The Sabbath was "Made for Mankind" Mark 2:27??

[wopik]

Even as late as the 5th century, we find the Sabbath still being remembered in Catholic Christianity, with the notable exceptions of Rome and Alexandria. The church historian, Socrates, writing about 440, states:


"Almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians at Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this" (5.22).

His contemporary Sozomen similarly tells us, "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria" (7.19).


http://intercontinentalcog.org/ICGCC/Lesson_Seven.shtml

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
It is funny how you are copying and pasting all out of the SDA texts and are repeating the same posts over and over.

All out of WHAT SDA texts?

I have been giving you Sunday Keeping Bible commentary authors.

Can you not read the Bible for yourself? Can you not depend on the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word of God instead of relying on the heretical doctrines of Ellen G. White?

Is this where you actually provide a QUOTE from me that quotes Ellen White??

Because now would be a good time.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So in your view the Sabbath is just in the Old Covenant and NOT FOR MAN -- as in NOT made for Mankind -- NOT for Antrhopos -- but rather it was "MADE for FOR ISRAEL ONLY and NEVER MADE for MAN".

you have answered the OP then. you have stated that your tradition does not EVER allow Christ's Words in Mark 2:27 to have been true.

Maybe you are thinking that the above is a quote from Ellen White so that is why you do not respond to the point it makes regarding the subject of this thread ?

What's up?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Most of your posts have been from the teachings of the SDA, and have been double and triple posted much to fast to be just typed out. Also very repititious.

 

[Russ Kelly]

Mark 2:27 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
Mark 2:27 (Greek) Ta sabaton dia ton anthropon egeneto, kai ouch ho anthropos dia ton sabbaton. (Literally) The sabbath for the man (singular) came to be, and not the man (singular) for the sabbath.


There are three different ways to interpret Mark 2:27. Seventh-day Adventists insist that "man" means "man in general," "all men" or "mankind." Therefore, (to SDAs) the text means, "The Sabbath was made for all mankind, not all mankind for the Sabbath." God expects all mankind to observe the seventh-day Sabbath, or Saturday, as holy.

However, there are several things wrong with such logic. First, when anthropos is generically translated as "man," "mankind" or "flesh," then no specific article "the" is required in Greek. With the article, one specific man is usually intended. Texts where "man in general" is meant do not include the definite article in the Greek (compare Mt. 4:4; Rom. 1:18; 5:12). (2) "Anthropos," an extremely common New Testament word, is never translated as "mankind" in the King James Version. A different Greek word, phusei, is translated "race," "species" or Amankind@ in James 3:7.

God gave the Sabbath to national Israel as a sign of their Old Covenant relationship, AIt is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever@ (Ex. 31:13, 17). At the same time God commanded Israel not to share their covenant and Sabbath with other nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:1-6). This is why Jesus did not command the non Israelites whom he healed to observe the Sabbath and the rest of the Law. This is also why the Jewish Christians at the first church council did not require Gentile Christians to observe the Law (Acts 15:1-20; 21:18-28). Therefore, the seventh day weekly Sabbath was not given to all mankind (Ex. 19:5, 6; 20:2; 31:13-18; Deut. 5:12-15).

A second possible meaning of Mark 2:27 refers to the question it answers. The Pharisees asked, "Why do they [Jesus= disciples] on the Sabbath day do that which is not lawful?" (Mk. 2:24; Lk. 6:2). Jesus, in turn, asked the Pharisees, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life? Or to destroy it?@ (Lk. 6:9). Since Athey@ were Jews, then, the question concerned only the Hebrew man who is under the Law! The Pharisees would not have asked Jesus this question if "they" were Gentiles who were not under the Law! If this is the correct logic, then the answer would be: "The sabbath was made for the Hebrew man [who is under the law], and the Hebrew man was not made for the Sabbath." This answer would be honest both to the question and to the Greek syntax. Whether of not the Sabbath day was a day of rest since the creation is irrelevant because it had been forgotten. Beginning in Exodus 16, God clearly pointed out the day only for the observance of the Hebrews.

A third possible interpretation of Mark 2:27 is that "the man" refers neither to mankind in general, nor to the Hebrews under the Law, but to Jesus Himself! When the Greek article "the" (Strong's 3588) and "man" (Strong's 444) are combined in a word search, 13 of 21 times in Mark it refers to Jesus Christ as "the Son of THE man." There is an article in front of anthropos. Jesus was THE Second Adam (which means man), THE Messiah, and THE Representative Man. He was the One who first rested on the first Sabbath and all things were created by Him and FOR Him (Col. 1:16). This would make Mark 2:27 say "The Sabbath came into existence for THE MAN [Jesus Christ] and [Jesus Christ] THE MAN did not come into existence [as a man] for the Sabbath."

Fourth, perhaps Jesus' concluding statement, recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke holds the key to the correct understanding of Mark 2:27. Matthew 12:8 concludes, "For the Son of man is Lord {even} of the sabbath day." Mark 2:28 and Luke 6:5 conclude, "Therefore, the Son of man is Lord ALSO of the sabbath" with the additional Greek word for "also."

The Greek word for "made" is egeneto, the passive form of "to be" and is better translated as "was being" or "came into being." Keeping this in mind, we compare the four possible interpretations:
"Because the Sabbath was made for all mankind....
"Because the Sabbath was made for THE Hebrew man who is under the law...
"Because the Sabbath was made for THE MAN, Jesus Christ...
...THEREFORE, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath!"

Since the days of Ezekiel, the phrase, "the Son of man," had been an extremely common apocalyptic phrase for the Messiah, the second Adam, which Christ applied to Himself. From Jesus= three previous illustrations, God's anointed King, priests, and even ordinary Hebrews could over-ride the letter of the law when performing acts of mercy on the Sabbath. Since this is true, then Jesus, the Son of man, the Messiah, could certainly do the same thing on the Sabbath. He had already declared Himself greater than the temple (Mt. 12:6) and now he declared himself greater than the Sabbath!!!
However, none of the alternative interpretations of Mark 2:27 would be acceptable to Seventh-day Adventists. All destroy their claim that Jesus was teaching that the Sabbath was made for all mankind to observe. While ministering under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law, Jesus performed many of His notable miracles on the Sabbath Day. In so doing, He demonstrated that He was Lord of that day, just as He was Lord of every other day (Mark 2:28). Again, the Sabbath which he chose to illustrate his gospel deliverance was the Jubilee sabbath year, and not the seventh-day Sabbath.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Russ Kelly:
Mark 2:27 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
Mark 2:27 (Greek) Ta sabaton dia ton anthropon egeneto, kai ouch ho anthropos dia ton sabbaton. (Literally) The sabbath for the man (singular) came to be, and not the man (singular) for the sabbath.

Very good -

The "making of mankind" and the "making of Sabbath" are both reference here.

That is obvious and admitted to by all Bible Scholars.

There is no doubt that the MAKING of mankind is a reference to the human species NOT to "the MAKING of a Jew".

NO Bible commentator tries to reduce "Making of MAN" referenced in Mark 2 to the "MAKING of a Jew"

So all agree on the context and therefore the content. Anthropos is "mankind" in Mark 2 just as the Bible commentaries quoted here have shown.

No other option is even possible.

First, when anthropos is generically translated as "man," "mankind" or "flesh," then no specific article "the" is required in Greek. With the article, one specific man is usually intended.

This is in error as all Bible commentaries and all scholars agree that "The Sabbath was MADE for MAN and not MANKIND (made) for the Sabbath" is an explicit reference to the MAKING of BOTH where the "making of MAN" is not simply "some Jew".

God gave the Sabbath to national Israel as a sign of their Old Covenant relationship, AIt is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever@ (Ex. 31:13, 17). At the same time God commanded Israel not to share their covenant and Sabbath with other nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:1-6).

That speculation is explicitly rejected in Isaiah 56

Is 56
4 For thus says the LORD, ""To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

6 ""Also the FOREIGNERS who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning THE Sabbath And holds fast My covenant;

Your view by contrast is "Another gospel" that denies the OT command to the Jews to go out and evangelize AND ignores the "God so Loved the World" fact of the Gospel in the OT.

But as we learn in Heb 4:1-2 this ONE gospel was "preached to US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO"

Since Athey@ were Jews, then, the question concerned only the Hebrew man who is under the Law!

This is totally bogus as the "making of man" NEVER equates to "the making of a JEW" in all of scripture!

What is worse - Christ also references the fact of Marriage from the SAME chapter in Gen 2 saying "FOR This reason shall a man leave his home" -- Spoken to a "Jewish audience" again.

Your attempt to recast all the Gospel statements of Christ as being "to Jews only" would make Marriage ITSELF apply to Jews ONLY!

These are merely straw man attempts to avoid the obvious in the MArk 2 text.

As I pointed out in the commentaries quoted - comments from non-Sabbath keeping Bible scholars - The FACT of the reference to Mankind is a fact that is accepted far beyond the realm of "Adventists".

The FACT of Anthropos as FIRST and FOREMOST a reference to MANKIND is also given here

http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Mark+2%3A27&section=0&it=nas&oq=Luke%25209%3A26&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=lu&ng=9&ncc=9

(Another non-SDA reference eh?).

By claiming that "only SDAS would know that Anthropos" is a reference to mankind - to man as the species of mankind - you expose yourself to being easily debunked.

The Pharisees would not have asked Jesus this question if "they" were Gentiles who were not under the Law! If this is the correct logic, then the answer would be: "The sabbath was made for the Hebrew man [who is under the law], and the Hebrew man was not made for the Sabbath."

That "would have been" a great scripture. But NEVER is "Anthropos" translated "Just Hebrew men" or "HEbrew men only" or even "Hebrew men".

No translator makes that blunder and no Bible commentary would be expected to either.

In other words NOT ONLY is that mistake going to be missing from Adventist reviews of Mark 2 - it will also NOT be a mistake made by non-SDA Commentaries or respected Bible scholars in Mark 2!! (At least not in a number I can see out there today).

But the other obvious and even more devastating proof against that "Sabbath is never thought of for gentiles" idea posted here - is the fact of Acts 13 and GEntiles showing up for "SAbbath after Sabbath services" as well as the Acts 15 remark that these people are hearing Moses in church "every Sabbath".

Jesus was THE Second Adam (which means man), THE Messiah, and THE Representative Man. He was the One who first rested on the first Sabbath and all things were created by Him and FOR Him (Col. 1:16). This would make Mark 2:27 say "The Sabbath came into existence for THE MAN [Jesus Christ] and [Jesus Christ] THE MAN did not come into existence [as a man] for the Sabbath."

Again this is a twist - though at least more within the realm of reason.

The text does not simply say "Come into existence" the fact of "MADE" is a definite reference to a Creative act. As you seem to be willing to admit that Christ HIMSELF is the Creator then it is obvious that the MAKING is done BY Christ.

So it is Christ the Creator who MAKES MANKIND and it is Christ the Creator that MAKES His OWN creation memorial in Gen 2:3!

(Hence Creation week is SEVEN days not six).

On that day He not only rests - but He also SANCTIFIES, blesses and makes it Holy accord to the text of Gen 2:3 AND according to the RECOUNTING of that event that is given in Exodus 20:8-11.

The Greek word for "made" is egeneto, the passive form of "to be" and is better translated as "was being" or "came into being."

NO translator would do such a thing!

The Translations from KJV to NASB all agree that the term is more accurately "MADE" and can not be "a passive act where Christ is not involved".

Your own option 3 required us to view all of this as literally MADE by the Creator - Christ!

You can not have it "both ways".

What is interesting is that in your "conclusion" of the 4 possible ways you never give the one that all the Bible commentators quoted here are showing (non SDA commentators by the way) and you do not even seem to like the BIBLE translators themselves on this one - preferring your own rendering.

That is a lot of "rewriting" just to get out of the text sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The most compelling case for simply allowing the Bible translations from KJV to NASB to "be correct" AND for allowing the Bible commentaries to be correct as they have been quoted here - is that Christ is NOT "talking to HIMSELF" he is DEBATING with a hostile group.

His statement "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not MANKID (made) for the Sabbath" is the "PROOF" for his argument to them. To be accepted in a debate format with a hostile audience the PROOF has to be "common ground".

In other words the MAKING of MANKIND and the MAKING of SABBATH had to be in the context of what the HEBREW text SAYS happened in Gen 1-2:3 where we find reference to the MAKING of BOTH!

That is the only common ground Christ had with the Jewish Leaders on this point.

By explicitly referencing the MAKING of both - Christ is clearly in the Gen 1-2:3 context where BOTH are made!

Exodus 20 also REFERS BACK to Gen 1-2:3 for the MAKING OF BOTH mankind AND Christ the Creator's own Holy Day.

This fact is so compelling for the Jewish audience hostile to His teaching at that point - that it is the SOLE possibility for the discussion in Mark 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here we see non-Sabbath keeping Bible commentators admitting to the glaring obvious fact that "man" in Mark 2:27 IS mankind!!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Adam Clarke
Verse 27. The Sabbath was made for man as in “mankind”
That he might have the seventh part of his whole time to devote to the purposes of bodily rest and spiritual exercises. And in these respects it is of infinite use to mankind. Where no Sabbath is observed, there disease, poverty, and profligacy, generally prevail. Had we no Sabbath, we should soon have no religion
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=002

Matthew Henry The Sabbath was made for man as in “mankind”
Verses 23-28 The sabbath is a sacred and Divine institution; a privilege and benefit, not a task and drudgery. God never designed it to be a burden to us, therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. The sabbath was instituted for the good of mankind, as living in society, having many wants and troubles, preparing for a state of happiness or misery. Man was not made for the sabbath, as if his keeping it could be of service to God, nor was he commanded to keep it outward observances to his real hurt. Every observance respecting it, is to be interpreted by the rule of mercy.
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryConcise/mhc-con.cgi?book=mr&chapter=002

This next reference is interesting in that it admits to the “making of both” the Sabbath and Mankind at Creation week and shows the true binding nature of the Sabbath – AND it admits to its own need to switch the Sabbath from what Christ the Creator gave in Gen 2:3 – to man’s traditions regarding “weekday-one”

Albert Barnes -- the Sabbath was made for “man” as in mankind”
Verse 27. The sabbath was made for man. For his rest from toil, his rest from the cares and anxieties of the world, to give an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns, and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labours; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolations of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Redeemer of the world. And it is easily capable of proof, that no institution has been more signally blessed to man's welfare than the Christian Sabbath. To that we owe, more than to anything else, the peace and older of a civilized community. Where there is no Sabbath, there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that holy day, the poor, and the ignorant, as well as the learned, have undisturbed time to learn the requirements of religion, the nature of morals, the law of God, and the way of salvation. On that day, man may offer his praises to the Great Giver of all good, and in the sanctuary seek the blessing of him whose favour is life. Where that day is observed in any manner as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion. The Sabbath was, therefore, pre-eminently intended for man's welfare, and the best interests of mankind demand that it should be sacredly regarded as an appointment of merciful heaven, intended for our best good; and, where improved aright, infallibly resulting in our temporal and eternal peace.
Not man for the sabbath. Man was made first, and then the Sabbath was appointed for his welfare, Genesis 2:1-3. The Sabbath was not first made or contemplated, and then the man made with reference to that. Since, therefore, the Sabbath was intended for man's real good, the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be explained in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril. It must be, however, in accordance with man's real good on the whole, and with the law of God. The law of God contemplate man's real good on the whole; and we have no right, under the plea that the Sabbath was made for man, to do anything contrary to what the law of God admits. It would not be for our real good, but for our real and eternal injury, to devote the Sabbath to vice, to labour, or to amusement.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=002

They appear to have no interest in "redefining" the term "man" to "Israel ONLY" instead of the obvious and explicit "MANKIND". </font>[/QUOTE]AGain - the point is made that these are non-SDA non-Sabbath keeping Bible commentary sources that are "Admitting to the obvious" in Mark 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here we see anthropos as "the man" not as "mankind"

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

But in Mark 2 it is without the generic form "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath".

Had the text said "The Sabbath was made for THE man and not THE man for the Sabbath" it would reference a specific man - an individual. It does not have any such limit in the text.

Here we have other examples where the article inserted makes the reference specific to an individual

Genesis 2:16
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."


Genesis 2:19
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.


Genesis 2:20
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.


Genesis 2:21
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

Here we have examples where the lack of the article as in the case of Mark 2 makes the reference global "All mankind".

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Genesis 6:6
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - thanks to Russ Kelly on page 3 we can finally say that someone has actually tried to work with the "details in Mark 2" and get them to come out in favor of something other than "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND".

It is good to finally get someone who is brave enough to actually read the words of Christ there and deal with them!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Funny, you keep saying that 'all agree that anthropos means mankind'

I have not said that. Nor did Russ Kelly. You are very repititious in your accusations.

You may be able to convince those who don't study the Word of God that they are worshipping on the wrong day, but not the seasoned christian who studies the Word of God rightfully.

I faint not from the truth that is in God's Holy Word. The Sabbath was indeed a sign to the nation of Israel. The New Testament Covenant is not the Sabbath, but the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

However, none of the alternative interpretations of Mark 2:27 would be acceptable to Seventh-day Adventists. All destroy their claim that Jesus was teaching that the Sabbath was made for all mankind to observe.

This little bit of speculation would have worked "much better" if we did not already have posted here the numerous non-SDA references to translations, Bible commentaries and Greek Language texts that point to the clear teaching of Mark 2:26 regarding mankind and the Sabbath.

The fact that these outside references ALL from Sunday Keeping authors -- admit to the obvious, blatant and explicit facts of Mark 2:27 and the "Makind" of both MAN and the SABBATH where they show it to mean "mankind" -- leaves the quote above failed before it gets started.

But I hope you will not take this as just so much "inconvenient facts getting in the way of a good story".

The non-Sabbath keeping sources I have quoted are well known and easily accessible and all show that the obvious facts are in favor of "mankind" in Mark 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Funny, you keep saying that 'all agree that anthropos means mankind'

I have not said that. Nor did Russ Kelly. You are very repititious in your accusations.

All the well known authorities (non Sabbath keeping at that) I have qouted here SHOW that the reference in Mark 2 is to Mankind and the "making" of both Mankind and the Sabbath. (Christ the creator's Seventh-day Sabbath).

It may be that in your world - you and Russ Kelly are all that really exist -- but I am just pointing out that these recognized sources AND the translation itself show your error clearly and they have NO incentive to be with me on this at all!

Then I proceed to show "in detail" how the various "options" raised as alternatives to what scripture has actually said in Mark 2:27 have failed both from the point of the Greek Language AND from the point of use of the same concepts in other texts not just Mark 2.

Gentiles were attending Sabbath services - Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath as we see in Acts 13.

Gentiles were assumed to be "hearing Moses every Sabbath" according to Acts 15. (Which would certainly be the case based on Acts 13).

So trying to invent "the ONE case in all of scripture" in which generic form of anthropos is supposed to mean "only the Jew" -- in Mark 2 fails every level of exegesis known to man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[standingfirminChrist]

As I posted in the other thread. Paul. preached to the disciples on the 'first day of the week'. The disciples did not rebuke him for preaching, nor did he rebuke them for gathering.

 

[BobRyan]

Nor would I. Worshipping God on weekday-one, weekday-two or weekday-three has never been a sin and does not take away from Christ's Mark 2:27 statement that "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not MAnkind MADE for the Sabbath" (speaking to the MAKING of BOTH Sabbath AND mankind).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Anthropos as “mankind” in Mark 2 and also here –


The unqualified reference to Man is “Mankind” as in “The Sabbath was MADE for man and not MAN (made) for the Sabbath” is also found in Heb 9

“ For it is appointed unto MANkind ONCE to die and then comes the judgment” Heb 9:27
“Mankind shall not live by bread alone” Matt 4:4

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Genesis 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

In NO case (even in HEBREWS) can this term be “downsized” to mean “It is appointed unto Jews Only – once to die and then comes the Judgment”

Then we see “mankind” used as all inclusive to mean “any member of mankind” indicating “no exceptions”

Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man (no member of mankind) has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - that post from Russ Kelly was certainly focused on looking at each of the inconvenient details of Mark 2 and trying to turn them back around tyring everything for "mankind" and the "making of mankind" except "mankind".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Made for mankind to ignore"??

 

[Claudia_T]

That's funny, Bob

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] What God said "Let us make MAN in our own image" do you "Re-edit" that as "Let us make Jews in our own image"??

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Funny, you keep saying that 'all agree that anthropos means mankind'

I merely point to the Bible commentaries - Bible scholars that bring out this point (noted a few dozen times on this thread I suspect by now).

I also point out that the "MAKING" of the day is pretty obvious in Gen 2:3 "God RESTED ... THEREFORE - God Blessed and Sanctified THE Seventh day".

I have pointed out repeatedly that there is NO instance in scripture where the term "MAN" used without the article is a reference to anything OTHER than mankind.

These are the "inconvenient details" that you seem to consistenly ignore - while trying to recast the affirmation of these details as "accusations".

Your policy of ignoring the details that do not fit your traditions and then simply restating what you wish had been written - is not working as a compelling form of information exchange and debate.

In Christ,

Bob