A Heretical Baptist's Views on the Book of Daniel, Chapters 1 - 6

[JawgeFromJawja]

It now occurs to me that on this subject, the opinions of our Jewish forum participants would be helpful. Especially re Sabbath keeping: mandated for whom?

So, how would we request their participation on this topic?

Agape

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, did not you approach Exodus 5: 1 - 5 with a preconception?

The "rest" Pharaoh speaks of obviously refers to rest from toiling for Pharaoh, as shown by verses 4 and 5. Such is clear enough in KJV, but even clearer in NIV and The New English Bible. Nothing is even remotely mentioned of the Sabbath:

Exo 5:5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.

Other Bible scholars long before me also observed the same thing I am telling you. So it has nothing to do with any preconceptions on my part.

The great Bible commentators, Adam Clarke and Henry Matthews, and many others, also believed that the Sabbath was known and kept between the Fall of Adam and the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

Have you heard of J. Veron McGee? He had the "Thru the Bible" radio program. I think he was a Baptist. Anyway, he also taught that the Sabbath was known and observed before the Exodus. All those non-SDA men give Bible evidence as their reason for believing this.

Ex. 5: 5 uses the very same word that is used on Gen. 2: 2 for God's resting on the first Sabbath.

It is Strongs#7673.

What Pharaoh said to Moses was, literally, "you make them sabbatize from their labors."

Moses was carrying on a Sabbath reform among the ancient Iraelites. They had forgotten all about God and the Sabbath during all those years of Egyptian slavery, and Moses was teaching them about God and His holy day.

F. C. Gilbert, a Hebrew who had studied to become a rabbi, has written about Exodus 5: 5 in connection with the Sabbath.

See his book:

http://temcat.com/L-1-adv-pioneer-lib/FCGILBER/MESSIAH%20IN%20HIS%20SANCTUARY.PDF

I found it interesting to notice also that the film The Ten Commandments mentions that the Hebrews were keeping the Sabbath in Egypt just before the Exodus. So the screen-writers of that film had done their homework.

What homework? The documentation would be extremely interesting. After all, Holywood is Holywood. But my wife's Home Church is in the small unincorporated foothill settlement of Holywood, Georgia. Lovely vistas of the Georgia Appalachians from the 4 lane north - south highway passing through Holywood make just driving through that location an adventure.

Best regards,

[John317]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

What homework? The documentation would be extremely interesting. After all' date=' Holywood is Holywood. [/quote']

The writers knew the historical and textual evidence that the ancient Jews knew of the Sabbath prior to Sinai. No doubt the writers did historical and biblical research. They got this part right. The linguistics of Gen. 2: 1-3 and Exodus 5: 5 support it.

No one is saying the movies get everything right. Of course they do not. But in this case, the screen-writers knew from their research that Exodus 5: 5 is a clear indication that the Hebrews knew about the Sabbath just before leaving Egypt.

It makes perfectly good sense that the Israelites lost their knowlege of God and of His holy day, and that Moses needed to teach them. The Bible shows this. The Hebrews at that point were ignorant of the basic truths about God and about His laws and statutes. This comes out clearly in Exodus 16 and 18, before Sinai.

[JawgeFromJawja]

I bought J. Vernon McGee's commentary on Daniel and have read parts of it. It is pretty good, although of course he teaches that Antiochus Epiphanes IV was the little horn power of Daniel 8. Are you familiar with this book?

Not familiar. But he was correct. Of course.

[John317]

We will take up Antiochus Epiphanes IV when we get to Daniel 7 & 8. It will be seen that he could not possibly be the fulfillment of the prophetic specifications. But we don't want to get ahead of Daniel 1.

I do think it's important to understand why Daniel and his three friends, etc., were transported to Babylon. But we can take up the Sabbath again later if you want to move on to a different part of this chapter.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: John317

I bought J. Vernon McGee's commentary on Daniel and have read parts of it. It is pretty good, although of course he teaches that Antiochus Epiphanes IV was the little horn power of Daniel 8. Are you familiar with this book?

Not familiar. But he was correct. Of course.

That little Adventist chick I know has solemnly promised me that if I buy another new book without her knowledge, she will brain me with it. She is generous enough to allow exceptions:

Any freebies from the Kindle store. The selection numbers in

the hundreds of thousands, usually books in the public

domain or those with expired copyrights. (In our country,

70 years after the death of the author.) I obtained five of

Mrs. White's most popular books as Kindle freebies. We have

a buncha hard copies available, but the Kindle program on

i-Phone is portable! Allows for reading on long trips.

A number of sites on the web have used books for as little

as one cent plus shipping, which is usually $3.00. Gotta

cut costs when retired. Google "penny books".

ABEbooks.com is a great source for used books, some 1 cent!

The used book sites usually grade the condition as "new, like new, very good, good, and fair. I would avoid "fair" condition books unless you can't find the book elsewhere. "Very good" is frequently in almost new condition.

In further web surfing, I found the site "Judaism 101". It provides a lot of Jewish history, lore, and theology.

John, my personal interpretation of The Bible is developed through reading The Bible itself (amazing how many do not just read The Source for their information and doctrines!), augmented by Abingdon Commentaries, and a study of history. For commentaries about the Old Testament, I am beginning to rely on the real experts of Hebrew, the Jews. Try some of their sites at least once. Especially Mechon Mamre and Judaism 101.

[JawgeFromJawja]

We will take up Antiochus Epiphanes IV when we get to Daniel 7 & 8. It will be seen that he could not possibly be the fulfillment of the prophetic specifications. But we don't want to get ahead of Daniel 1.

I do think it's important to understand why Daniel and his three friends, etc., were transported to Babylon. But we can take up the Sabbath again later if you want to move on to a different part of this chapter.

John, your choice of the words "could not possibly" is unfortunate. The phrase shows that you approach the subject with an unshakable bias that cannot "possibly" be circumvented even with adequate data to the contrary.

Yes indeed. I am looking forward to Daniel 7 and 8. But let's progress in apple pie order.

Highest regards,

[JawgeFromJawja]

In Genesis 3 God said that "Sin was at the door" for Cain - but Genesis 4 (where Cain kills Abel) takes place BEFORE any statement about "thou shalt not murder".

Those who claim that the Bible is an exhaustive account of every word spoken and every doctrine known at each point in time as of each chapter have taken a very shallow pass through the text.

Genesis 4 shows us that the Ex 20 law against Murder WAS known.

In Genesis 7 and 8 we have the reference to Clean animals vs Unclean animals. Yet this term is not "defined" until Lev 11.

Obviously this look at content and context proves you cannot read the chapter and claim that other information that comes in with another one of Moses' books was not yet known to mankind.

When Moses tells us in Genesis 2:1-3 that God makes the 7th day a Holy Day - and in Ex 20:8-11 again God tells us that at the Gen 2 event He made the Seventh-day a Holy day - and that His Genesis 2 act alone makes it binding on mankind... we can either "turn a blind eye" to the Word of God - or accept it.

The same goes for Christ telling us in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" and "mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - that this goes all the way back to Gen 2 - where we find the MAKING of both!

How great it is that BAPTISTs like D.L Moody freely admit this as well!!

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, you know the answer you want. I know the answer you want. But it just is not Biblical. Prior to Horeb (Sinai) there was no Sabbath mandate for any ethnic group, country, nation, or institution of mankind on earth.

Best regards

Suppose we EDIT the word of Christ so that they fit your suggestion above "The Sabbath was MADE for Jews not ISRAEL formed at SINAI for the Sabbath"..

But the Bible is not open for edit. So we cannot do that.

No wonder our Seventh-day BAPTIST friends were so eager to share this Bible truth with the then Sunday-keeping Adventists!

How wonderful that we did not then accuse them of "being evil" because they were willing to share this important bible truth with us!!

in Christ,

Bob

Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath...shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship"

Bob, I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

And Chapter 7 is not even consistent from verse to verse:

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Then you throw in a wild card stating that you can read into The Bible whatever you want to make earlier situations fit later situations. The Bible should not be handled in such a cavalier fashion, an approach that could verify any and all doctrines.

As far as the use of the word "unclean", it must be remembered that The Torah was written by Jews. Of course it will have a Jewish slant. But I think those Jewish writers goofed with Genesis 7: 2 relative to 7: 15. The difference strongly suggests more than one writer, holding different opinions. (Just like those hard headed Baptists are prone to do.)

By the way: I have several topics going, one of which includes the Sabbath. Such could be confusing. But could you continue this under that Sabbath topic? Thanks.

Agape,

[phkrause]

Bob, I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

And Chapter 7 is not even consistent from verse to verse:

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Then you throw in a wild card stating that you can read into The Bible whatever you want to make earlier situations fit later situations. The Bible should not be handled in such a cavalier fashion, an approach that could verify any and all doctrines.

As far as the use of the word "unclean", it must be remembered that The Torah was written by Jews. Of course it will have a Jewish slant. But I think those Jewish writers goofed with Genesis 7: 2 relative to 7: 15. The difference strongly suggests more than one writer, holding different opinions. (Just like those hard headed Baptists are prone to do.)

By the way: I have several topics going, one of which includes the Sabbath. Such could be confusing. But could you continue this under that Sabbath topic? Thanks.

Agape,

George you might have a problem with parts of the Bible, but do you really believe that God would allow his word to be incorrect? Your sounding like Dr. Rich and a few others that think certain parts of the Bible are not inspired! Do you actually believe that??? You have to take the Bible as a whole, it can't say one thing over here and something else over there. We need to take the piece's and put them together. I know that you can do that. :)

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Bob, I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

And Chapter 7 is not even consistent from verse to verse:

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Then you throw in a wild card stating that you can read into The Bible whatever you want to make earlier situations fit later situations. The Bible should not be handled in such a cavalier fashion, an approach that could verify any and all doctrines.

As far as the use of the word "unclean", it must be remembered that The Torah was written by Jews. Of course it will have a Jewish slant. But I think those Jewish writers goofed with Genesis 7: 2 relative to 7: 15. The difference strongly suggests more than one writer, holding different opinions. (Just like those hard headed Baptists are prone to do.)

By the way: I have several topics going, one of which includes the Sabbath. Such could be confusing. But could you continue this under that Sabbath topic? Thanks.

Agape,

George you might have a problem with parts of the Bible, but do you really believe that God would allow his word to be incorrect? Your sounding like Dr. Rich and a few others that think certain parts of the Bible are not inspired! Do you actually believe that??? You have to take the Bible as a whole, it can't say one thing over here and something else over there. We need to take the piece's and put them together. I know that you can do that.

Please understand my belief: The Bible is inspired, for spiritual matters:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That verse says nothing about history and science. It is talking about spiritual matters.

The Bible is not a science or history book. To take it as such leads to many incorrect paths and conclusions. The Bible was inspired by God, but He could not get historical and scientific facts through the minds of Biblical writers' filters of their limited personal and cultural experience and their cultural bias.

By the way, you did not comment on the disparities between Genesis 6 and 7, and within Genesis 7.

Highest regards, pkrause,

[JawgeFromJawja]

The writers knew the historical and textual evidence that the ancient Jews knew of the Sabbath prior to Sinai. No doubt the writers did historical and biblical research. They got this part right. The linguistics of Gen. 2: 1-3 and Exodus 5: 5 support it.

You keep saying that, but you are not convincing to me. The passage in KJV says practically the same thing and Exodus 5: 5 in NIV, which is even clearer in Pharaoh's meaning that Moses wanted Israel to rest from their toil with him:

Exodus 5: 5 NIV Then Pharaoh said, "Look, the people of the land are now more numerous, and you are stopping them from working".

Then compare

Exodus 5: 5, New English Bible "Your people already outnumber the Egyptians. Yet you would have them stop working."

In Exodus 5: 5, the word for rest means what the more primitive Hebrew root meant - repose.

From Strong's Dictionary:

H7673

שׁבת

shâbath

shaw-bath'

A primitive root; to repose, that is, desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causatively, figuratively or specifically): - (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away.

Pharaoh was speaking of desisting from exertion. If you insist on a context out of that meaning, the meaning that goes with the semantic flow of the verse, then we are at an impasse. Of course other meanings are possible given other contexts. But the most likely translation here is the earlier sense of shabath used in Strong's Dictionary, given the gist of Pharaoh's protest and denial of Moses' request.

Highest regards,

[BobRyan]

In Genesis 3 God said that "Sin was at the door" for Cain - but Genesis 4 (where Cain kills Abel) takes place BEFORE any statement about "thou shalt not murder".

Those who claim that the Bible is an exhaustive account of every word spoken and every doctrine known at each point in time as of each chapter have taken a very shallow pass through the text.

Genesis 4 shows us that the Ex 20 law against Murder WAS known.

In Genesis 7 and 8 we have the reference to Clean animals vs Unclean animals. Yet this term is not "defined" until Lev 11.

Obviously this look at content and context proves you cannot read the chapter and claim that other information that comes in with another one of Moses' books was not yet known to mankind.

When Moses tells us in Genesis 2:1-3 that God makes the 7th day a Holy Day - and in Ex 20:8-11 again God tells us that at the Gen 2 event He made the Seventh-day a Holy day - and that His Genesis 2 act alone makes it binding on mankind... we can either "turn a blind eye" to the Word of God - or accept it.

The same goes for Christ telling us in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" and "mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - that this goes all the way back to Gen 2 - where we find the MAKING of both!

How great it is that BAPTISTs like D.L Moody freely admit this as well!!

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

John, you know the answer you want. I know the answer you want. But it just is not Biblical. Prior to Horeb (Sinai) there was no Sabbath mandate for any ethnic group, country, nation, or institution of mankind on earth.

Best regards

Suppose we EDIT the word of Christ so that they fit your suggestion above "The Sabbath was MADE for Jews not ISRAEL formed at SINAI for the Sabbath"..

But the Bible is not open for edit. So we cannot do that.

No wonder our Seventh-day BAPTIST friends were so eager to share this Bible truth with the then Sunday-keeping Adventists!

How wonderful that we did not then accuse them of "being evil" because they were willing to share this important bible truth with us!!

in Christ,

Bob

Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath...shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship"

[BobRyan]

ok so now - a look at Gen 6 and 7.

First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

And Chapter 7 is not even consistent from verse to verse:

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

[John317]

.... I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:

...Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. ....

.... Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

And Chapter 7 is not even consistent from verse to verse:

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

There's actually no contradiction in those verses.

All it is saying is that God told Noah that he was to make sure that at least two pair of every kind of animal would be brought into the ark. So there were two pair of every unclean animal, and seven pairs of every clean animal. The reason for more of the clean than of the unclean is that the some of the clean would be eaten as well as used in sacrifices. So obviously there would be a need of a greater number of the clean animals than of the unclean ones.

Notice the text does not specify that "only two and two of all flesh" should go in, nor did God say, "No more than two" should go inside the ark.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Jawge wrote "I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:"

John317 replied "There's actually no contradiction in those verses.

All it is saying is that God told Noah that he was to make sure that at least two pair of every kind of animal would be brought into the ark. So there were two pair of every unclean animal, and seven pairs of every clean animal. The reason for more of the clean than of the unclean is that the some of the clean would be eaten as well as used in sacrifices. So obviously there would be a need of a greater number of the clean animals than of the unclean ones.

Notice the text does not specify that "only two and two of all flesh" should go in, nor did God say, "No more than two" should go inside the ark."

John, you and I are both quite versed in reading Elizabethan English. Although archaic, the meaning of the three passages cited below is quite clear.

Genesis 6: 19 specifies two of every sort. The verse is not qualified in any way to mean "at least two of every sort". Is there any part of the word "every" that you do not understand, comparing "every" in verse 6:19 with "every in v 7: 2?

Furthermore, the only written use directed by God was, in Genesis 7: 3, is "to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." Nothing was written about use as food or sacrifice.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

No matter how you cut it, v 15 does not in any way allow seven of any sort of critters. It specifies "two and two" of all, which may or may not mean "two pair, male and female", except that v 16 disallows that interpretation by stating simply "male and female of all flesh".

You read the same KJV as I. You do understand the language. And it is quite clear that there are contradictions from verse Genesis 6: 19 to 7: 2 and 3, and then Genesis 7: 2 and 3 with Genesis 7: 15 and 16. So far, you have not demonstrated that any of the wording of given verses either does not contradict other verses.

As far as allowing contemporary doctrines to be not stated, but implied, or accepted, or for any idea to be compatible when not specified, in Bible passages, come on now! Any crackpot with any crazy doctrine could claim the same authority to add meaning to Bible passages. This would lead, and does lead to doctrinal chaos among the various denominations.

This paragraph may draw some flak, but I consider taking such liberties with The Bible to be intellectual dishonesty, either conscious or unconscious. Such liberties could in effect be used to underscore all sorts of conflicting doctrines. But for all denominations, it does seem to be a convenient and oft-used tack for certain doctrines that stand on flimsy evidence.

Best regards to a fellow nerd, who, like me sometimes tries to do a con job.

[JawgeFromJawja]

In Genesis 3 God said that "Sin was at the door" for Cain - but Genesis 4 (where Cain kills Abel) takes place BEFORE any statement about "thou shalt not murder".

Those who claim that the Bible is an exhaustive account of every word spoken and every doctrine known at each point in time as of each chapter have taken a very shallow pass through the text.

Bob, if you open the door to allowing every word and doctrine of each and every denomination of Christianity, whether in a passage or not, doctrinal chaos results. (It has already resulted.) The bottom line is that Sabbath keeping is nowhere mandated for Gentiles. Just ain't.

Genesis 4 shows us that the Ex 20 law against Murder WAS known.

Right. That has nothing to do with the Sabbath being mandated for all Gentiles.

In Genesis 7 and 8 we have the reference to Clean animals vs Unclean animals. Yet this term is not "defined" until Lev 11.

So who wrote The Torah? Jews, who had a preconceive notion about clean and unclean animals.

Obviously this look at content and context proves you cannot read the chapter and claim that other information that comes in with another one of Moses' books was not yet known to mankind.

Yes, one can. The Torah and Tanakh were completed by Jews, probably after their return from exile in Babylon. They had their own ideas about God and the Law.

When Moses tells us in Genesis 2:1-3 that God makes the 7th day a Holy Day - and in Ex 20:8-11 again God tells us that at the Gen 2 event He made the Seventh-day a Holy day - and that His Genesis 2 act alone makes it binding on mankind... we can either "turn a blind eye" to the Word of God - or accept it.

For your peace of mind, you have to show both yourself and me that His Genesis 2 act makes it binding on all mankind. What chapter and verse mandates it for all mankind?

The same goes for Christ telling us in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" and "mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - that this goes all the way back to Gen 2 - where we find the MAKING of both!

Just read The Bible, Bob. Such statements do not mandate Sabbath keeping for Gentiles.

How great it is that BAPTISTs like D.L Moody freely admit this as well!!

Moody may freely admit it, but Bible reading Christians cannot possibly agree with it. Not that it makes any difference for salvation.

[BobRyan]

Jawge wrote "I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:"

[BobRyan]

speaking of Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for MANKIND and not MANKIND made for the Sabbath"

George proposes "an edit" - but then he drops the ball by editing the text for his own idea and then admitting that he is not allowed to do that.

Suppose we EDIT the word of Christ so that they fit your suggestion above "The Sabbath was MADE for Jews not ISRAEL formed at SINAI for the Sabbath"..

But the Bible is not open for edit. So we cannot do that.

[BobRyan]

When Moses tells us in Genesis 2:1-3 that God makes the 7th day a Holy Day - and in Ex 20:8-11 again God tells us that at the Gen 2 event He made the Seventh-day a Holy day - and that His Genesis 2 act alone makes it binding on mankind... we can either "turn a blind eye" to the Word of God - or accept it.

George said:

For your peace of mind, you have to show both yourself and me that His Genesis 2 act makes it binding on all mankind. What chapter and verse mandates it for all mankind?

The same goes for Christ telling us in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" and "mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - that this goes all the way back to Gen 2 - where we find the MAKING of both!

Just read The Bible, Bob. Such statements do not mandate Sabbath keeping for Gentiles.

Not according to God in Ex 20 where the Genesis 2 fact alone makes it binding and in Isaiah 66 where God explicitly says "old testament style" that the sabbath applies to "ALL MANKIND" for all of eternity. Then of course there is Christ saying that at the Gen 2 making of the Sabbath and of mankind - it was the Sabbath made FOR mankind not mankind made FOR the Sabbath.

How great it is that BAPTISTs like D.L Moody freely admit this as well!!

Moody may freely admit it, but Bible reading Christians cannot ... .

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Jawge wrote "I have all kinds of problems with the Book of Genesis, especially the first 11 Chapters. First of all, the Chapters 6 and 7 are not consistent:"

Originally Posted By: John317

There's actually no contradiction in those verses.

All it is saying is that God told Noah that he was to make sure that at least two pair of every kind of animal would be brought into the ark. So there were two pair of every unclean animal, and seven pairs of every clean animal. The reason for more of the clean than of the unclean is that the some of the clean would be eaten as well as used in sacrifices. So obviously there would be a need of a greater number of the clean animals than of the unclean ones.

Notice the text does not specify that "only two and two of all flesh" should go in, nor did God say, "No more than two" should go inside the ark."

Originally Posted By: George

John, you and I are both quite versed in reading Elizabethan English. Although archaic, the meaning of the three passages cited below is quite clear.

Bob wrote: I think that was John317's argument. When you take all the facts into consideration in Genesis 6 and 7 you see the SAME "pairing" language used in both 6 and 7 AND you have the added detail that the units of 2 (pairs) are used to describe unclean animals going in by 2 of those units and clean animals going in by 7.

[color:#000099]Bob, you are both over reading and under reading the passages. There is no SAME "pairing" language used in 6: 19 and 7: 2 - 3 and 7: 15.

Impossible to miss.

Yes, impossible to miss:

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Is there any part of the words "all" and "every" that you do not understand? Those two words, especially "every sort", can only mean both clean and unclean creatures inclusive.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Is there any part of the word "every" that you do not understand? 7 of "every clean beast" in 7: 2 contradicts "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort" in 6: 19. If you do not understand this as a contradiction, then you and I do not attribute the same meanings to certain English words.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

" --- two and two of all flesh" contradicts 7: 2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens --- ".

Obviously, " --- two and two of all flesh" excludes

" Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female ---", again, unless you and I do not attribute the same meaning to certain English words.

As you said - Any crackpot could ignore the 7's and 2's language for the distinction between the clean and unclean - and only focus on the fact that all the animals going in as pairs of "male and female" (even the clean and unclean animals as Chapter 7 points out ) because the basic unit is the pair - "male and female".

The key to exegesis is to taken into acount ALL the details - not simply do as you suggest and ignore one detail to try and get to a "confused Bible" result as your "goal".

Well, I am taking into account ALL the details, that is, the meanings of "all", "every", "sort", "clean", and "unclean". If there are any other relevant details in 6: 19; 7: 1 - 2; and 7: 15, muh ole dim eyes mus' be missin' 'em. Or Ah mus' be ignorant. After all, my college was that ole back water party-all-the-time school, The University of Georgia.

As you have already noted - even your own Baptist friends are not going along with this slice-and-dice method you are taking to scripture.

Well, Bob, Reverend Moody is hardly the sum total of all Baptist opinions on that matter. There would be at least as many differing opinions as there are Baptists.

In the future, let us hope for some consistency in the meanings we attribute to individual English words.

I wish you Agape even while holding your dominant leg in a vise-like Bulldawg bite.