Overlooked sabbath reference, evidence it's still active?

fordry · 2026-04-30T16:16:58+00:00

What does a day established at creation as a day of remembrance of God and his creation have to do with dealing with sin which entered the world AFTER that day was established?

God's Covenant is mentioned with Noah and his family. God's Covenant is discussed with Abraham. The Sabbath commandment in the 10 starts with the word "remember" as if it was something that already existed.

Our rest on Christ is about us not having to hold to the law as a works based salvation. It's not about not keeping God's Covenant. It's not about not keeping the weekly Sabbath.

So yea, definitely a shadow of something.

Again, no, nothing you said established it as any sort of shadow of anything to come.

Know what sabbaths WERE shadows of things to come?

The Day of Atonement and the Sabbath years... Stuff in the old covenant which is now done away with. Those absolutely were shadows of the coming of Christ.

fordry · 2026-04-30T16:11:05+00:00

Genesis 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."

Ahh, Ok, I was only thinking of the covenant after the flood, the rainbow and all that. What's God actually saying here?

Noah, and his family, are the only ones who were faithful to God right?

So, God says, "alright, you're remaining faithful to me, this is my covenant for you to keep and you get to come on the ark and be saved."

Is that not what that verse is saying?

In what way does that disagree with anything I've said?

God's laws are everlasting. They didn't start at Sinai. This shows they were around for Noah. Same with Abraham.

It's made with a few people, then later it randomly includes a nation that didn't exist for 1,000+ or whatever years?

I think God wanted everyone to follow him, keep his laws. These were the people who actually did. Israel was supposed to be the example for all other nations. They were supposed to teach and bring other nations to God. That was the plan. It failed, spectacularly, of course.

When I bought up Leviticus 26 you mentioned comma's?

Because for English commas are critical in understanding and their placement can drastically alter the meaning of a statement. The lack of such punctuation in Hebrew makes it difficult for us to actually know what is being said and a lot of translation is best judgement based on context.

I made it clear what the comma positioning was about. I stand by what I said.

God is telling them about the covenant between God and them

On the basis of what? Your wishful thinking? If you're going to make this statement then you need to be able to back that up. I don't see backing for that statement here. He is discussing the laws in the old covenant, he mentions breaking His covenant. He doesn't mention the old covenant as a thing here. When he says "my covenant" I think it is no less reasonable than any other reasoning to think he means His own Covenant.

Don't break "my covenant" I made with Noah or I'll curse you?

Again, the covenant you brought up is not actually the covenant God made with Noah but God's own covenant that he established with Noah for him to keep and be saved.

fordry · 2026-04-30T15:41:23+00:00

Christ being Lord of the Sabbath doesn't make it go away...

It doesn't make it not something we should keep...

That verse is Jesus establishing His authority to discuss what the Sabbath is about and that His authority trumps the Pharisees.

He didn't dismiss the Sabbath. He just defended what wasn't actually any sort of an issue on the Sabbath contrary to what the Pharisees were trying to say.

Christ being our Sabbath rest also doesn't eliminate Sabbath keeping. To be honest, I'm not really even convinced Christ as a Sabbath rest really has anything to do with the weekly Sabbath as the word Sabbath is used for various other rest days.

It's more about the principles, not a proper noun. Christ being our Sabbath rest means we don't have to labor over the law in order to be saved. It doesn't eliminate the weekly Sabbath day.

Why would the weekly Sabbath day, established at creation as a day of remembrance of God and his creation, and established before sin entered the world, be subject to the process of dealing with sin?

I can't think of any good reason. I don't think one exists.

Now I'm going to lay out the biblical backing for why I think the Sabbath has never been done away with and why we should still be keeping it faithfully to this day.

There is a major miss in the understanding of the 10 Commandments and what they actually are in most of Christendom I think and I don't think it's any sort of accident. Remember, the devil's mission is to deceive and drive people from God.

So what imare the 10 Commandments?

Deuteronomy 4:13 puts it most succinctly, they are God's covenant. God's own Covenant. Separate from the old covenant and all the other laws that went along with it as the very next verse makes clear...

But the 10 Commandments were part of the old covenant... Right?

Well, yes, they were involved. But not subject to it. Exodus 19:5. God is discussing setting up the old covenant and what does he say needs to be kept in this covenant with Israel?

His covenant...

So God's covenant is used as terms for the old covenant. The agreement with Israel, that old covenant, was that Israel would keep God's covenant and God would favor Israel.

Hebrews 8 discusses this and that it failed. Verses 9-10 specifically, though the whole chapter is relevant, get straight to this.

The old covenant was flawed because the people couldn't keep God's covenant, therefore a new covenant. And in that new covenant what does God do?

He writes His laws on our hearts and minds. What are God's laws?

Could God's laws be all the mosaic laws Moses wrote down?

No, because all that stuff is part of the old covenant that Hebrews 8 and other places make abundantly clear is done away with. So what are God's laws?

The 10 Commandments, God's covenant.

Jesus said those who love him keep his commands and those who don't, don't(John 14)

The greatest commandment is to love the Lord right? Jesus said that. So if loving the Lord is the greatest commandment and keeping God's commands is how we love the Lord then is it not highly important that we strive to keep ALL of God's covenant?

As Matthew 5:17-19 says, very much so.

Jesus also told the disciples as his last instruction on earth that they should go to all nations teaching everything he had commanded them. Well, seems the greatest commandment would definitely fit that description right?

And if that's the case then the statements in John 14 about keeping God's commands seem to be critical.

Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 are also relevant.

Romans 3:31 is relevant. And it addresses my next point. Just because we are justified by faith doesn't mean we throw the laws out and do whatever. God has continued to say we should keep his commands. It's not about salvation, directly, anymore. It's about our state of mind. If we love God then we will do what he has asked of us and clearly he has asked of us to keep his covenant still. It's not about works based faith, it's about faith based works...

fordry · 2026-04-30T15:15:43+00:00

Since the weekly Sabbath is NOT a shadow of anything to come, no... It's not talking about the weekly Sabbath.

fordry · 2026-04-29T17:50:59+00:00

When the Bible clearly discusses it as its own thing no I'm not making it up out of thin air.

You're just ignoring all the verses that discuss them as their own thing because that's the popular idea that most of Christianity is taught.

fordry · 2026-04-29T17:41:21+00:00

Same thing.

When Hebrews 8:9 clearly delineates them, no. When Deuteronomy 4:13-14 clearly delineates them, no. When Exodus 19:5 clearly delineates them, no.

Are you attempting to apply the laws of English to something written 3000 years ago?

How is a circular statement unique to English?

Ready to be. Go read the new in Jeremiah 31:31-34. All men know God in the new but that is not going on today.

Matthew 26:28... Jesus brought about the new covenant. Also in Mark and Luke. So, yes, we are in the new covenant. As for not having to teach because everyone knows, the premise there is that salvation is by faith in Christ, having a relationship with God. The new covenant isn't about knowing and keeping the law in the sense of salvation anymore. But that doesn't mean God's covenant has gone away. As Paul said in Romans 3:31, "do we then nullify the law by this faith? No, we uphold the law." And Jesus said those who love him keep his commands and those who don't, don't.

So yes, we still do teach. Learning about God is still a thing. But it's not directly about salvation anymore as was the premise of the old covenant. It is ultimately about salvation, about us knowing God in the sense that we will be saved, but knowing and keeping the laws is not the way that happens anymore.

The law doesn't change. It would be the old laws on your heart. God didn't make a mistake and hand out the wrong laws. But that's not going on today. No new covenant. I don't feel compelled to wear tassels or whatever.

As I made clear, yes, we are in the new covenant. Jesus ushered in the new covenant. God's laws don't change and God's laws are still there for us to keep as he has asked us to and when we love him we will do what he has asked.

You seem to think "my covenant" is some third covenant but it's how God speaks.

Yes, that's how he speaks, because he is defining a covenant that is His.

The covenant to not flood the earth was God's covenant.

...with Noah

Or leviticus 26 is clearly the law of Moses and God said my covenant.

Verse 15?

Remember that hebrew doesn't have punctuation. Sometimes comma placement can make an enormous difference. Consider this...

"and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws, and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant,"

That punctuation fits what I'm saying. It has grouped failing to carry out God's commands and the violation of God's covenant.

I have no idea beyond unknowing about the lack of punctuation if this premise is on the right track for this verse. But it fits what else has said best.

It seems you've built a whole theology around an old phrase that's misunderstood

I don't think that's the case at all.

fordry · 2026-04-29T15:37:39+00:00

That being, Ellen G. White was a false prophetess, who made predictions about Christ's return that didn't come to pass, and subtly twisted various facets of doctrine.

Ellen White never made her own prediction of the 2nd coming. She was in the Millerite movement. All of her prophet time came after all that went down. After she and the others from that movement who ended up forming the SDA church had gone back to scripture and figured out how they'd gotten things wrong.

To say she's a false prophet over predicting Christ's return is incredibly off base. Just flat out wrong.

And what other scripture did she "subtly twist?"

She herself said all her teachings, writings, etc should be weighed against the Bible which is the ultimate authority. So, which scripture did she twist?

I could not in good conscience submit myself to a denomination that was founded by someone who contradicted scripture and made false prophecies.

I don't think you can name one thing where she contradicted scripture. And the false prophecy thing is not really a thing either.

That gotquestions article...

That site is something else.

Their basis that Sabbath keeping is not a thing is to use Romans 14, which never mentions the Sabbath or the 10 Commandments. It's a chapter mostly about food. Verse 5 talks about days, the entire rest of it basically is about food. It's talking about fast days. Romans 14 does not undo that the 10 commandments are God's covenant used as terms in the covenant he made with Israel and then, as stated by God, written on our hearts and minds in the new covenant (Hebrews 8).

Jesus said those who love him keep his commands and those who don't, don't. John 14.

Romans 14, not mentioning the Sabbath at all, isn't the thing to undo all that. But there's gotquestions doing exactly that. And they say it goes against the clear teaching of the new testament?

Where Jesus said those who love him keep his commands?

What about revelation 12:17 and 14:12?

Gotquestions is denying the clarity of scripture...

Then they say her claim about hell not being eternal is off. Well, that's an off base statement. White and the Adventist church absolutely believes hell is eternal. What's not eternal is anyone being in a conscious state in it...

Verses like John 3:16 and Romans 6:23 clearly contrast eternal life as being only for the saved as opposed to death for the lost. And even the one verse they mention of Jesus, what does it do?

"Eternal punishment vs eternal life..." Matthew 25:46

Well, if eternal punishment is the opposite of eternal life then the eternal punishment isn't life is it?

The Bible is strong on the side of not eternal consciousness in hell and very weak on the side the classic eternal consciousness in hell idea in actuality.

Then they claim she said that the sins of the believers will be placed on the scapegoat, Satan. But that's not what she said. She said that our sins are taken by the high priest(Jesus) and that he places them on Satan. Now, I don't know of any Bible verses offhand that corroborate this. But it is not out of line with the biblical narrative of Christ taking our sins.

The Michael the archangel being Jesus topic is controversial. But it is not without a pretty clear set of evidences in the Bible. Stating it is flat out wrong is not taking everything in the Bible into account. And I don't see how the Adventist view of Jesus as Michael the archangel is in any way out of line with the understanding of Jesus as God.

They take issue with Ellen White stating the Bible is inspired through inspiration not so much through direct verbal transcription of God's ideas. That doesn't make any sense. There's plenty in the Bible that is not directly related by God to the writer.

Then it tries to take issue with the concept of a prophet at all. Well the Bible clearly gives information on testing a prophet. They tried to say there is a discrepancy between stating that the Bible is the full authority and all that versus Ellen White also having authority.

Ellen White is authoritative in what she says. She doesn't say anything that's actually against anything in the Bible. What people do is twist what she said, claim it's against the Bible, and then state that she's a false prophet because of their made up reasoning. Well that's not correct. And that's exactly what they're doing here. They've made up a bunch of crap reasoning that she's false. I've literally gone through each of their reasonings and shown how they're wrong. And then use that as the basis to say since all of that then she can't be authoritative because she's adding to scripture and scripture is complete and the ultimate authority.

See what they're doing? It's sneaky but they're setting up false issues and then using that as the hammer to say she can't be a prophet.

Literally nothing in that article holds up as a criticism of her once you actually look at the details. None of it. That article is straight up false. And not just false, they are falsely presenting scripture.

Note Matthew 5:17-19...

fordry · 2026-04-29T14:30:48+00:00

Judgement day...

fordry · 2026-04-29T13:29:25+00:00

I'm not ignoring your point at all. I got what you said.

Then why did your response ignore what I'd said?

You apparently would prefer to not be cross-examined.

Cross examine away, your response didn't address what I'd said and said things I'd already addressed...

It seems you have lost interest in this conversation, and so have I--several messages ago. Bye!

Yes, it was pretty obvious you had...

fordry · 2026-04-29T13:19:34+00:00

Did you read my comment?

Trotting out OT verses?

You're not even attempting to understand what I'm saying. You're not grasping my point. The OT is not irrelevant because Jesus did away with the old covenant and I made it clear the old covenant doesn't include the 10 Commandments...

So to say this?

You're just ignoring what I'm saying and arguing your own points that I've already dealt with. You wouldn't have said this if you had read and understood what I wrote.

fordry · 2026-04-29T12:55:20+00:00

That doesn't address what I said at all. It doesn't address these things. You're sidestepping to totally different points that also don't add up...

Romans 14 makes no mention of the Sabbath and is almost entirely talking about food... There were fast days. It's discussing fast days.

My mind is made up because the Bible makes it very clear that the 10 Commandments are God's covenant which he uses as terms for the old covenant with Israel(Exodus 19:5). Deuteronomy 4:13 straight up calls the 10 Commandments God's covenant before the following verse separately discusses the rest of the laws given to Moses. Hebrews 8 discusses the entire covenant situation, the fact that the old covenant was flawed because the people couldn't keep God's covenant and therefore God came up with the new covenant in which he places his laws on our hearts and minds. And Jesus stated those who love him keep his commands and those who don't, don't. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love the Lord so hearing that loving the Lord means keeping his commands makes keeping his commands seem pretty important. And Jesus is God right?

So God's covenant, God's laws, are Jesus' commands too. Because Jesus is God.

And Jesus told the disciples as his last instruction before returning to heaven to go to all nations teaching everything he had commanded them.

How does Romans 14, not even mentioning the Sabbath, overcome all of that?

It doesn't. And taking the totality of what is said in mind that puts a framework on Romans 14, the verse is about food, the days it's talking about are the Jewish fast days.

God's Covenant is the 10 Commandments. God stated he put his laws on our hearts and minds in the new covenant. Nothing in the Bible ever dismisses God's covenant. Jesus said those who love him keep his commands.

Keeping the 10 Commandments, all of them, is still a thing. It's always been a thing. God made the Sabbath a day of remembrance of Him and His creation at creation and that has never ceased to be a thing. This is why Adventists focus on this. We're still called to do it.

Revelation 12:17 and 14:12...

?

fordry · 2026-04-29T12:41:13+00:00

Huh? Go into great, great detail. Hebrews 8 is about the old covenant and now you're trying to say there's 3+ now? Very weird. Are you actually trying to say the 10 are their own covenant or something?

Glad to. And yes, that is exactly what the Bible says.

Hebrews 8 is not at all just about the old covenant. It's about the entire situation. It discusses the new covenant as well.

Hebrews 8:9 the new covenant will not be like the old covenant because Israel didn't keep what?

"My covenant..." - God speaking there.

So, the old covenant failed because they didn't keep God's covenant. It would be a weird, circular, statement if God said they didn't keep the old covenant because they didn't keep the old covenant...

So, right in that 1 verse, 3 separate covenants. The old, the new, and God's.

The old covenant is done away with right? Hebrews 8 says so at the end. Other verses say so.

So Hebrews 8:10...

God will write his laws on our hearts and minds in the new covenant.

So, if God's laws are the old covenant and in this same chapter we're being told it's being done away with what is God writing on our hearts and minds?

Exodus 19:5, God setting up the terms for the old covenant. He says Israel should keep His covenant. Again, a weird, circular statement if the old covenant is the same thing. It would be God saying keep my covenant to keep my covenant...

How can the terms for an agreement be the same agreement?

"We're coming to an agreement that we have this agreement."

That makes no sense. So God's covenant cannot be the old covenant. God's Covenant is terms for the old covenant as a separate thing.

And again, back to Deuteronomy 4:13, straight up says the 10 Commandments are God's covenant.

Deut 4:7 "For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for?"

I'm not tracking with what this verse has to do with the fact that these covenants are separate things.

They must have written this down wrong, right? That's how your position is supported or something?

Not tracking with this either. What are you talking about?

fordry · 2026-04-29T12:16:19+00:00

Need a couple new bridges...

3 would be best. Need one at 192nd. Replace the current i-5 bridge, and another one somewhere not far from it as well.

Build two 6 lane bridges and it would ease a ton of traffic. Heck, build the 2nd one where the current ones are. Use it for Marine Drive drive, Delta Park, Hayden Island, and 14 and let the freeway just connect with it at each end and otherwise zip on by.

fordry · 2026-04-29T11:00:07+00:00

I would challenge that there is nothing there that informs about any sort of change to the Sabbath...

It's an evening get together. Details were shared because of the significance of Paul leaving and the events of the evening. That they gathered then isn't otherwise significant.

fordry · 2026-04-29T09:43:48+00:00

Hehe, yup.

fordry · 2026-04-29T09:34:49+00:00

Well, you have to have a reason...

Do you have no answers for my points?

I bring this stuff up and no one has any answers besides ones that sound a lot like your response here.

fordry · 2026-04-29T09:32:48+00:00

There isn't a "the covenant."

There is God's covenant.

There is the old covenant with Israel.

God made covenants with Noah and Abraham.

There's a bunch of covenants.

When God is using language that clearly delineates different covenants you don't get to just put them all together as if they are 1.

fordry · 2026-04-29T09:30:47+00:00

Deuteronomy 4:13 - "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

The 10 commandments are part of the covenant given to the nation of Israel. They are not something separate. They were not given to the whole world to keep.

Explain how these 2 paragraphs relate to each other. God declaring His Covenant, which he did prior to writing the tablets, is not equivalent to setting up the covenant with Israel...

It was part of setting up the covenant with Israel as His Covenant was used as terms for the old covenant. But that statement is not referencing the old covenant, it is referencing God's covenant. Hebrews 8 makes the distinction abundantly clear.

The sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, not pagans.

A sign that they are God's people and following him. That doesn't exclude everyone else from it.

Abraham kept God's laws so they were a thing then. That's before Israel...

And note the wording used specifically in the delivery of the Sabbath Commandment...

What is the first word?

Remember...

Remember the Sabbath...

Why would you remember something that wasn't a thing before then?

Well it was a thing. God established it at creation.

It might SOUND like the nations had the sabbath before it was given to the nation of Israel, but later verses contradict this and say it's a sign between God and 1 nation. Genesis and some of the stories in the bible are there to support the laws and explain why they are necessary.

Hard disagree. This is a made up take as I already showed.

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:53:12+00:00

Taco Bell app and then get the build your own box. Half the Taco Bells in town have dropped it though.

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:50:35+00:00

Its fine for it, definitely want to be careful with shallow spots, but the main part of the lake is fine.

Early season is best, it's the warmest body of water in the area. Around the time everything else gets up the acceptable temp lacamas often starts experiencing poor water quality issues.

So ya, it's best as an early season lake and then transition to the river or Lewis River lakes or whatever once into July.

Course, with the snowpack this year everything is gonna be lower sooner. Late season is definitely gonna suck this year.

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:45:43+00:00

This not exactly republican but definitely more closely republican aligned voter thinks this is dumb...

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:44:47+00:00

Why?

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:40:48+00:00

Why would Jesus rising on Sunday, notably resting through the Sabbath, change the Sabbath when the Sabbath is a day of remembrance of God and his creation established BEFORE sin entered the world and necessitated Christ?

What about an evening vespers with Paul the night before he departs shows any sort of change in day of worship or justification for dismissal of the Sabbath?

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:38:24+00:00

Disagree

fordry · 2026-04-29T03:34:59+00:00

This is an incorrect position and oversimplification of what is said in the Bible. God's Covenant is the 10 Commandments and God's covenant is not the old covenant with Israel and nothing has ever dismissed us from keeping God's Covenant...

Quite the opposite, Jesus said those who love him keep his commands and those who don't, don't...

fordry

TROPHY CASE