Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Imaginedangerous replied...
Oct. 31, 2012 at 6:05 pm

I'm trying not to get sucked into a huge debate here, so I'm only going to say one quick thing:
Is it degrading for God to appear as a man?
Or is it an honor for mankind to appear as God?
He came before we did, after all, and He holds us in special regard among all His creations.
 
half.note: I don't see this debate dying down any time soon. That's the problem with Teen Ink Bible study (it's been tried before)- the smallest verse leads to pages of (sometimes only tangentally related) discussion.  :) Best of luck to you.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Oct. 31, 2012 at 11:26 pm

I'll stick with one-liners too:
 
Is it possible for mankind to appear as God, given the definitions of the respective parties?
 
And hahaha yeah I remember the Bible Studies. The Qur'an study lasted longer, remember? :P But even that died down...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Oct. 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm


Breece:




1. Yeah, I wasn't too intent on this argument, just thought I'd mention something about it. :)





2. And yes, I do speak about evolution as being just a general term that includes the big bang theory and all that jazz. Perhaps the clarification was necessary. Thanks for catching that. :)

Anyways, I can see what you're getting at about the light thing, but I still don't agree that Genesis is an allegory. The problem is that the creation story in Genesis is just too descriptive and specific. For instance, when it talks about plants it clearly isn't talking about little micro organisms that live in the ocean or underground:

“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.” (Genesis 1:9-13)

The Bible is being very specific. On the third day, before the sun, moon, and stars were created, God made dry land and actual fruit-bearing plants: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” (Gen 1:11)
It is just too much of a stretch to try and match the creation story of Genesis with the theory of evolution. They don’t parallel each other.


Now, about God telling the Hebrews from 6000 years ago about evolution: There are a few very serious flaws in the idea that Genesis was just a basic outline so that the Jews could understand their origin.

For one, Genesis and the theory of evolution don’t actually match up, which I’m trying to explain to you. If God really wanted to give the Jews an allegory for evolution than wouldn’t swirling gases (stars) have been a better thing to say was created on the first day?

Another thing, which is actually a very common misunderstanding (and one that I find very annoying) is that we are actually becoming stupider. Yep, you heard it here, folks. That’s another major problem with evolution: it teaches we are living longer, becoming smarter, and becoming more evolved; when the complete opposite is true.
According to the Bible, man has degraded. If you read passages in the Bible such as Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, they talk about men living for hundreds of years. Now we’re lucky to make it to seventy.
Back when the world was young and sin not as far spread, men were stronger and smarter. Some lived for centuries. And they were capable of understanding more than we could ever hope to. Just think about the Great Pyramids: scientists and archeologists today don’t understand how they could have possibly been built, but the ancient Egyptians obviously found a way.
So, if men really were smarter thousands of years ago than they are today then why would they need a dumbed-down version of evolution?

Also, we must consider all the things in the Old Testament that they Jews didn’t understand. There are prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of Jesus, the Messiah, but when Jesus came to earth, the Jews were convinced that he had come to free them from Roman rule. The prophecies were still there; they were still true, but the Jews just didn’t understand them. Not everything in the Bible was just given for one specific time period. It’s even possible that the men writing it didn’t completely understand what they were writing about. That’s the power of inspiration.
God declares, “For I am the LORD, I change not,” so why would he tell a story that is untrue and give no indication that it is false? Like I was saying before, the Jews didn’t have to understand it for it to be true. The Bible speaks throughout the ages; to the Jews, the early Christians, and to us.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 tells us:
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”

3. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this topic. :)


Bekah (And.It.Shone.With.Crystal.Clarity):

Hey, thanks for stopping by. This was an excellent point that you brought up. The numbers in the Bible are extreeeeeemely important. Genesis seems to be no exception.

And, Breece, 2 Peter 3:8 is actually both metaphorical and literal. It is metaphorical in the sense that it is just an example that God experiences time differently than we do. But it could also be seen as literal since in this chapter Peter is talking about the day of judgment, so the day equaling a thousand years could be a reference to the millennium that follows Christ’s second advent.


Sparrow:

I agree that God becoming incarnate was something degrading for Him. We should be humbled that God would come down to our level in order to reach us. It is a glorious show of his abounding love.

And I liked the river analogy; I’ve never thought of it that way before. :D

And okay, I get the point. :P
You’re a Christian, plain and simple. :)
I’m part of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, but I still view myself as Christian. I identify with the Adventist beliefs, which are actually quite different than mainstream Christianity, and I like to go to an Adventist church so I can fellowship with those who believe as I do. “Christian” has such a negative connotation, and the term doesn’t really encompass all that I truly believe (since most people hear “Christian” and think “Catholic”), so I’d much rather be known as an Adventist.


Imagine:

Hmmm… I’m gonna have to anwer your questions and say both.
As I was just telling Sparrow, it was in some ways degrading for God to appear as a man, but at the same time it is also uplifting for us.
James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” We must realize the great sacrifice that God made for us. We must come to terms with the fact that God brought himself down to our level in order to lift us up to his.

Haha, thanks for the heads up. I’m hoping for all our sakes that you’re wrong. :P
I’ll do my best to keep it moving along.
I'm not afraid to say "enough is enough!"


Anyways… THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR WONDERFUL, THOUGHT-PROVOKING COMMENTS.

Keep ‘em coming!

And God bless. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Oct. 31, 2012 at 11:41 pm

 
Breece:




1. Yeah, I wasn't too intent on this argument, just thought I'd mention something about it. :)





2.  And yes, I do speak about evolution as being just a general term that includes the big bang theory and all that jazz. Perhaps the clarification was necessary. Thanks for catching that. :)
 
Anyways, I can see what you're getting at about the light thing, but I still don't agree that Genesis is an allegory. The problem is that the creation story in Genesis is just too descriptive and specific. For instance, when it talks about plants it clearly isn't talking about little micro organisms that live in the ocean or underground:
 
“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.” (Genesis 1:9-13)
 
The Bible is being very specific. On the third day, before the sun, moon, and stars were created, God made dry land and actual fruit-bearing plants: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” (Gen 1:11)
It is just too much of a stretch to try and match the creation story of Genesis with the theory of evolution. They don’t parallel each other.
 
 
Now, about God telling the Hebrews from 6000 years ago about evolution: There are a few very serious flaws in the idea that Genesis was just a basic outline so that the J-ews could understand their origin.
 
For one, Genesis and the theory of evolution don’t actually match up, which I’m trying to explain to you. If God really wanted to give the J-ews an allegory for evolution than wouldn’t swirling gases (stars) have been a better thing to say was created on the first day?
 
Another thing, which is actually a very common misunderstanding (and one that I find very annoying) is that we are actually becoming stupider. Yep, you heard it here, folks.
That’s actually another major problem with evolution: it teaches we are living longer, becoming smarter, and becoming more evolved; when the complete opposite is true.
According to the Bible, man has degraded. If you read passages in the Bible such as Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, they talk about men living for hundreds of years. Now we’re lucky to make it to seventy.
Back when the world was young and sin not as far spread, men were stronger and smarter. Some lived for centuries. And they were capable of understanding more than we could ever hope to. Just think about the Great Pyramids: scientists and archeologists today don’t understand how they could have possibly been built, but the ancient Egyptians obviously found a way.
So, if men really were smarter thousands of years ago than they are today then why would they need a dumbed-down version of evolution?
 
Also, we must consider all the things in the Old Testament that they J-ews didn’t understand. There are prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of Jesus, the Messiah, but when Jesus came to earth, the J-ews were convinced that he had come to free them from Roman rule. The prophecies were still there; they were still true, but the J-ews just didn’t understand them. Not everything in the Bible was just given for one specific time period. It’s even possible that the men writing it didn’t completely understand what they were writing about. That’s the power of inspiration.
God declares, “For I am the LORD, I change not,” so why would he tell a story that is untrue and give no indication that it is false? Like I was saying before, the J-ews didn’t have to understand it for it to be true. The Bible speaks throughout the ages; to the J-ews, the early Christians, and to us.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 tells us:
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”
 
3.  I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this topic. :)
 
 
Bekah (And.It.Shone.With.Crystal.Clarity):
 
Hey, thanks for stopping by.  This was an excellent point that you brought up. The numbers in the Bible are extreeeeeemely important. Genesis seems to be no exception.
 
And, Breece, 2 Peter 3:8 is actually both metaphorical and literal. It is metaphorical in the sense that it is just an example that God experiences time differently than we do. But it could also be seen as literal since in this chapter Peter is talking about the day of judgment, so the day equaling a thousand years could be a reference to the millennium that follows Christ’s second advent.
 
 
Sparrow:
 
I agree that God becoming incarnate was something degrading for Him. We should be humbled that God would come down to our level in order to reach us. It is a glorious show of his abounding love.
 
And I liked the river analogy; I’ve never thought of it that way before. :D
 
And okay, I get the point. :P
You’re a Christian, plain and simple. :)
I’m part of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, but I still view myself as Christian. I identify with the Adventist beliefs, which are actually quite different than mainstream Christianity, and I like to go to an Adventist church so I can fellowship with those who believe as I do. “Christian” has such a negative connotation, and the term doesn’t really encompass all that I truly believe (since most people hear “Christian” and think “Catholic”), so I’d much rather be known as an Adventist.
 
 
Imagine:
 
Hmmm… I’m gonna have to anwer your questions and say both.
As I was just telling Sparrow, it was in some ways degrading for God to appear as a man, but at the same time it is also uplifting for us.
James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” We must realize the great sacrifice that God made for us. We must come to terms with the fact that God brought himself down to our level in order to lift us up to his.
 
Haha, thanks for the heads up. I’m hoping for all our sakes that you’re wrong. :P
I’ll do my best to keep it moving along.
I'm not afraid to say "enough is enough!"
 
 
Destinee:
 
I should of predicted that you’d show up once we all got talking about Jesus. You pesky Muslims…
I’m just kidding, of course. I’m glad you stopped by. :D
 
To answer your question: I do believe it is possible. After all, for God all things are possible. I can’t even begin to grasp the technical aspects of how God managed to come as a man, but He did it regardless.
And like JunieSparrow said, Jesus wasn’t the whole river, he was a bucket of water from the river (go back and read Sparrow’s post if your confused).
 
 
Anyways… THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR WONDERFUL, THOUGHT-PROVOKING COMMENTS.
 
Keep ‘em coming!
 
And God bless. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 12:50 am

half.note: 
 
Haha, I didn't mean to invade, but Breece DID mention me you know :P Only reason I popped by. I admit, I'm not reading any of these really, really long posts... :P But I read Sparrow's analogy. I disagree. I've discussed this NUMEROUS (seriously at least a dozen) times before on TI, and plus I don't want to divert your thread, but basically, let's think of it this way:
 
A river in its entirety (God in His entirety, i.e. the entire Triune): Is water, CONTAINS ALL THE STREAMS
 
A stream (one of the Triune members): Is water, DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE STREAMS 
 
It's pretty simple in my mind :S 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 12:52 am

Also, regarding "for God, all things are possible", I don't think I agree. Is it possible for God to make Himself stop existing? Is it possible for God to both exist and not exist at the same time? Is it possible for God to lie (this one isn't as good an example as the others, as it is conceivable that God lie, whereas it isn't conceivable that He simultaneously exists and not exists)? 
 
Basically, I think that for God, all inherently possible things are possible. It is inherently impossible to contradict the fundamental identity rule, i.e. that a=a. So God = God [God is God]. etc etc

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 11:57 am

Destinee:
 
I can think of some things to say in reply to your arguments, but I don't know if I should bother.
 
Thank you very much for your reply, and I hope you continue to post in this thread when you can, but I'll just have to end this argument for the moment.
As you said, it is important to keep focussed.
 
Besides, I have a feeling that neither of us will be convinced in the end, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
God bless. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Be prepared for heat and fire halfy. I'll try to post soon:P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Destinee:
 
Doesn't logic require a universe to work within?  
 
If the universe literally means "everything in existance" and God is not part of the universe, isn't that illogical and contradicting fundamental rules itself?  
 
Also, on a separate note, something you might find interesting:
 
scientificamerican.c om/article.cfm?id=quantum-m crophone

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Half.note:
 
Sorry for dragging this off topic so much :P
 
1. yup
 
2. I understand what you're saying, and quite frankly hate the truth I see in it.  It forces me to believe that in order to believe the Bible I must abandon the reasonable conclusions that observation and astounding amounts of research and contribution from scientific communities around the world.  I hold logic and science in a high regard, and while I can understand that man is fallible, I find it hard to believe the creation story.
 
I don't mean to be offensive here, this is just honestly how I feel.  It seems so ridiculous that any of the creation in Genisis could be literal, plants need the sun to exist, them having been made before it doesn't make sense.  There is no evidence of a world wide flood.  Every scrap of geological and biological and even astronomical evidence suggests the world is more than 6000 years old, much more.  
 
Believing the creation story as literal just seems to be the same as blindfolding myself to reality.  It seems like I'm closing my ears and denying reason in favor of a book compiled by one of the most corrupt institutions in the world over 300 years after the events recorded in it transpired.  
 
I just can't do it, not yet.  Maybe in time I'll see some greater reason, but I must confess I am much to comfortable with reason to believe in this part of the Bible.  
 
I'll answer 3, I just need to do it in a separate post so I can go back and re-read it again.  
 
I'm not sure we'll get anywhere debating creation at the moment, unless you or someone else has something really ground breaking then I'm not sure if we'll get very far. 
 
Regardless I'd like to continue in other parts of the Bible, very enlightening so far!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm

3.  Mmm, don't have much to say here.  I still find it a little unlikely that a being of God's power and divineness could be expressed physically.
 
Much less as a monkey.  :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Halfnote:
 
I do apologise :) I humbly bow out of your Bible Study. Good luck! :) I've been meaning to read the OT meself...but I get bored past Genesis 7 :/ *blush* 
 
Anyways good luck!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 11:03 pm

The first thing is approach. I agree with Breece(again, old boy:)) that creation story in the bible is fallible and without any divinity.
What marks me as strikingly absurd is the concept of trinity. Alright,I believe, let's say that Jesus is God incarnate, where was he before the creation of incarnate? You cannot say that he had existed for always, what would something incarnate be doing in an aincarnate domain?
 
ThIs leads to one point Christians are not willing to accept. Beforeincarnation, he might've been part of God(from the secular POV). Now that means that before the creation of the universe, God was, in all respects, absolutely divine and unity prevailed, for nothing incarnate, even God, can exist before the creation of what we call the representation of "incarnate".
 
You can't sya that the incarnate universe was created in the image of the incarnate God, but then it was furnished by the aincarnate God. Sounds like something completely illogical to me.:P
 
Breece:
Read Imam Ghazali's "The incoherence of philosophy". You might find it interesting.
 
Half.note: I already mentioned you to read thech apter "The problem of illogicality" in "Beyong mere Christianity". The link is onmy  thread "All Christians read this and respond"

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinFThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm

Is the debate here really so much whether or not God can become human as whether or not he can interact with the universe? He inhabited space-time when He causally attached Himself to it by creating it, and has done so ever since each time He speaks, encourages, or works a miracle. Whether He's creating a ladder for Muhammad to climb on to Heaven or becoming a man, either way He's inhabiting degraded old earth. Christians simply say that this interaction is a facet of God called His Word, which was given a name and face in Jesus, and a purpose in His mission to work the forgiveness of His "Father."

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinFThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 12:00 am

Destinee: 
 
Try Reading 1 and 2 Chronicles. Did he really have to name ALL of the members of EVERY royal court? 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Nov. 2, 2012 at 12:02 am

Collin:
 
I made a new thread for this specific discussion so as not to sidetrack half.note :) And I will read Chronicles and get back to you tomorrow :) Also, I totally disagree with you on the space-time thing. I'll address that when I post my thoughts on Chronicles. :)
 
And..um...what ladder? :S 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 6, 2012 at 11:16 pm

Okay, I’ve been neglecting this thread when I shouldn’t have. Here are my replies:
 
Breece:
Whew. I’m glad I’m at least making sense.
 
I won’t try to drag this out, but I would like to reply to your last post. We’ll probably move on after that.
 
Well, I know how you feel. I love science and all that, but really, you have to put it in perspective. If the Bible is true, all our supposed knowledge will come to nought.
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-20,25)
 
 
I think it makes sense that plants could be created before the sun. We know that light was already created on the very first day and that this light is most likely God himself, since the Bible tells us he will be the light in heaven (Revelation 21:23).
Besides, the sun, moon, and stars were created the very next day. Plants go every night without sunlight, it was no different during that first week.
 
Also, I don’t know if I agree that there is no proof of creation. I just think that most of the proof is either ignored of misunderstood.
 
Anyways, mainstream science is mostly theories upon theories, and fallible men can make the data say pretty much whatever they want. Scientists don’t take into consideration many different factors.
And sure, scientists get some things right, but not everything.
I think science has become a web of untruths, trapping people and keeping them from God.
Mind you, I don't hate science, but I don't see the value in holding it above God.
But this is just my opinion.
 
I understand where you’re at and I have no desire to criticize you, I just hope that you will find the truth, whatever it may be.
 
 
In regards to #3, you’re thinking too much like an evolutionist. :P We’re not monkeys! God created us to reflect Him.
 
 
Destinee:
Hehe, thanks for not diverting. I appreciate that.
And don’t worry about not getting far in the Bible, I think I only made it through the first chapter (or whatever you call it) of the Quran.
 
 
Dynamo:
When Jesus was created is something of debate. But the Bible does talk of the state of Jesus in eternity:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
(John 1:1-5, 9-14, 16-18)
 
I’m not sure if Jesus has always had a physical body or how that works, but I do believe that he has always existed in some form or the other.
 
 
 
Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to this Bible Study. I hope you are all learning as much as I am. :)
 
God bless. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 6, 2012 at 11:23 pm

 
We will now move onto Chapter 2, but if you would like to discuss anything I have previously posted, feel free to do so.
 
 
Genesis 2:1-3
 
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
 
 
We will only do the first three verses of Chapter 2 because they cover the last day of the creation week presented in Chapter 1, and are very important verses.
 
As many of you know, I am a Seventh-day Adventist. Yes, Seventh-day. Essentially, we keep Sabbath (a day of rest) on Saturday, the seventh-day of the week. So, obviously, these verses in Genesis are essential to my faith.
 
 
I NOW DECLARE THIS A DEBATE ON “WHEN IS THE DAY OF REST?”
 
Almost all Christians go to church on Sunday, and I would appreciate if those people who do so give me their reasons why.
 
For those who have no idea what I am talking about, just keep reading and come to me with any questions you may have about the Sabbath.
 
 
First, let me give support from the Bible that shows Saturday is the day of rest and we should be keeping it.
 
It is listed as one of the Ten Commandments:
 
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:8-11)
 
And, actually, pretty much every book in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) talks about the Sabbath.
 
The more notable of these verses are found in Hebrews 4:1-11.
(link to online Bible:  h ttp://w ww.kingjamesbibleonline.o rg/book.php?book=Hebrews&chapter=4&verse=1-11)
 
 
Yay! I’m really excited to see what you guys have to say. This is one of my favourite topics, so please discuss!
 
God bless. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrowThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 9, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Hi half.note, sorry I haven't replied yet.  By the way, if I start driving things off topic or aggravating you, feel free to tell me to shut up.  I have a bad habit of getting in endless arguments that lead to bad feelings eventually -- if you notice me doing this tell me and (hopefully) I'll quit. 
 
The Sabbath. 
 
I agree that if you're going to keep a day of rest it should be Saturday.  Sun-day is a day of sun whorship.  God did establish the seventh day as a day of rest at Creation, that's why he told the Israelites to "remember" it.  You can't remember something that hasn't already been established. 
 
But how do you explain these New Testament verses? 
 
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Gal. 4:9-11
 
and
 
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:16, 17
 
Best, Sparrow

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 10, 2012 at 12:37 am

Halfy: I'll reply later on in a separate thread. I won't ransack this one anymore. I'm gonna bow meself outta here. Might save your thread from a blast.:P Cheezy cheers Dynamo:P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback