Ernest, ... Oops! Ernest, the issue does not involve any problem with me that I have to get over. You have simply shown an unwillingness to quote accuratelyMessage 1 of 90 , Feb 1, 2007View SourceErnest,
You write, in part:
> Ok Mr. Baty, IOops! Ernest, the
> change my signature
> to help you to get
> over this problem of
issue does not involve
any problem with me
that I have to get over.
You have simply shown
an unwillingness to
quote accurately from
the King James version.
Even now, you continue
to give the Exodus 31
> Wherefore theThere is every reason
> children of Israel
> shall keep the
> sabbath, to observe
> the sabbath
> throughout their
> generations, for a
> perpetual covenant.
> It is a Mark between
> me and the children
> of God for ever:
for us to know that you
know that that is
simply not how the
You simply lose
credibility when you
continue to insist on
interpretation of the
text when allegedly
quoting the text itself.
Ernest, you continue,
in part, with:
> (I)t is to myWhile you have
> shame that I
> have not shown
> you the truth,
> for your own
> good as it were.
something else in mind,
if you wish to look at
such things in that
manner, I would only
redirect your reasons
for shame and propose
that your shame is
based on so simple a
matter as refusing to
quote the text
attempting to propose
Then again, you appear
to not really have any
shame in such a matter,
but rather pride
yourself in "putting
words in God's mouth"
against your own
That you would propose
the following is really
an indication that you,
Ernest, are the one
with the problem, and
that in so simple a
matter as being
accurate in quoting the
text of scripture:
> I will now putDo as you will. We
> my signature back
> as I had it before
tried to help you on
such a simple thing,
and you appear to want
none of it.
And you propose to
teach us about
the "weightier" matters!
You also write, Ernest:
> (L)et me show youErnest, how can you
> another verse...I
> will not have to
> interpet it for you,
propose to show me a
verse you won't have to
interpret for me when
you have yet to openly,
honestly, accept the
proposition that you
need to, simply because
it is right, quote the
according to our
preference for the King
(Of course, after
saying that, Ernest,
you did presume to
pasage for me!)
Ernest, you conclude
> Mr. Baty I thank youYou are welcome, and I
> for this study of
> the Word of God...
thank you for the
experience as well. It
quite helpful for
perspective, in seeing
how you deal with such
a simple matter as
quoting the text of
I hope this doesn't
mean that you are not
going to resume your
discussion with Rick at
such time as he is able
to return and pick it
up. You kinda sound
like you are intending
to leave the discussion.
... Hi, Robert. Thank you for the compliment. As I indicated, when I was writing that last post I didn t have my usual access to the Web so I was unaware ofMessage 90 of 90 , Feb 24, 2007View Source--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
> I noticed in your post, which I would recommend
> that all take the time to read despite its length
> (even while not completely agreeing on all points),
> that you make the following comment:
> > The Ten Commands are part
> > of the Mosaic Law
> I'm not sure that you were explicit in trying to
> establish this point in your post.
> You may want to expand and defend your proposition
> that the "Ten Commands are part of the Mosaic Law",
> if you get the time....
Thank you for the compliment.
As I indicated, when I was writing that last post
I didn't have my usual access to the Web so I was
unaware of some of the twists and turns this
discussion had taken. That twists and turns *had*
been taken I did not doubt, but it never occurred
to me that someone might try to say that the Ten
Commandments were not part of the Law of Moses.
I guess I just took that for granted.
The point is, however, that Dave and Ernest have
both stressed the "throughout your generations"
phrase in the fourth commandment, yet that phrase
recurs throughout the Old Testament Law.
From their position now it appears that, instead
of quoting (or misquoting, as the case may be)
verses with "THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS"
capitalized, they should have been quoting verses
with "WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD"
in all caps.
Dave says it was the Ten Commandments, and the
Ten Commandments only, which were written on
the tables of stone by God's own finger; Ernest
seems to be saying the commands pertaining to the
rest of the "sabbaths" were engraved there as well.
Both of them seem to be promoting the idea that
what was written by the finger of the Lord on
tablets of stone are somehow more binding than what
was spoken by the mouth of the Lord and written down,
as He commanded Moses, into the Book of Law.
Myself, I think the distinction is vapid when
considered alongside the fact that the Lord Himself
has personally written His Eternal Law, the
*everlasting* covenant (Hebrews 13:20) on the fleshy
tables of our individual hearts. (see 2 Corinthians
3:3 -- my Amplified New Testament refers from this
verse back to Jeremiah 31:33, which is, of course,
right after Jeremiah 31:31-32.)
And that right there ought to be the end of the
matter, you would think, because we all know, do we
not, that what the Lord has written in our hearts
is far more than the Ten Commandments or even the
entire -- every jot and tittle -- Mosaic Law.
In my previous post are Dave's words:
>> So yes, you are right. I do chose andAnd my reply there begins:
>> pick the ten over the others. The ten,
>> i believe... correct me if I am wrong,
>> were the only commands written with the
>> finger of God Almighty himself.
> Rather than be nit-picky here, I thinkI actually took out about three paragraphs of
> I'll just concede that point: the tablets
> of stone placed in the Ark were engraved
> with the Ten Commandments, written by
> the finger of the Lord.
writing about what was on the stones and who
wrote it, and replaced it with that one sentence.
I felt like the message was long enough as it
was, and that what Dave had said was beside the
What Jesus has given us is not a long list of
thoushalts and thoushaltnots -- He gave us the
means of knowing right from wrong in our dealings
with all the various individuals with whom we
interact in all the various sets of circumstances
that may arise.
Today, psychologists call this "situational ethics"
or "moral reasoning". (And, needless to say, the
religious "legalists" have no use for such
In ~The Sound of Music~, was it "sinful" for the
nuns to steal the spark plug wires off the Nazis'
vehicles, enabling the Family Von Trapp to make
good their escape?
Was it "murder" to unplug Terri Schiavo?
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
(Romans 14:5) Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord will not impute iniquity. (Psalms 32:2,
Romans 4:8) If our heart condemn us not, we have
confidence toward God. (1 John 3:21) Therefore
to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,
to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
Of course, all of that only applies to those on
whose hearts the Lord really has written His
Law. It is not an excuse that Godless individuals
may use to go out and justify whatever evil they
want to commit.
But let's bring all this back together before I
get carried away and write another book: It doesn't
matter, to the purpose of this debate, whether the
Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses or
1) Jesus redefined for us the Ten Commandments
just as if they *were* part of the Law; in the
Sermon on the Mount He put no difference between
the way He clarified "Thou shalt not kill" and
"An eye for an eye". To the rich young ruler He
said "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in the same
breath as He said "Honor thy father and mother".
2) The Two Commandments, to love the Lord and to
love our neighbor, are not part of the ten.
Therefore, if someone wants to say the Ten
Commandments are the "Law of God" or the "Law
of Love", or make some distinction because they
were written on stone by the finger of God, or
whatever, that would mean that this supposedly
separate law does not include those two
all-encompassing commandments which Christ
endorsed *as is*.
3) If the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses
are two separate entities, that removes any
pretense of the validity of our polemic adversaries'
misguided-at-any-rate appeal to the verse that says
"not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until
all has been fulfilled." Either Christ fulfilled the
Law and the prophets or He did not.
4) If the fourth commandment were still in effect,
whether it was part of the Mosaic Law or not, the
order of the commandment is to *rest*. Nothing
else. The fourth commandment is referred to many
times in the Old Testament, and it says nothing at
all about going to any kind of church or synagogue
or doing anything other than resting. According to
the commandment, no one is to even stir out of their
place, or prepare a meal, or light a fire -- nothing.
That is clearly not what Ernest or Dave are proposing
for the seventh-day Sabbath. Even when they make such
a to-do over Paul preaching in the synagogues, those
seventh-day gatherings of the Jews were by tradition,
not by commandment.
Therefore, those who think the 4th commandment is still
applicable "as it is written" had better be following
it, as it is written. For with whatever judgment we
mete out, with the same shall we be judged; and
whoever seeks justification under the law is a debtor
to do the whole law.
Otherwise, they're no better than I am -- just a bunch
of no-good latitudinarians.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism