James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (06/02/91)
Since I dislike taking only one translation of the Bible, and hate verses
that are quoted out of context, my quotes will be on the largish side (when
necessary), and I will use three translations of the Bible,
abbreviated as follows:
Key: KJV = King James Version
NIV = New International Version
TEV = Good News Bible (Today's English Version)
In his article of May 22nd, Rey Paulo writes:
> But my question is by keeping Sunday as a
> replacement of Saturday, is the LORD glorified or happy about it?
> We only have to conjecture here anyway, but experiences of Israel
> are somewhat certain that HE is not.
We have the New Testament writings to show us that any day (or no day !) can
be kept as the sabbath and God is quite happy about it !
examples:
Romans 14: 1-10 (verses 5 & 6 are the sabbath references, but the whole chapter
should be read !)
KJV: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
2 disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who
3 is weak eateth herbs.Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not;
and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath
4 received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? to his
own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God
is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
6 alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not
the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the
Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he
7 eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and
8 no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and
whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die,
we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died and rose, and revived, that he might be
10 Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother ?
or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we shall all stand
before the judgement seat of Christ."
verses 5 & 6 from NIV & TEV:
NIV: " One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man
considers every day alike. Each man should be fully convinced in his own
6 mind. He who regards one day special does so to the Lord. He who eats
meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains,
does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."
TEV: " One person thinks that a certain day is more important than other days,
while someone else thinks that all days are the same. Each one should
6 firmly make up his own mind. Whoever thinks highly of a certain day does
so in honour of the Lord; whoever will eat anything does so in honour of
the Lord, because he gives thanks to God for the food. Whoever refuses
to eat certain things does so in honour of the Lord, and he gives thanks
to God."
The standard SDA rebuttal of these verses is to say that Paul was not
referring to the sabbath in these verses. That is not supported by the
scripture, for we know that Paul was referring to the two groups of Christians:
Those from a Jewish background who wanted to keep the food laws, sabbath and
feast days, and those from a Gentile background who felt no need to keep these
things in their faith in Jesus.
Paul says that it does not really matter which day (if any) you choose as
holy, nor whether you keep the food laws (clean/unclean AND food offered to
idols/not killed in the 'right' way) - Just that each person should make up
their own minds. Also note that these matters will not affect salvation, for
God accepts us, and makes us succeed (verse 4).
The attitude of those whose faith is strong is mentioned: Rom. 14: 14
TEV: " My union with the Lord Jesus makes me certain that no food is of itself
ritually unclean; but if a person believes that some food is unclean,
then it becomes unclean for him."
KJV: " I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to
him it is unclean."
NIV: " As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
him it is unclean."
Example: Colossians 2:16 & 17 (read the entire letter, too.)
Prologue: (From the TEV introduction to the letter)
" ... Paul had learnt that there were false teachers in the church at Colossae
who insisted that in order to know God and have full salvation one must
worship certain 'spiritual rulers and authorities.' In addition, these
teachers said, one must submit to special rites such as circumcision and must
observe strict rules about foods and other matters. ..."
NIV: " Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with
regard to a religious festival , a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath
17 day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality,
however, is found in Christ."
KJV: " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
TEV: " So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days
17 or the New Moon Festival or the Sabbath. All such things are only a
shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ."
Once again, the standard SDA rebuttal of these verses is to sa that they
could not possibly refer to the sabbath, all without scriptural basis (but
with the basis of the teachings of Ellen White). The SDA rebuttals also
make use of the specific punctuation and register of the KJV, so it is
important to note the renderings of the other translations.
I have posted a reply to an SDA analysis of these verses at the same time I
post this (and am reluctant to duplicate the material here :-)
Reading the verses in context of the people to whom Paul was writing (whose
doctrines in structure and form are like the SDA church's: An extra-scriptural
source of authority teaching that to be saved certain rules must be
observed...) it shows again (like Romans 14) that sabbaths and food laws are
not important, and Christians should not listen to those who require them to
be kept.
Other examples of condemnation of enforced legalism (food laws, sabbaths, etc.)
may be found in:
Galatians 4:10-11 (once again, DEFINITELY read this letter !!!
The context of these verses does not change their thrust,
but is terribly relevant !)
TEV: " You pay special attention to certain days, months, seasons and years.
11 I am worried about you ! Can it be that all my work for you has been for
nothing ?"
NIV: " You are observing special days and months and seasons and years !
11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
KJV: " Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you,
lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
(We know that the Galatians were keeping laws [food, sabbaths, etc.] because
they believed that it was necessary for salvation. Paul says that's not true
in the entire letter [I'm not prepared to type it all out !! :-) ].
Sabbath-keeping is not necessary, in fact, it severs you from Christ if you
keep the sabbath to be saved ! [the famous: Galatians 5:1-5] )
and 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (do, please, read the letter, too !)
KJV: " Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
2 devils; Speaking lies in hipocrisy; having their conscience seared with
3 a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,
which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which
4 believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and
nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
NIV: " The spirit clearly says that in the latter times some will abandon the
faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hipocritical liars, whose consciences have
3 been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order
them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with
thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it
5 is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of
God and prayer."
TEV: " The spirit says clearly that some people will abandon the faith in the
later times; they will obey lying spirits and follow the teachings of
2 demons. Such teachings are spread by deceitful liars, whose consciences
are dead, as if burnt with a hot iron. Such people teach that it is wrong
3 to marry and to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be
eaten, after a prayer of thanks, by those who are believers and have
4 come to know the truth. Everything that God has created is good; nothing
is to be rejected, but everything is to be received with a prayer of
5 thanks, because the word of God and the prayer make it acceptable to
God."
NOTE: I'm not suggesting here that SDA's teach that it is wrong to marry, nor
that they are "deceitful", etc.
I will say that I personaly think that much of their doctrine comes
not from God, but from Ellen White (their prophet).
The point to the above two quotations is merely to show that the teachings
of strict sabbath-keeping on a certain day, and observance of food laws are
not supported by the New Testament. They are by the Old Testament, of course,
but Christians are not bound by the Old Testament, any of it !
Which brings me to my next point:
> The 2 greatest commandments as above would cause anyone believing in these
> 2 commandments to keep the 10 commandments.
I can't find any New Testament reading to support your assertion, in fact,
I found verses that contradict your assertion:
Romans 13: 8-10
KJV: " Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth
9 another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it
is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy
10 neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law."
NIV: " Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one
another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not
steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are
summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself."
10 Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfillment of
the law."
TEV: " Be under obligation to no one - the only obligation you have is to love
9 one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. The commandments,
"Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not
desire what belongs to someone else" - all these, and any others
besides are summed up in the one command, Love your neighbour as you
10 love yourself." If you love someone, you will never do him wrong; to
love, then, is to obey the whole Law.
NOTE: verse 10 MUST be put in context with verse 8 !
What is said here (I explain that which is already obvious) is that: "If you
love someone, THEN you HAVE DONE what the law requires" rather than (as your
assertion would have it) "If you love someone, THEN you DO what the law
requires"
A favourite SDA trick to show that love MEANS "keep the commandments" is to
quote John 14 verse 15 (which on its own is out of context)
To put it in context, John 14 and John 15 must be read - they are part of the
same conversation ! The oft-quoted verse is (John 14:15):
TEV: "If you love me, you will obey my commandments."
KJV: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
NIV: "If you love me you will obey what I command."
NOTE: Also ref. John 15:10 which says the same (slightly differently)
The verses in John 15 put this into context:
John 15:12-14 and John 15:17
TEV: 12 "My commandment is this: love one another as I love you. The greatest
love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them.
14 And you are my friends if you do what I command you."
17 "This, then, is what I command you: love one another."
KJV: 12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
14 his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
17 "These things I command you, that ye love one another."
NIV: 12 "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love
has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14 You are my friends if you do what I command."
17 "This is my command: Love each other."
As may be seen from the above verses, far from commanding us to keep the Ten
Commandments, Jesus commands us to love one another, and as the Romans
reference says, if you do this, you HAVE fulfilled the law, not that you MUST
THEN fulfill the law !
Perhaps someone could come up with a New Testament quote saying that we must
keep the Law ? (Before you post, make sure that your assertion is consistent
with Galatians and Romans (the whole letters !) - for they assert that we are
not bound in any way by any law ! - but then, that's just what Jesus died on
the cross for, isn't it ??!!)
I can only conclude at this moment that the assertion you make is Ellen White
based rather than scripture based, for I know that Ellen White taught such
things (I have a collection of her writings and SDA teaching books at home, and
I have read such assertions many times from them).
> What I want to do is to share with you the idea that keeping Sunday in
> place of the Sabbath is not, I believe, correct.
I believe (as a matter of logic and my studies of SDA doctrine) that if there
is a 'correct' day, then those that do not keep it are not really following
God. Those that do not follow God properly out of ignorance might be spared
(under SDA doctrine) but those who hear the 'sabbath message' and reject it
(decide that you don't need to keep sabbaths, food laws, etc !) are
condemned by God and lose salvation !
As Ellen G White wrote: "Those who desire the seal of God in their forehead
must keep the sabbath of the fourth commandment."
(I can't remember the exact book that this one comes
from, but I can find out if anyone really wants to
check it out !)
and: "But not one is made to suffer the wrath of God [visited upon those who
shall refuse to keep the Creator's rest day] until the truth has been
brought home to his mind and rejected. There are many who have never
had an opportunity to hear the special truths for this time. The
obligation of the fourth commandment has never been set before him in
its true light." ("The Great Controversy" p.605)
Hardly consistent with salvation by faith alone (which the SDA church agrees
with, while still holding doctrine derived directly from the above quotes !).
That's the whole point, really, the SDA sabbath doctrine is inconsistent with
the Bible, and salvation by faith alone, and is derived from Ellen White's
writings, rather than from a study of the Bible.
Jim.
P.S. Consider this: Ephesians 2:15 (talking about the relationship in
Christianity between those of Jewish & Gentile background)
TEV: "He [Jesus] abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in
order to create out of the two races one new people in union with
himself, in this way making peace."jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/03/91)
In article <Jun.2.00.30.38.1991.15878@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz writes:
+ I believe (as a matter of logic and my studies of SDA doctrine) that if there
+is a 'correct' day, then those that do not keep it are not really following
+God. Those that do not follow God properly out of ignorance might be spared
+(under SDA doctrine) but those who hear the 'sabbath message' and reject it
+(decide that you don't need to keep sabbaths, food laws, etc !) are
+condemned by God and lose salvation !
But in a sense isn't this the standard line of main stream
Christianity and 'hearing the message'. It always seemed to me like
the court process server, he runs up and says in a loud voice "I
have court documents for you!", drops them and runs. The court will
now believe you have been served notce and procede accordingly.
+As Ellen G White wrote: "Those who desire the seal of God in their forehead
+ must keep the sabbath of the fourth commandment."
This is also involved with deliniating those who have the 'mark of
the beast' and practice sunday worship, since the 'beast' changed
'sabbath keeping to sunday keeping. And we all know who did that,
why the Catholics. As pointed out a few posts ago the practice of
sunday observance was well before anything that vaguely resembled
the Catholic(Roman in particular) church was formed (I have heard
some say that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that an actual
'Catholic' church was formed).
+
+ That's the whole point, really, the SDA sabbath doctrine is inconsistent with
+the Bible, and salvation by faith alone, and is derived from Ellen White's
+writings, rather than from a study of the Bible.
But then even a few more posts back were not some saying that after
faith, then came better understanding of what the Diety desired in
terms of 'moral' conduct and hence the prohibitions against various
practices? Why chastize the SDA's for their 'reveled' desires of the
Diety and leave other practices un-criticized.
As for the 'derived from so-and-so's writings....' argument, I would
like to see an experiement where a person who has no other 'aid'
than the Bible, not even a preacher or missionary, is given the book
and comes to the same conclusion most Christians seem to think is
obvious, i.e. that the Bible is the word of the Diety.
Or you have all come to your knowledge of the book via some person
or some person's writings.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edurvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.2.00.30.38.1991.15878@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz writes: > > We have the New Testament writings to show us that any day (or no day !) can >be kept as the sabbath and God is quite happy about it ! > Yes many writings indeed and interpreted according to your own understanding and interpretation but not necessarily according to even Jesus himself! Let's listen to Jesus himself who demonstrates his own personal attitude about the Sabbath. This is Jesus' prophecy which is yet to happen in the end of times which certainly refers to the future because today is not yet the end of times, is it?. And notice the EMPHASIS He gave as regards to the Sabbath. "You will see 'The Awful Horror' of which the prophet Daniel spoke. It will be standing in the holy place. Then those who are in Judea must run away to the hills. A man who is on the roof of his house must not take the time to go down and get his belongings from the house. A man who is in the field must not go back to get his cloak. How terrible it will be in those days for women who are pregnant and for mothers with little babies! Pray to GOD that you will not have to run away during the winter or on a SABBATH! For the trouble at that time will be far more terrible than any there has ever been, from the beginning of the world to this very day. Nor will there ever be anything like it again." Mat. 24:15-21 Now from this passage spoken by Jesus himself, what do you think Jesus expect from people of faith to do during the Sabbaths in the end of times? It's clear, very clear. If it's not very clear, well, I don't know. Something sinister must be going on why people obstinately resist the simple and easy task of obeying the 4th commandment of GOD. Or maybe, you think that Jesus was joking when he said these words "...Pray to GOD that you will not have to run away during the winter or on a Sabbath! ...". Or maybe again you think that Jesus' words were revised by Paul because somehow Jesus' words were not correct. What do you think? >idols/not killed in the 'right' way) - Just that each person should make up >their own minds. Quite destructive, isn't it? This could mean that it is okay for anyone to murder, steal, commit any sort of crimes, as long as he makes up his mind about it. James, the trouble with your and many other christians' understanding and interpretation of the scriptures lies in the writings of Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul's writings are really dangerous and could lead to easy misinterpretation. My approach in reading the scripture is this. I regard that the ultimate authority concerning controversial issues rests in GOD. For instance, if Paul seems to suggest that the Sabbath is no longer important, I would then say, wait a minute, did Paul really mean it? It could not be because GOD said "Man has to keep the Sabbath". And then with this issue in mind, I continue reading Paul's other writings to see what did Paul really mean by it. If I really cannot resolve the issue, then I ask, who is more authoritative Paul or GOD? Of course, GOD. But so far, I always find that Paul is not at all inconsistent. In fact, all his writings are in harmony with the entire scriptures. Paul wrote many things which by themselves appear to contradict with what GOD has revealed. I have to find ways to harmonize what Paul said and what GOD or Jesus had earlier said. How do I do this? I read about other writings of Paul in other books like the Romans. If you're really sincere, you will find out that Paul really didn't mean what he seemed to mean in his other writings. And what is beautiful is that the overall writings of Paul are really consistent with GOD's commandments. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet: rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | I am not bound to please thee with my answer. AUSTRALIA | -Shylock, in "The Merchant of Venice" ------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.10.18.1991.8303@athos.rutgers.edu> rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) writes:
+that you will not have to run away during the winter or on a SABBATH! For
+the trouble at that time will be far more terrible than any there has ever
Even Israelis don't lay down their arms on the 'Sabbath'. There is a
certain pragmatism here.
+James, the trouble with your and many other christians' understanding and
+interpretation of the scriptures lies in the writings of Apostle Paul.
+Apostle Paul's writings are really dangerous and could lead to easy
+misinterpretation. My approach in reading the scripture is this.
This is how some view such books as Daniel and Revelations! So much
so that there are 'Bibles' which have reduced forms of these. Are
you suggesting such a 're-write'. Also, Paul was a major contributor
to the NT. I would guess that he is the most prolific writer, even
with 4 or 5 of his books in dispute as to whether he wrote them.
Further if one doesn't believe Paul was writing for 'God' then who
was he writing for? Even more 'sinister' in this line is except for
the 'tables of stone' for Hebrews where did the Diety directly write
anything in the Bible? And who's to say that the other writers need
similar 'conditioning'.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edurvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (06/15/91)
In article <Jun.9.15.25.00.1991.25648@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > >Further if one doesn't believe Paul was writing for 'God' then who >was he writing for? Even more 'sinister' in this line is except for >the 'tables of stone' for Hebrews where did the Diety directly write >anything in the Bible? And who's to say that the other writers need >similar 'conditioning'. >-- Hi John, I did not imply nor suggest in my previous article that we should not believe in the writings of Paul. What I pointed out was that if the writings of Paul seemed to contradict the revealed commandments such as the Sabbath which is very unlikely considering the fact that Paul was writing for GOD, we should searched for more in his other writings in order to find out whether what he meant is really what we have first understood. And I said, as I experienced, Paul really didn't write any contradiction. That is, the Sabbath is Saturday and Paul teaches not anywhere in the bible that we should make our worship day Sunday. > >John Clark >jclark@ucsd.edu -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet: rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | I am not bound to please thee with my answer. AUSTRALIA | -Shylock, in "The Merchant of Venice" ------------------------------+----------------------------------------------