVE it to themselves.
I'm not sitting here thinking "Oh golly oh gee if Zionist Conspirator would be "saved" because of me that would be great!" It's not in my mind. I AM supremely confident that God IS going to "save" the vast majority of humankind. He promises this in scripture. I'm content to let God work things out in his own way in his own time. His plan gives this opportunity for redemption to everyone that has ever lived or will live.
Second, you evince an inability to even peek outside your own worldview for just a few seconds in order to defuse someone else's argument.
I don't have that inability. But arguments are best defused by truth, not by catering to someone elses worldview.
When I said that the fact that the Torah doesn't specify how sacrifices (or people) are to be "waved" or "heaved" and that therefore there must be an authoritative Tradition you assumed I meant that this was an excuse for people to make stuff up, because this is the only definition of "tradition" you know.
Well you're being kind of rough with your characterization. In that particular case I think that if it were that important as to the specific details that God would have caused it to be written down. I'm not saying that it's "bad" for an organization to come up with a "standard" way of doing things. That's good in a lot of ways.
I meant know such thing. I meant that obviously, by sheer logic, G-d must therefore have Himself given instructions as to how these ritual actions were to be performed. Oral Torah is just that Torah that was not written down, not stuff made up by people. But because of your argument with the Catholics and Orthodox you know only one definition of "tradition"--inauthentic stuff made up by people.
I am not saying that G-d's silence gives man a license to make stuff up. I'm saying that G-d obviously was not silent, that He must have specified how these things were to be done, and that this part of the Torah was not written down in the Scroll. This is not the same thing as "G-d didn't say, so we'll make something up." Have you ever read Deuteronomy 12:21 where G-d mentions having given instructions about slaughtering animals which are not found written down anywhere in the Torah?
It's not my position that God never said or did anything outside of scripture. Of course he did as I said. What's in question is whether or not tradition is in fact an accurate transmission of Godly wishes or whether it's been colored and influenced by the actions and desires of men. I say the latter.
At this point you may object that G-d would not say anything without having it written down in the Bible because that wouldn't be fair; not everyone would have the information. But Israel would have the information, and Israel is the only people the Torah was given to. The Torah was not given to mankind; the "ten commandments" weren't given to mankind--these are the exclusive heritage of Israel and no one else. Where did you ever get the idea that the Torah was given to all mankind?
I don't have that idea and I never stated that idea. You made an assumption based on your ignorance of my beliefs.
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Non-Israelites can join themselves to these covenants and promises through Christ.
But finally, we come to why any further argument with you is useless. You said that it doesn't matter what I (or by extension) anyone else believes; you simply believe that J*sus was the messiah. No reason given. You just believe.
Not giving a reason and not having a reason aren't the same things. I believe Jesus is the messiah because of the miraculous effect this belief has had on my thoughts, attitudes, emotions, life and my family. I can go into detail if you would like.
And as has often been pointed out, you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Which raises the question of why you're trying to convert me or anyone else when you can't convert anyone. I've always wondered why Calvinists would try to convert anyone.
Understand again that I'm not trying to convert anyone. I can't. It's above my paygrade.
However, after defending your beliefs with no reason given other than that's what you believe (how would you like a mormon to say "I just believe in the book of mormon and that settles it"?) you make one very curious final statement. You don't believe anyone has it all right. That's a very liberal, archaeological way of looking at religion, but one that is inevitable when one rejects the idea that G-d gave no oral instructions. So does this mean that you may not have it all right either? In which case what are you arguing about? You'd best be correcting your own mistakes.
We're imperfect people. That's a fact. To posit that *any* organization has their viewpoint of God perfect is positing that everyone in that organization throughout history have been perfect vessels of God. Flawless transmitters of what God wishes and desires. We're flawed. I do believe that some views are closer to what God wants and these are views that most closely line up with scripture. The further away from scripture a view is, the more wrong it is.
Thank you for your graciousness and for your forgiveness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.