Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Year Long Sabbath | Acts 1:3 | Makarios | 43992 | ||
Greetings Scott! The "Seventh" Year is indeed a year of solemn rest. However, because of the fact that this seventh year is referred to as a "Sabbath" does not mean that this year is equivalent to a "Sabbath" day! In fact, such an interpretation violates the whole of Scripture! What I was looking for was for you to make a distinction between a "Sabbath year" and a "Sabbath day", but you have not attempted to do so. However, there IS a distinction between the two. The Sabbath day was the seventh day of the week. The sabbath year (Leviticus 25:1-7) is speaking of the literal 'seventh' year. I see no other way to interpret Genesis and Leviticus as being two separate 'establishments': one to set the daily calendar and the other for a yearly cycle so that the land could recover. I could write more on this subject if I needed to, but I believe that I have unmasked your misapplication of the 'sabbath' and Leviticus 25:1-7. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
2 | Year Long Sabbath | Acts 1:3 | Sctt | 44050 | ||
Hi Makarios I don't disagree ,but I think what Nimrod2 and I are trying to say is that a sabbath can be longer then just a day , as these scriptures show that a sabbath to be a year.I'm not saying this scripture relates to a sabbath day only that a sabbath can be longer then a day. In Christ Scott. | ||||||
3 | Year Long Sabbath | Acts 1:3 | Makarios | 44055 | ||
Greetings Scott, Yes, I agree: the seventh 'day' (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:8) and the seventh year (Ex. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:1-7) are both called the "Sabbath." However, we cannot immediately substitute period of times or make them interchangable simply because both periods of time are designated times of solemn rest. I also believe that such "substitution" is a compromise of basic Scriptural interpretation. There are many examples that we could use that would prove that this type of logic would only prove to confuse and make Bible study something disastrous. But that is where I personally disagree, and that is why I have referred to this "substitution" as a misapplication of Scripture. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||