'Deception': Christians War Over Worship Day

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

: You believe in hitting folks with a 2 x 4...you believe in putting the fear of God in folks and I believe agape changes folks. You teach legalism - you pound folks in the head with the law, the law, the law and I teach grace.

Who once said, "I give you law!!!???" Who teaches legalism? In order to be considered an obedient commandment keeper, what do you impose on the believer? SELL ALL YOU HAVE!!! So who is hitting people over the head with a 2x4? And you call that grace? Agape?

I am just following Christ. When the self-righteous came at Him in gave them law. Here's a perfect example:

Luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

What did Jesus do? He gave them the Old Covenant to try to open up the eyes of the self-righteous. Remember EGW states that the terms of the OC were, "obey and live"!

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

...Remember that on the original tablets the reason for resting the 7th day was because God rested from His perfect & sinless creation. Now let's look at the 2nd tablets. I find a small, but significant change:

Deut. 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work [why?] 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.

Notice that reason for rest changed. Before it was because it symbolized God's perfect creation, but creation was ruined by the fall. Yes, the Sabbath didn't change, but the reason for resting on it did. Now it was a sign of redemption...

Robert, we've already talked about this, and you should know that your point about Deut. 5:13 is completely invalid. There was no change in the meaning of the Sabbath at all. The fact is that the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Deut.-- which predate by at least 1,000 years the text used in our modern Bibles-- reads as follows....

You know what? I don't give a flip! All I have is my NIV, KJV, NASB and RSV. God chose to communicate to fallible men through imperfect translations. So guess what? I do the best I can with the information I have. I will not let you are anyone else be my conscience. And SDA for too long have pounded folks with the Sabbath in a very legalistic, old covenant sense! That's why most other Christians reject Adventism.

[John317]

What you are saying, then, is that you don't "give a flip" about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove Deut. 5:13 also points to the Creation as the reason for the Sabbath. You simply want to ignore the evidence.

I'm not trying to be your conscience, as you say. I am simply presenting important evidence to you about the subject.

[Robert]

What you are saying, then, is that you don't "give a flip" about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove Deut. 5:13 also points to the Creation as the reason for the Sabbath. You simply want to ignore the evidence.

I'm not trying to be your conscience, as you say. I am simply presenting important evidence to you about the subject.

Is this salvation by translation, John? Are you going to go that low - that legalistic?

Here's what my NASB states (and it is one of the more accurate translations) :

12 ‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or.... [Now why?] 15 ‘And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: All I have is my RSV, KJV, NASB and RSV.

You mean NRSV, the new one? Those are all good translations, Robert. But occasionally ancient manuscripts are discovered that need to be taken into account and these sometimes cause scholars and translators to change some of the wording of certain texts. Usually these changes are unimportant for the overall meaning of the message of the Bible. But in the instance you refer to, it is significant because of the interpretation you are placing on Deut. 5: 13.

You are using some of my own favorite translations of the Bible.

Quote:

ROBERT: And SDA for too long have pounded folks with the Sabbath in a very legalistic, old covenant sense! That's why most other Christians reject Adventism.

Some SDAs have, yes, I agree with you.

I hope you're having a blessed, happy Sabbath.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Who once said, "I give you law!!!???" Who teaches legalism? In order to be considered an obedient commandment keeper, what do you impose on the believer? SELL ALL YOU HAVE!!! So who is hitting people over the head with a 2x4? And you call that grace? Agape? [/quote']

I am just following Christ. When the self-righteous came at Him in gave them law. Here's a perfect example:

Luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

What did Jesus do? He gave them the Old Covenant to try to open up the eyes of the self-righteous. Remember EGW states that the terms of the OC were, "obey and live"!

"Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience....In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of the law, if they receive Him as their personal Savior....In the better covenant we are cleansed by the blood of Christ." AG chapter 128

Gerry

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What you are saying, then, is that you don't "give a flip" about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove Deut. 5:13 also points to the Creation as the reason for the Sabbath. You simply want to ignore the evidence.

I'm not trying to be your conscience, as you say. I am simply presenting important evidence to you about the subject.

Is this salvation by translation, John? Are you going to go that low - that legalistic?

Who said it's a matter of "salvation"? I didn't imply or mean that you are going to lose your salvation over this issue.

This is not about "legalism." It's about how the original text read, and there is no question that the most ancient texts of that verse refer to the creation story. You can ignore this evidence in your posts about this subject if you choose, of course, but when you do that, it makes you appear as if you are not interested in the facts of the case. That doesn't help your argument with those who know about the reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Deut. 5.

Quote:

Here's what my NASB states (and it is one of the more accurate translations) :

12 ‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or.... [Now why?] 15 ‘And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977.

That is because the Old Testament portion of the the NASB, 1977, like almost all modern translations of the Bible, was translated on the basis of the Masoretic Text, primarily and specifically the Leningrad Codex, which was copied in 1008 AD.

The Dead Sea Scroll text of Deuteronomy 5:15 is titled, "4QDeutn" because it was the 14th manuscrpt of Deuteronomy found in the 4th cave at Qumran. About 215 Biblical manuscripts were discovered in caves in the area of the Dead Sea from 1947 to 1979. I do not know exactly when the Dead Sea scroll of Deut. was discovered and translated, but it is doubtful that the scholars who translated the NASB in 1977 were even aware of the 4QDeutn manuscript. Even to this day not all the manuscripts have been translated and published.

By the way, there is another very early manuscript, known as the Nash Papyrus, that gives both reasons for the Sabbath in Deut. 5: 15, but this manuscript gives the reasons in reverse order. In other words, the ancient Nash Papyrus starts verse 15 by saying that God gave the Sabbath because of the creation, but then it adds that Israel is to remember that they were slaves in Egypt, etc.

These manuscripts were copied about 1,000 years before the Leningrad Codex. The earliest of the Dead Sea scroll manuscripts date from about 250 BC while the latest ones were copied shortly before the destruction of the Qumran site by the Romans in 68 AD.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

"Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience...[color:#660000].In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of the law

, if they receive Him as their personal Savior....In the better covenant we are cleansed by the blood of Christ." AG chapter 128

Gerry

That's a big difference!

[Robert]

You can ignore this evidence in your posts about this subject if you choose, of course, but when you do that, it makes you appear as if you are not interested in the facts of the case.

Facts? I can choose to ignore facts? How do I know what you say is true? I mean, according to you, I can't even take my Bible as a good translation. IF that's the case God has His hands full with all these different translations.

You know, in my thinking, if God really wanted us to understand everything in detail He should of come up with another way to get the messages across, but I have faith He knows what He is doing. Nevertheless, this has always puzzled me why He communicates as He does. There's just too much room for error.

Maybe we aren't required to know it all? Maybe that's why Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully...."

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

God simply commands. He doesn't always tell us why He commands.

God speaking: "I'm God - do what I say and don't question Me or I'll kill you!"

What's wrong with this picture?

1] Here God is a God of force. He uses coercion.

2] This appeals to fear. Fear based religion is in reality worse than paganism.

3] It's old covenant.

Robert

God wants us to be mature believers like a parent wants their child to grow up and become a mature adult. But for a while, during a child's youth, the parent sometimes has to say and do things that the child will probably see as meaning that the parent is a parent of force.

So the parent takes a risk that the child may obey the parent out of fear rather than out of trust and love and because it is right.

If the child refuses to obey the parent, he may have to be spanked or punished in some other way to make him understand the dangers of disobeying.

But what is the parent's intention in all this? Is the parent doing this because the parent likes to use force? No, not if the parent is loving and wants the best for the child.

God is very much like a parent in this way, and humans, especially those who know nothing about God, are very much like the child described here.

Does this make sense to you so far?

[Robert]

God is very much like a parent in this way, and humans, especially those who know nothing about God, are very much like the child described here.

Does this make sense to you so far?

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

To reduce God to a human level is to place sinful attributes onto God. You can't do that without polluting God's agape.

[Robert]

If the child refuses to obey the parent, he may have to be spanked or punished in some other way to make him understand the dangers of disobeying.

But what is the parent's intention in all this? Is the parent doing this because the parent likes to use force? No, not if the parent is loving and wants the best for the child.

Unlike human parents, God does not use force. Agape cannot coerce...it cannot force.

Parents use force because we humans are legalists by nature. We think by using force we are getting obedience, but in reality we are teaching them to act self-righteously. In other word we teach Johnny to polish up the outside while inside he is fully of dead man's bones.....

God wants the motive to be right. He can't do this through fear. In fact that's the problem with the fruit of a legalist. It's all show - it's not genuine because God is not in the mix.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love"

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

You can ignore this evidence in your posts about this subject if you choose, of course, but when you do that, it makes you appear as if you are not interested in the facts of the case.

Facts? I can choose to ignore facts? How do I know what you say is true?

I don't expect you to take my word for it. The book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, can be easily purchased and studied for yourself. The information is not a secret.

These ancient manuscripts are photographed and copied so that if anyone really wants to look at the actual texts, they can do so, as they are made available.

Whether someone is aware of them all depends on whether he wants to know the truth about these matters. Some don't care to know, for whatever reasons.

If you do, I would invite you to study these things out for yourself. It is well worth the time.

Quote:

I mean, according to you, I can't even take my Bible as a good translation. IF that's the case God has His hands full with all these different translations.

You're misunderstanding me. I am not saying the RSV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and NRSV are not good translations. I'm not saying that at all.

But they are not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, Robert. There are excellent translations, good translations, and mediocre translations. Then there are a few translations that don't deserve the name, such as Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version."

The translations you referred to are all excellent translations (despite what you may hear some or perhaps many say about the KJV), and I believe that by studying and obeying what God has said in any single one of them, a person can be brought to the truth as it is in Jesus and be saved in God's eternal kingdom.

But that does not mean that every single passage or verse or word is absolutely dependable, accurate and in concrete, as it were.

Let me give a example. Open both your KJV and the NASB (1977) to 1 Cor. 10: 9. You will notice that the KJV reads, "Neither let us tempt Christ." The NASB reads, "Nor let us try the Lord." Which is correct-- Christ or Lord? You can't know which is right by examining the RSV, which also reads "Lord." The NKJV has "Christ." But now look at your New Revised Standard. It has "Christ," agreeing with the KJV.

Why the difference and why the change? Primarily on the basis of manuscript P46, which is dated 200 AD, probably the earliest Greek manuscript of the New Testament. It is supported by the vast majority of NT manuscripts.

On the other hand, "Lord" is supported by fundamentally only two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus, both dated to the 4th century AD. Your RSV and NASB, and most others published before 1998, read "Lord" totally on the basis of those two 4th century AD manuscripts.

Here is why:

Except for the New King James Version, all modern language Bible's have been translated from the printed Greek texts by the United Bible Societies, together with the Greek New Testament edited by Eberhard and Erwin Nestle.

Those printed texts changed their reading in 1 Cor. 10: 9, because in 1975 the United Bible Societies' third edition of the Greek New Testament changed its reading to "Christ," and in 1979, the 26th edition of the Nestle Text did the same.

Therefore the reason that your NASB (1977) reads "Lord" in that verse, instead of "Christ," is that those translators used a Greek text which was based on what we know now was faulty reasoning and evidence. The KJV and NKJV had it right all along.

My point here, in case it has been lost on you, is that there are no perfect translations and that we have to be willing to follow the evidence when it comes to deciding which is the original reading of the NT. I would hope you would do this in the case of Deut. 5: 15, but of course that is up to you.

Quote:

You know, in my thinking, if God really wanted us to understand everything in detail He should of come up with another way to get the messages across, but I have faith He knows what He is doing. Nevertheless, this has always puzzled me why He communicates as He does. There's just too much room for error.

Maybe we aren't required to know it all? Maybe that's why Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully...."

That is true, God does not require us all to think exactly alike on all the details regarding doctrines, and he certainly does not require us to "know it all." Some are going to know more, yes, but what matters is our thirst to know and study, and our willingness to practice what we've learned. The important thing is that we're growing and searching for truth and are willing to go wherever the truth leads us.

[LifeHiscost]

When we search out and investigate that which is difficult to understand, our conclusions reveal who we are, as opposed to unwillingly drawing the grudging conclusion of that which is obvious and simple, "Well, O.K., if You say so".

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

John 7:17 KJV

"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14:5

The fact that I am convinced that Sunday is the proper day to honor God tells far more about my relationship to God than it does about what is true.

And as far as knowing it all, never let that be said about this undeserving servant. It is my belief God tells us what we need to know as we are able to handle the information in a manner that would honor and glorify Him, if that is our highest concern.

[Robert]

The translations you referred to are all excellent translations (despite what you may hear some or perhaps many say about the KJV), and I believe that by studying and obeying what God has said in any single one of them, a person can be brought to the truth as it is in Jesus and be saved in God's eternal kingdom.

And therein is the problem. It's salvation by Bible study or salvation by knowledge. This still smacks of legalism.

On the other hand I do have a Bible. And by it I find what I said above to be true. For example, in 1 Cor 1:26-29 I find the following:

For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

And don't forget the Gentiles who knew God through creation - who had no knowledge of the written Torah (law). What does Paul say of them?

Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law [i.e., they experience "agape"], they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law [again, "agape fulfills the law"] are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[Robert]

Again, under the NC faith fulfills the first half of the moral law under grace. Look at 1 John 3:23

"And this is His commandment,

1] that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ,

2] and love one another...."

In Gal 5:14 Paul states that, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He didn't say the whole law is fulfilled when you keep all ten.

Again, that's because under grace faith takes place of the first four commandments. We are no longer "under the law" - we are under grace and any reflection of "agape" in the life of the believer will be in harmony with the last six commandments of the moral law.

Rob

[Guest truthseeker007]

"In Gal 5:14 Paul states that, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He didn't say the whole law is fulfilled when you keep all ten."

The fullfillment of the law doesn t mean that something replaces the law. it simply means that the spirit behind the law is reflected in loving your neighbor as yourself I think. Also Jesus said that the commandments were all valid without no exception. In the new earth there will also be rules (i suppose they are nearly the same as what we now know as the 10 commandments).

[Robert]

"In Gal 5:14 Paul states that, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He didn't say the whole law is fulfilled when you keep all ten."

Actully you need to read Paul just as it reads.

[Woody]

Quote:

And SDA for too long have pounded folks with the Sabbath in a very legalistic, old covenant sense! That's why most other Christians reject Adventism

Robert. This point is well taken and true. We have done that and continue to do that to some degree. This is sad. We are saved without the Sabbath unless God through His Holy Spirit convicted you that the Sabbath was something you needed to do. If you were to openly rebel against God by saying ... "Oh I know that you want me to keep the Sabbath God ... but I am saved ... so I just don't care. I want to do what I want"

Now if that was said then there might be trouble with your salvation. But the point is that no one can outwardly judge that.

[Woody]

Quote:

You know, in my thinking, if God really wanted us to understand everything in detail He should of come up with another way to get the messages across, but I have faith He knows what He is doing. Nevertheless, this has always puzzled me why He communicates as He does. There's just too much room for error.

Maybe we aren't required to know it all? Maybe that's why Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully...."

Now you have hit on some truth in my eyes. This is why I keep saying that "knowledge" is not all that important beyond the clear message of the Gospel's Good News that Jesus did and died.

The rest is gravy.

[Robert]

Quote:

And SDA for too long have pounded folks with the Sabbath in a very legalistic, old covenant sense! That's why most other Christians reject Adventism

Robert.... If you were to openly rebel against God by saying ... "Oh I know that you want me to keep the Sabbath God ... but I am saved ... so I just don't care. I want to do what I want"

Now if that was said then there might be trouble with your salvation. But the point is that no one can outwardly judge that.

Here's what I said a few posts ago:

"So under the NC I find no reason, as recorded in the law, for Sabbath observance."

I do recognize the Sabbath, but not from the law. It is tied to the gospel. But to understand the Sabbath from my understanding one really needs to understand circumcision because there are similarities between the two.

Rob

[Robert]

...to understand the Sabbath ... one really needs to understand circumcision because there are similarities between the two.

Rob

To understand this concept, first let's go to Romans 4:9

"We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? [Answer:] It was not after, but before!"

So Abraham stood justified by faith many years before he became circumcised.

verse 11: "And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised."

Note that years later Abraham received "the sign of circumcision" - a seal of the righteousness that he had while uncircumcised.

What can we learn from this? Namely that Abraham's circumcision didn't add to his justification by faith because he already stood righteous by faith alone.

Now there's a problem. Turn to Genesis 17:9

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.... 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. ....My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Why did circumcision become so important as a sign that those who refused it would be "cutoff" from God's people?

[Robert]

Why did circumcision become so important as a sign that those who refused it would be "cutoff" from God's people?

To get the answer to my question we must go back to when God comes to Abraham and says, “Look, I want you to leave your family, your country to the land I will give you. I will make you into a great nation, and in you, Abraham, I will bless the whole world.”

How old was Abraham when the promise was made? He was 75 years old, Genesis 12:4 makes it clear. But he had no children. How could God bless the world, how could God make him a great nation when he had not even one son? So God promises him a son. In that promise was a son.

Eight years went by. Now it takes human beings nine months to produce a child. But now eight years went by and no son had come. So in chapter 15 of Genesis, Abraham’s faith begins to dwindle. It begins to waiver. And God says to Abraham, “Why are you fearful?” (which, in the Hebrew language, means, “Why are you doubting my promise?”).

Abraham said, “God, it’s because you have not kept your promise. The only son I have in my household (which to the Jew was the extended family) is this boy of Eliezer my slave. Is he the promised son?”

And God said, “No. The son I promised you will come out from your loins.” And he took him for a walk. When you have problems with God, go for a walk with him. God said, “Abraham, look at the stars.” Of course, in the Middle East, it doesn’t rain very much, and we have many clear skies. And God said, “Count the stars.”

Abraham said, “Lord, even if I had a Ph.D. in computer science, impossible.”

“That is how many children you have,” said God to Abraham. And there you have that famous statement that Paul loves, that he quotes more than once in the New Testament, Genesis 15:6:

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

There was no evidence. He didn’t have even one son, but he believed God that he would have millions of children, when he had, in actual fact, not even one child. That is faith.

Two years later, chapter 16 of Genesis, Sarah comes to Abraham, “Yes, you are depending on God, but I think what God expects is for you to do your part. And since you, Abraham, cannot produce a child through me, I will give you permission to go to my slave woman, and produce a child.” Which was a common practice in those days. Surrogate motherhood is not something new; the method is new, but the system is not new.

Abraham said, “Yes, Sarah, I think you are right.” Because now it is ten years, because as I read verse 3 and verse 16 of chapter 16 of Genesis, I discover that he is 85 years old when Sarah comes up to him, and he’s 86 years old when Ishmael is born.

Ten years after the promise, Abraham commits an act of unbelief. He is not trying to be bad or sinful, he’s trying to help God to keep His promise. That’s all he’s doing. So Abraham says to God, “Here is your promised son.”

And God says, “Nothing doing.”

Do you know how long God waited after that? Fourteen more years. Talk about patience! God waited 14 more years after that incident. Abraham is 99 years old — that’s 14 years later. The the Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”

When did Sara have a child? After she had past the age of child bearing. So God waited until it was medically and scientifically impossible for both Sarah & Abraham to help God produce the child of promise as they thought to do concerning Ishmael.

Now when Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless....”

Blameless in performance, or blameless in faith? That’s the issue. My part, from beginning to end, is faith. God is saying to Abraham, “Your faith has not been matured, it has not yet reached perfection. I want you to be perfect in your faith.”

Abraham said, “What must I do to be perfect?”

“I want you to be circumcised. Remove all doubt. Remove unbelief.” That’s the meaning of circumcision. And so in verse 9, 10, and 11, God gave him the covenant of circumcision, as a token.

Now let me ask the question again: Why did circumcision become so important as a sign that those who refused it would be "cutoff" from God's people? You might need to re-read what I have posted again because the answer is contained therein.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The translations you referred to are all excellent translations (despite what you may hear some or perhaps many say about the KJV), and I believe that by studying and obeying what God has said in any single one of them, a person can be brought to the truth as it is in Jesus and be saved in God's eternal kingdom.

And therein is the problem. It's salvation by Bible study or salvation by knowledge. This still smacks of legalism.

Do you believe the Bible's view is that God's offer of salvation is unconditional?

[John317]

... We are saved without the Sabbath unless God through His Holy Spirit convicted you that the Sabbath was something you needed to do. If you were to openly rebel against God by saying ... "Oh I know that you want me to keep the Sabbath God ... but I am saved ... so I just don't care. I want to do what I want"

Now if that was said then there might be trouble with your salvation. But the point is that no one can outwardly judge that.

And wouldn't the same be true if I say... "Oh I know that you want me to stop such and such... but I just don't care. I will go ahead and do what I want anyway"?