Talk:Sabbath in Christianity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Revelation and the Sabbath

Isn't the part of this article that speaks of Revelations only one possible interpretation of the text? To my knowledge the word "Sabbath" does not appear in the Book of Revelation. I think the author is speaking of the verse:

"Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." -Revelation 14:12

I realize Jesus earlier called himself "Lord also of the Sabbath" but this was more him expressing his superiority over the Sabbath rather than the wholehearted endorsement the article suggests. I recommend that bullet be altered as to not represent a single school of opinion or removed entirely. VincentValentine 13:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DJL: It appears to me, that if you want to know what Sabbatarians believe, then you should investigate their websites. Apparently, a great many do NOT believe in The Roman JESUS (IHS), they do NOT believe in The Virgin Birth NOR do they believe in The Trinity or in pre-existence, AND they reject "The Nicene Creed". This make them very much NON-christian, which they apparently equate to hellenization (christopaganism). Funny, how NON-sabbatarians think they can define Sabbatarianism. Reference: "The Sabbatarian Network; http://www.sabbatarian.com or http://www.sabbatariannetwork.com or http://www.passoverlamb.com or http://www.marriagesupper.com or http://www.sabbatariangreetings.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.7.214 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes Vincent, this verse is just one of over 200 in which the Law, or keeping the commandments are mentioned in the Christian New Testament. The commandments are generally agreed to be understood as the Ten Commandments, by most scholars. The Law is commonly agreed upon to be the complete ordinances written in the first five books of the bible, or the Torah in Hebrew. All of these ordinances are understood to be amplification of the basic ten commandments given at Sinai. To include the fourth or Sabbath commandment as a requirement of the ten commandments is not a single school of thought. One may hold an opinion of the timing of the Sabbath commandment, but the common and primary understanding is still the seventh day of the week from dusk to dusk. Timing may be worthy of discussion, but removal would be a withholding of common understanding in order to appease a POV. --Kevin 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference your claims. Plus the arguments is about whether or not this page should be a straight disambig, which it isn't currently. Vincent Valentine 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation could be done to separate the two articles. This could be an improvement. As for references to what law and commandments refer to in the NT, I would suggest The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the commandments, and Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, in his references to Matthew 5:17-19 in which he begins with the understanding of the law, and Revelation 12:14, where he notes the absence of commandment keeping by the largest churches of the time. --Kevin 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

A significant fact that is often overlooked is the evidence that the early apostolic church was Sabbatarian. Jesus Christ kept the weekly Sabbath as well as the annual high Sabbaths. The apostles were all Nomian Christians. Even Paul, the one apostle sent out to the Gentile world, observed the Sabbaths. The first council of Jerusalem made no requirement other than the abstaining from things offered to idols, strangled, blood, and fornication. Yet the passage in Acts 15:19-21 also relates that Moses (the lawgiver) had been taught in many generations, and in every city, in the synagogue each Sabbath.

The requirements were simple to enter into the assembly of Christians (in contrast the desire of the Circumcision), yet the new believers were also to learn what the Torah taught about the Law, and most importantly the Ten Commandments including the fourth which was taught on the Sabbath at the gathering of His people.

No wonder. After all, Christianity was originally an offshoot of Judaism. Part of its process of becoming a religion of its own was to move its holy day to Sunday. Likewise Islam chose Friday and the Baha'is chose Thursday. --Jdemarcos 22:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As a sect of Judaism, Christianity began as a fulfillment of many prophecies from the Torah and the Prophets. Some of those prophecies, and more from the New Testament include a future false religion that would name Jesus as the Messiah, but also teach the mystery of lawlessness. The book of Revelation speaks of those who do, and do not keep the Messiah's Sabbaths; those who hold to the testimony of Jesus the Christ and keep His commandments, and those who do not.

Mainstream Christianity has chosen Sunday, and yet the Word of God they profess as their Christ, rested on the Sabbath. There are some who believe this to be the false Christianity prophecied in the New Testament. Sabbatarians often consider themselves as the remnant that hold to the testimony of Christ, and keep God's Commandments, spoken of in the book of Revelation.

The day we choose may be arbitrary as far as mankind is concerned, but for Sabbatarians the study of the Torah, the Prophets, and the New Testament reveal something quite different as far as Law abiding children of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are concerned. For these Christians, the Sabbaths are sanctified and designed to remind believers of the Creator, who is the Christ, the Messiah, and Savior. Grace is an important part of the great news, but can be used to corrupt the Gospel of the Kingdom of God if it is not balanced with obedience. Kevin--Kevin 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What you say is nice for some kind of preaching but irrelevant for an encyclopaedia that should be concerned only about facts and not about subjective interpretation(s) from believers about what their religion says. We are not concerned about whether Sabbatarians follow God's mandate or not, but simply how they differentiate in their behaviour from other Christian groups. --Jdemarcos 22:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The reasons behind a particular belief, or sect of any religion can make for a fascinating study. Why something is different is just as important as what differentiates it from something else. Some may consider why irrelevant, but many consider the why question very relevant. Kevin--Kevin 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Reform Jews

I have never seen a Reform Jew who claims to keep the sabbath on Sunday. Can this be verified in any way? --Bachrach44 16:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be correct. I have never experienced a Reform who keeps the Sabbath on Sunday, although the liberal view might allow for variance, even though the Torah is explicit on the seventh day Sabbath.

I've done some more searching and found two sources on this: [1] and [2]. They both seem to indicate that it was one of the many ideas that was proposed when reform judaism first formed, but that it is no longer the case. (I can also tell you from personal experience that I've never seen a reform temple that has sabbath services on Sunday). Unless you can find another source that shows that at least some part of Reform Judaism celebrates shabbat on Sunday, I think we should change the verbiage a little to reflect that it was only a consideration of Reform, and not a common practice. --Bachrach44 04:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be a useful addition, although the author does specify "some" and "liberal" as the uncommon. Kevin 04:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this page?

I added the clean-up tag to this article. I clicked on a wikilink to Sabbatarian, which is redirect here, on the page Colonial colleges. What is this page? I cannot tell if it is a disambiguation page or if it needs to be split into two (or more) articles, each discussing a specific subject. It does not seem to comply with the Wikipedia manual of style.

I believe the intent of this page is to be a disambiguation page. There is no value to having this page be separate from the Sabbath/Shabbat articles in my opinion as they both contain virtually the same information. I am also not at all pleased with the "Basis for Seventh-Day Sabbatarianism" section which has recently been inserted as I feel it adds no value to a disambiguation page but to obfuscate the meaning of the page -- which is exactly what you ran into and why it is marked for cleanup. As I said before all the argumentation in this page can be found in the Sabbath article. My suggestion is to remove the "Basis for Seventh Day Sabbatarianism" and leave the rest of the article as I believe that the remainder constitutes a valid disambiguation page. What are your thoughts? Vincent Valentine 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edits

Kevin, your latest edits have decimated whatever shreds of neutrality this article had left. The article asserts many statements as facts, cites NO sources, and is generally biased to a Sabbatarian POV. I also see no need to keep this page at all -- it should be a disambiguation page leading to the Sabbath article which covers all this ground anyway.

I will be putting up a neutrality tag soon. Vincent Valentine 12:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your view of neutrality is for all intents and purposes POV, Vincent. If you are a voice for neutrality then you would understand the purpose of the article to present the reasoning behind a particular belief. You have added to the article the alternative view and this was welcomed with some revision, yet your tagging the article is due to POV. What I would suggest is an article referenced in this one, stating the basis of belief for Sunday worship.--Kevin 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. You bring no evidence, cite no sources, and falsely accuse me of various atrocities without ever citing anything. Please read the tutorials on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are quite thorough. Vincent Valentine 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Vincent's assertions here are POV or whether your assertions in the article are POV, self-made statements are clearly not allowed. This article neither cites any primary sources nor can it be verified in any manner. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the facts given are assertions made by the author. Please observe WP:NOR & WP:V. JaKaL! 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence has been offered, and is not a matter of dispute even among prominent mainstream sources (see above references in the section titled Revelation and the Sabbath). Your latest comments are more accurately pointed to your own statements. We have had a similar discussion previously concerning the Sabbath article. My suggestion would be to review these discussions, reread the tutorials, and offer suggestions to improve this article. The sources that support your POV are necessary for a profitable discussion. You are correct in stating that talk is cheap. I would welcome a serious discussion, and I have not accused you of anything approaching an atrocity. My hope is that some acknowledgement of what has been previously understood could become part of a reasonable discussion. I know you are capable of reason, Vincent. Let's return to a discussion of real understanding rather than common misunderstanding of what is truth.--Kevin 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm...check the article and tell me where you see a citation. Hint: interpreting the Bible in your owns words is not a citation. Also don't remove tags unless you have the approval of the other editors. Vincent Valentine 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin: This article is excellently written, highly informative, and factual beyond disputation. Facts which are obscure, unpopular, politically inkorrekt or intentionally overlooked are no less truthful. --63.25.0.247 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

When it digs up that old chestnut about Mithraism? When, in fact, Roman authorities on at least one occasion conclusively identified people as Christian on no further evidence than that they gathered for worship on Sunday? I'll be digging up the precise martyrs, but the reference is in Scott Hahn's Swear to God -- if you're interested. Goldfritha 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Subbotniki

[3]

Cleanup

I think this page has the potential to be more than a disambiguation page, but as such some of the information appearing in the first section needs to be shifted down, a "criticism" section (which I have added) needs to be filled in to alleviate the valid NPOV concerns, and all of it is in painful need of sourcing. I've started the process, and I notice that this page hasn't received any serious attention in quite a while. ◄Zahakiel► 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, a reading of the Sabbath article suggests that any new information placed here could probably be better served in a main article from which this is a redirect. I am removing the proposed "split" tag and replacing it with a suggested "merge" tag. Everything here is, or should be, redundant with the information provided in that article. ◄Zahakiel► 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Merge. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to either or both of SabbathSabbath in Christianity and Sabbath (disambiguation)Sabbath. Colin MacLaurin 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page says very little that isn't already said in the Sabbath in Christianity and Shabbat articles. Besides, most of it is unreferenced and (IMO) written in poor encyclopedic style. I've moved the material below, and redirected the article to Sabbath in Christianity. Tonicthebrown 08:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

LDS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (aka "Mormonism") and the 7th day, or the Lord's day, the sabbath day in "the Standard Works" (LDS)

LDS – The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints (aka – “Mormons”) – The 7th Day is the Sabbath of the LORD – Their Highest Official Sources, aka "Standard Works" and reasoning thereof:

[1]

“God’s Laws Remain Constant

“Although the world has changed, the laws of God remain constant. They have not changed; they will not change. The Ten Commandments are just that—commandments. They are not suggestions. They are every bit as requisite today as they were when God gave them to the children of Israel. If we but listen, we hear the echo of God’s voice, speaking to us here and now. …

“Our code of conduct is definitive; it is not negotiable. It is found not only in the Ten Commandments but also in the Sermon on the Mount, given to us by the Savior when He walked upon the earth. It is found throughout His teachings. It is found in the words of modern revelation.

“Our Father in Heaven is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The prophet Mormon tells us that God is ‘unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity’ [Moroni 8:18]. In this world where nearly everything seems to be changing, His constancy is something on which we can rely, an anchor to which we can hold fast and be safe, lest we be swept away into uncharted waters.”” [Words of the Prophet - President Thomas S. Monson; LDS.org] - http://www.lds.org/new-era/2011/11/general-conference-is-for-you/words-of-the-prophet?lang=eng&query=ten+commandments

[2]

“The Ten Commandments are eternal gospel principles that are necessary for our exaltation. The Lord revealed them to Moses in ancient times (see Exodus 20:1–17), and they are also referenced in whole or in part in other books of scripture (see Matthew 19:18–19; Romans 13:9; Mosiah 12:33–36; 13:13–24; D&C 42:18–29; 59:5–13; 63:61–62). The Ten Commandments are a vital part of the gospel. Obedience to these commandments paves the way for obedience to other gospel principles.” [LDS.org, Ten Commandments] - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/ten-commandments?lang=eng

[3]

“The Lord personally gave counsel to his children regarding the importance and sacredness of the Sabbath day.

He said, “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.” (Ex. 20:8–11.)

The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it, and he has asked us to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. It is a day for spiritual thought and growth; a day to meet with the saints and to partake of the sacrament; a special hallowed day to read the words of God as recorded in his sacred scriptures.

Fathers who disrespect that which God hallowed and fail to keep the Sabbath day holy will generally pass this sin on to their posterity. It is a sin to unhallow that which God hath hallowed. Keeping the Sabbath day holy has a hallowing effect on the soul of man, and love for God and his commandments is increased.” [The Ten Commandments; Elder Bernard P. Brockbank; Assistant to the Council of the Twelve] - http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/12/the-ten-commandments

[4]

“The Sabbath was a holy day before the giving of the law, even from the earliest times (cf. the account of the creation-- Gen. 2:2-3; the sacredness of the number 7; the narrative of the manna --Ex. 16:23-30; and the narrative of the man gathering sticks--Num. 15:32-36; cf. v. 34); ... for the Sabbath is an eternal principle, and would have existed from the days of Adam, whenever the gospel was on the earth among men.” - http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/sabbath?lang=eng&letter=s

[5]

“Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated that Sabbath observance is an eternal principle, and he noted five occurrences in the scriptures when observance of the Sabbath day was required by the Lord: “From the day of Adam to the Exodus from Egypt, the Sabbath commemorated the fact that Christ rested from his creative labors on the 7th day (Ex. 20:8-11).” - http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/02/keeping-the-sabbath-day-holy?lang=eng

[6]

“8 Remember the {a} sabbath day, to keep it {b} holy.

9 {a} Six days shalt thou {b} labour, and do all thy work:

10 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 {a} stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in {a} six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord {b} blessed the sabbath day, and {c} hallowed it." [4th Commandment; LDS.org] – http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20?lang=eng or http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/20

Ex 20:8 [Notation] - “the {a} sabbath day” - “HEB stopping, cessation, rest (from labor). See Ex. 31:17. TG Sabbath.” Ex. 31:17 given as “17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

Ex. 20:9 [Notation] - “{a} Six days” - “Ex. 35:2.” - Ex. 35:2 given as “2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”

Ex. 20:11 [Notation] - “For in {a} six days” - “Ex. 31:17; Moses 2:31 (24–31).” Ex. 31:17 given as “17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”; [LDS Book of Mormon] Moses 2:24-31.

Ex. 20:11 [Notation] - “{b} blessed the sabbath day” - “Gen. 2:3 (1–3); Mosiah 13:19; D&C 77:12; Moses 3:3.” Gen. 2:3 (1-3) given as “1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 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. 3 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.”; [LDS Book of Mormon] Mosiah 13:19 given as “19 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”; [LDS Doctrine & Covenants] D&C 77:12; [LDS Book of Mormon] Moses 3:3 given as “3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.”

Ex. 20:11 [Notation] - “and {c} hallowed it.” - “OR sanctified or consecrated.”

[7]

Joseph Smith said:

“... Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was {a}sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, {b}mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this {c}earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. ...” [Doctrine and Covenants, 77:6] - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77?lang=eng

It is amazing how certain persons at the LDS top attempt to make this statement mean billions of years, when it clearly does not say that at all.

The 7th day is the Sabbath of the LORD in Genesis, for it culminates the previous 6 work days of God. Thus how can persons attempt to replace “1” for “7”, and “7” for “1”, when all the scriptural and official LDS sources speak of the 7th day being presently the sabbath, even from Adam’s day.

[1]

Jarom 1:5 Book Of Mormon: 5 And now, behold, *two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. They observed to {a}keep the law of Moses and the {b}sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they {c}profaned not; neither did they {d}blaspheme. And the {e}laws of the land were exceedingly strict. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1

Notation Pages for Jarom 1:5:

A - 2 Ne. 25: 24. 24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we {a}keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. Mosiah 2: 3. 3 And they also took of the {a}firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer {b}sacrifice and {c}burnt {d}offerings {e}according to the law of Moses; Alma 30: 3. 3 Yea, and the people did observe to keep the commandments of the Lord; and they were strict in observing the {a}ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses; for they were taught to {b}keep the law of Moses until it should be fulfilled. Alma 34: 14 (13-14) 14 And behold, this is the whole {a}meaning of the {b}law, every whit {c}pointing to that great and last {d}sacrifice; and that great and last {e}sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, {f}infinite and eternal. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1/5a

B - Ex. 35: 2. 2 {a}Six days shall {b}work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a {c}sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to {d}death. TG Sabbath.- http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1/5b

C - TG Profanity. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1/5c

D - TG Blasphemy - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1/5d

[2]

E - Alma 1: 1. 1 Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having {a}gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his stead; nevertheless he had established {b}laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the {c}laws which he had made. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1/5e

[3]

Mosiah 13:16-19 Book Of Mormon: 16 Remember the {a}sabbath day, to keep it holy. 17 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; 18 But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; 19 For in {a}six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/13

Notation Pages for Mosiah 13:16 -

A - Mosiah 18: 23. 23 And he commanded them that they should observe the {a}sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God. TG Sabbath. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/13/16a

Notation Pages for Mosiah 13:19 -

A - Gen. 1: 31. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very {a}good. And the evening and the morning were the {b}sixth day. Ex. 20: 11. 11 For in {a}six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord {b}blessed the sabbath day, and {c}hallowed it. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/13/19a

[4]

Mosiah 18:23 Book Of Mormon: 23 And he commanded them that they should observe the {a}sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18

Notation Page For Mosiah 18:23:

A - Ex. 35: 2. 2 {a}Six days shall {b}work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a {c}sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to {d}death. Mosiah 13: 16 (16-19) 16 Remember the {a}sabbath day, to keep it holy. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/23a

[5]

III Nephi 18:14 Book Of Mormon: 14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/18

[6]

The Doctrine And Covenants Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints; Section 59, #9-12: 9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself {a}unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of {b}prayer and offer up thy {c}sacraments upon my {d}holy day; 10 For verily this is a {a}day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; 11 Nevertheless thy {a}vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; 12 But remember that on this, the {a}Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine {b}oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, {c}confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/59

Notation Page for D&C; Section 59, #9, D:

D - Lev. 19: 3. 3 ¶ Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my {a}sabbaths: I am the {b}Lord your God. Lev. 23: 3. 3 Six days shall work be done: but the {a}seventh day is the {b}sabbath of rest, an holy {c}convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the {d}sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. Alma 1: 26 (26-27) 26 And when the priests left their {a}labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man {b}according to his strength. D&C 68: 29. 29 And the inhabitants of Zion shall also observe the {a}Sabbath day to keep it holy. TG Sabbath. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/59/9d

Notation Page for D&C; Section 59, #10, A:

A - Ex. 35: 2. 2 {a}Six days shall {b}work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a {c}sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to {d}death. Lev. 23: 25. 25 Ye shall do no servile {a}work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. TG Rest. TG Worship. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/59/10a

Notation Page for D&C; Section 59, #12, A:

A - Neh. 8: 10. 10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send {a}portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this {b}day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye {c}sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your {d}strength. Rev. 1: 10. 10 I was in the Spirit on the {a}Lord’s {b}day, and heard behind me a great {c}voice, as of a trumpet, - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/59/12a

[7]

The Doctrine And Covenants Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints; Section 68, #29: 29 And the inhabitants of Zion shall also observe the aSabbath day to keep it holy. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/68

Notation Page for D&C; Section 68, #29:

A - Alma 1: 26 (26-27) 26 And when the priests left their {a}labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man {b}according to his strength. D&C 59: 9. 9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself {a}unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of {b}prayer and offer up thy {c}sacraments upon my {d}holy day; TG Sabbath. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/68/29a

[8]

The Book Of Moses [LDS]; Selections From; June - October 1830; Chapter 3:1-3: 1 Thus the {a}heaven and the earth were finished, and all the {b}host of them. 2 And on the seventh day I, God, ended my work, and all things which I had made; and I {a}rested on the {b}seventh day from all my work, and all things which I had made were finished, and I, God, saw that they were good; 3 And I, God, {a}blessed the seventh day, and {b}sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my {c}work which I, God, had created and made. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3

Notation Page for BoM[oses]; Chapter 3:2:

A - Gen. 2: 2 (1-3) 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had {a}made; and he {b}rested on the seventh day from all his {c}work which he had made. Abr. 5: 2 (1-3) 2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will {a}rest on the {b}seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. TG Rest. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/2a B - TG Sabbath - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/2b

Notation Page for BoM[oses]; Chapter 3:3:

A - Ex. 20: 11. 11 For in {a}six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord {b}blessed the sabbath day, and {c}hallowed it. Mosiah 13: 19. 19 For in {a}six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. D&C 77: 12. 12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the {a}trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation? A. We are to understand that as God {b}made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and {c}sanctified it, and also formed man out of the {d}dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God {e}sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and {f}judge all things, and shall {g}redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the {h}preparing of the way before the time of his coming. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/3a

B - Abr. 5: 3 (1-3) 3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would {a}rest from all their {b}works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and {c}sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/3b

C - Ex. 31: 15 (14-15) 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of {a}rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any {b}work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Mosiah 13: 18 (16-19) 18 But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/3c

[9]

The Book Of Abraham; Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith, Chapter 5:1-3: 1 And thus we will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the {a}hosts of them. 2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will {a}rest on the {b}seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. 3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would {a}rest from all their {b}works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and {c}sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5

Notation Page for BoA; Chapter 5:2:

A - TG Rest. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2a

B - TG Sabbath - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/2b

Notation Page for BoA; Chapter 5:3:

A - Ex. 20: 8 (8-11) 8 Remember the {a}sabbath day, to keep it {b}holy. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3a

B - Ex. 31: 15 (15-16) 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of {a}rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any {b}work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Mosiah 13: 18 (16-19) 18 But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3b

C - Mosiah 13: 19 (16-19) 19 For in {a}six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. D&C 77: 12. 12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the {a}trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation? A. We are to understand that as God {b}made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and {c}sanctified it, and also formed man out of the {d}dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God {e}sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and {f}judge all things, and shall {g}redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the {h}preparing of the way before the time of his coming. - http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3c

They said all of that, and in a single sentence, say:

"B. The Sabbath day was changed in the meridian dispensation.

“The Church accepts Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and proclaims the sanctity of the day. We admit without argument that under the Mosaic law the seventh day of the week, Saturday, was designated and observed as the holy day, and that the change from Saturday to Sunday was a feature of the apostolic administration following the personal ministry of Jesus Christ. Greater than the question of this day or that in the week is the actuality of the weekly Sabbath, to be observed as a day of special and particular devotion to the service of the Lord.” [James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 449] - http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-27-the-law-of-the-sabbath?lang=kor&clang=eng

The seventh day, the sabbath of the LORD has “not changed”, and is “a sin to unhallow”, is suddenly “changed” (Daniel 7:25; Proverbs 24:21 KJB)?

The argumentation of an 'apostolic' change after Jesus’ resurrection & ascension, is a Roman Catholic, or fallen church, ideology or doctrine.

“... the first day of the week, Sunday ...” - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sabbath-day?lang=eng

“The Savior was ... resurrected. The New Testament contains several accounts testifying that He rose from the tomb (see Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 24:1-48; John 20:1-29; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16-17).” - http://www.lds.org/topics/resurrection?lang=eng

Therefore, the LDS.org clearly demonstrates which day is “the seventh day” [aka commonly, not technically, “Saturday"] and which day is the “first [day] of the week” [aka commonly, not technically, “Sunday”], and the two shall ever be separate, for the 7th Day is Holy, and the first is not.

[QUESTION] Why do all of the LDS scriptures say the 7th day is the sabbath, and yet the LDS keep the first day of the week as the sabbath?

For instance see, Book of Mormon - Jarom 1:5; Mosiah 13:16-19, 18:23; III Nephi 18:14 & notations.

For instance see Doctrine and Covenants - sec 59, #9-12; sec 68, #29 & notations.

For instance Book of Moses, Chap. 3:1-3, & notations.

For instance Book of Abraham, Chap. 5:1-3 & notations.

For instance Elder Bruce McConkie of Quorum of 12, ensign 2000.

For instance Elder Bernard P. Brockbank as Assistant to Council of 12, ensign 1971.

For instance President Thomas S Monson, 2011, GC

For instance Joseph Smith (Prophet LDS) connected the 7 days of Genesis, with the 7000 years of the earth, in the 6,000 and 1,000 final.

Is there any official documentation in the “standard works” that explains this inconsistent behaviour, or discrepancy, without utilizing Roman Catholic (‘pope’ Sylvester), or fallen church, ideology or principals? If so, where is it? Finally, read 1 Nephi 13:4-6,20-42 (vs. 26, great church above all other “churches”, abominable church, church of the devil, "Babylon" in Rome, which made “war” with the “saints” (churches)) Anti Christ - Vicarius Christi. This chapter is important, because it is where LDS get their justification for their Book of Mormon, and other materials. It is the reason for their existence.

Vs. 4 “b great church” – cites 1 Nephi 13:26,34, and 1 Nephi 14:3,9-17, speaking of the (1 Nephi 13:26) “that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches, for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away”, and (1 Nephi 13:34) “after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots”, and (1 Nephi 14:3) “that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children”, and (1 Nephi 14:9) “behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil”, and (1 Nephi 14:10) “that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth”, and (1 Nephi 14:11) “the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people”, and (1 Nephi 14:12) “abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters … the wickedness of the great whore”, and (1 Nephi 14:13) “the great mother of abominations”, and (1 Nephi 14:15) “that great and abominable church”, and (1 Nephi 14:16) “the mother of abominations … the mother of harlots”, and (1 Nephi 14:17) “the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil”

Vs. 5 “Behold the formation of a achurch which is most abominable above all other churches, which bslayeth the saints of God,” - cites 2 Nephi 10:16; Revelation 17:3-6, 18:24; 1 Nephi 14:13. “a church” links to (2 Nephi 10:16) “they are they who are the whore of all the earth”, and “b slayeth” links to (Revelation 17:3-6, 18:24; 1 Nephi 14:13).

Vs. 6 “And it came to pass that I beheld this agreat and babominable church; and I saw the cdevil that he was the founder of it.”, and cites (D&C 88:94; TG Devil, Church of.; 1 Nephi 22:22-23. TG Devil.) “a great” cites (Doctrine and Covenants 88:94) “That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth;” “b abominable church” cites TG Devil - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/devil-church-of?lang=eng, which in part says, “… great whore that sitteth upon many waters, Rev. 17:1. with violence shall … Babylon be thrown down, Rev. 18:21. great and abominable church, 1 Ne. 13:6. parts of the gospel … kept back by that abominable church, 1 Ne. 13:32. abominable church … whose founder is the devil, 1 Ne. 14:9. … abominable church, … whore of all the earth, 1 Ne. 22:13 (2 Ne. 28:18). do not unite themselves to that great and abominable church, 2 Ne. 6:12. whore of all the earth, 2 Ne. 10:16. … abominable church … shall be cast down, D&C 29:21. great church, the mother of abominations, D&C 88:94.”

Vs. 7, “clothing; and I saw many harlots.”

Vs. 8, “and the harlots, are the adesires of this great and abominable church.”

Vss. 26-29, “26 And after they go forth by the ahand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews bunto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that cgreat and abominable dchurch, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have etaken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are fplain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and aprecious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were ataken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.”

Vs. 26, “abominable d church” cites - TG Apostasy of the Early Christian Church. - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/apostasy-of-the-early-christian-church?lang=eng, and citing Revelation 18:21, “Babylon” cites Babylon – “church that is at Babylon, elected, 1 Pet. 5:13.” - Babylon https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/babylon?lang=eng, following this, we come to Peter, Epistles of, which says, “The first epistle was written from “Babylon” (probably Rome)” - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/peter?lang=eng

Thus, the “church at Babylon”, according to the official LDS sources, is the “church at (Rome)”, which would then be the “abominable church”, and “mother” of “harlots”, which altered the Bible, Gospel and even the laws and covenants of God. It would be the AntiChrist, the AntiChristos, the Vicarivs Christi.

Joseph Smith is basically saying that because of the “abominable church”, which is “above all other churches”, being their “mother” and “whore” of the many “harlots” had altered the “book” (Bible, the OT and NT), in its texts and meanings, both adding and subtracting from it, have caused the “Gentiles” of the world to stumble in obedience to God, and thus all churches, and especially the church of the “devil”, that “abominable church”, were corrupt, and needed a prophet (Joseph Smith) to start again (hence receiving plates, etc). However, Joseph Smith, while saying that the 7th day is the Sabbath of the LORD God as scripture (Bible, OT & NT) teaches, yet practiced the sabbath as the first day of the week, after the “abominable church”, and her change of laws. It is a hypocritical theology in practice. The LDS church, from President on down, have no answer for this great CONTRADICTION. Their official religious sources, especially the “standard works” (BoM, D&C, PoGP, etc) all teach the 7th day is the sabbath of the LORD, including many of their own Presidents, Elders. They now try to utilize Roman Catholic (“abominable church) arguments, for a “change” in the “meridian dispensation” (after Revelation was written), and yet will still try to justify their contradictory practice by citing Acts 20:7 (see Links previously given in this lesson), Romans 14, etc, even though, their own Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Abraham, etc all say the opposite, in that the Apostles kept the commandments of God (Exodus 20:1-17), including the 7th day, the sabbath of the LORD, not upon the 1st day of the week. They are stuck using Papal reasoning, papal practice, even though Joseph Smith said that that church and all churches were in theological and practical error. The one thing that united all those “harlots” was the transgression of the 4th Commandment, Exodus 20:8-11, ignoring the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD thy God, and instead substituting (thus subtracting and adding to) the first day of the week in it’s place.

‘Pope’ Sylvester I - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14370a.htm

[Latin] “... Similiter et feriae a fando dicuntur, ob quam causam Silvester papa primus apud Romanos constituit ut dierum nomina quae antea secundum nomina deorum suorum vocabant, id est, Solis, Lunae, Martis, Mercurii, Veneris, Saturni, feria deinceps vocarent, id est, prima feria, secunda feria, tertia feria, quarta feria, quinta feria, sexta feria, quia in principio Genesis scriptum est quod Deus per singulos dies dixerit : prima, Fiat Lux; secunda, Fiat firmamentum; tertia, Producat terra herbam virentem, similiter, etc. Sabbatum autem antiquo legis vocabulo vocare praecepit, et primam feriam diem Dominicam, eo quod Dominus in illa resurrexit. Statuit autem idem papa ut otium sabbati magis in diem Dominicam transferretur, ut ea die a terrenis operibus ad laudandum Deum vacaremus, justa illud quod scriptum est : Vacate et videte, quoniam ego sum Deus (Psal. XLV). ...” - Beati Rabani Mauri, Fuldensis Abbatis et Moguntini Archiepiscopi, de Clericorum Institutione, ad Heistulphum Archiepiscopum; Libri Tres. (Anno 819.) Ad Fratres Fuldenses Epigramma Ejusdem; Liber Secundus, Caput XLVI. Column 361 (Left; PDF page 35) - http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0788-0856,_Rabanus_Maurus,_De_Clericorum_Institutione_Ad_Heistulphum_Archiepiscopum_Libri_Tres,_MLT.pdf

[Translated English] “... Pope Sylvester, first among the Romans, ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should call feriae thereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he [‘Pope’ Sylvester I] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead], Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the [counterfeit] Lord's day [Sunday; the real “Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10) is the 7th day the Sabbath of the LORD], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.7 ...” - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sylvester-I.htm

Roman Catholicism says:

“...But the [Roman Catholic] Church of God has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath should be transferred to “the [counterfeit] Lord's day [ie, they mean first day of the week, even though the real Lord’s day, Rev. 1:109; Isa. 58:13; Exo. 20:11 is the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD]:” …” [The Catechism of the Council of Trent; On The Third Commandment; pg 267] - http://www.archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n271/mode/2up/search/sabbath

“… the Sabbath … this commandment, … is not fixed and unalterable, but is susceptible of change … ” [The Catechism of the Council of Trent published by command of Pope Pius The Fifth, translated into English by the Rev. J. Donovon, Professor, &c Royal College, Maynooth; Baltimore: Published by Lucas Brothers. No. 170 Market Street; Printed By James Young, Baltimore; On The Third Commandment; pg 264] - http://www.archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n269/mode/2up/search/sabbath

Yet, the great Reformer Philip Melanchthon said:

Philip Melanchthon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Melanchthon ) on Daniel 7:25 -

[Old English] “... But what meaneth the aungell to saye: He shall s•arle or destroye ye hyghe sayn∣tis? verely els but that with his false doctryne capciouse othes articles / & in∣terrogacions he shall fraudelently de∣ceyue and trappe the simple innocents and shed their blode tyrannously. Also he shall arrogantly take vpon him & thin∣ke to change the state of tymes and la∣wes. He weneth to change ye tyme which with swerde and fyer thinketh to shorten the lyfe of man and to preuent and disa∣point gods infallible eternall and immu∣table prouidēce wherby he hath prefiyed euery manis tyme & houre of deth which as noman can differre or prolong it / so cā∣ne noman shorten nor preuent it / except men will make God an ignorant persone and so consequently no god at all. He chā∣geth the tymes and lawes that any of the [page 118-119] sixe worke dayes commanded of god will make them vnholy and idle dayes when he lyste / or of their owne holy dayes abo∣lisshed / make* worke dayes agen / & when they changed ye Saterday into Sondaye / of eting dayes fasting dayes / of mery and glad dayes to marye in / they can make so∣rowfull dayes forbiddinge maryages. They haue changed gods lawes and tur∣ned them into their owne tradiciōs to be kept aboue Gods preceptis. And as for their owne lawes they will change & bre∣ke them when they lyste. And this powr shal anticrist haue whether it be for long or shorte tyme. For so miche sowneth the Hebrew phrase / which is for a tyme / a lyt∣le whyle / & half a tyme / signifyinge that Anticryst shall make lawes to stande as long and as shorte tyme as he listeth and the tymes will he order / sett and change at his owne plesur. But is it not onely ye office of god to chang tymes and lawes? Here is therfore the prophecye fulfylled of him. Euen to exalt himselfe aboue all thing that god is called. This text. But the hyghe saynts he shall tangle trappe & destroye and arrogantly thinke to chan∣ge the tymes and lawes &c. is of diuerse lerned men diuersely translated. ...” - (The Exposicion of Daniel the Prophete Gathered oute of Philip Melanchton, Johan Ecolampadius, Chonrade Pellicane [and] out of Johan Draconite (1545); page 118-119) - https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A04696.0001.001/1:11?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

https://archive.org/details/TheExposicionOfDanielThePropheteGatheredOuteOfPhilipMelanchtonJohan/page/n118/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/TheExposicionOfDanielThePropheteGatheredOuteOfPhilipMelanchtonJohan/page/n119/mode/1up

[Modern English] “… But what does the angel (Gabriel) mean to say: He shall wear out (persecute) or destroy the high (heavenly) saints (holy persons) (Daniel 7:25)? Verily (truly) (what) else (is it) but that with his false doctrine and capricious (unaccountable changes of) other articles (of faith & practice) & (with) interrogations (subtle questionings) he shall fraudulently deceive and trap the simple innocents and shed their blood, tyrannously. Also he shall arrogantly take upon him(self) and think to change the state of times and laws. He thinks to change the time, which with (the) fire and sword (of persecution), thinks to shorten the life of man(kind) and to prevent and disappoint God’s infallible, eternal and immutable providence whereby he (God) has prefixed every man’s time and hour of death which no man (anyone of mankind) can defer (delay) or prolong (extend) it, so can no man (anyone of mankind) shorten, nor prevent it, except men (anyone of mankind) will make God an ignorant person and so consequently no ‘God’ at all. He changes the times and laws that any of the [page 118-119] six work days commanded of God will make them unholy and idle days when he wills (desires by reason, “thinks”), or of their own ‘holy days’ (liturgical festal calendar days, like ‘lent’, &c) abolished, make work days again, and when they changed the Saturday (the 7th Day of the week in common, not technicality, as the days of God, are sunset to sunset (“even unto even”), not midnight to midnight (Roman times)) into Sunday (the 1st day of the week in common, not technicality), of eating (feasting) days (and) fasting days, of merry (celebratory) and glad days to marry in, they can make sorrowful days (even) forbidding marriages (1 Timothy 4:3). They have changed God’s laws and turned them into their own traditions to be kept above God’s precepts. And as for their own laws, they will change and break them when they will (desire by reason, “thinks”). And this power (authority) shall Anti-Christ (Latin: Vicarius Christi; koine Greek: Anti Christos) have, whether it be for (a) long or (a) short time. For so much shows (reveals) the Hebrew phrase, which is for a time, a little while (times), and a half a time, signifying that Anti-Christ shall make laws to stand as long and as short (of) time as he wills (desires by reason, “thinks”), and the times will he order, set and change at his own pleasure. But is it not only the office (position and prerogative) of God to change times and laws (Daniel 2:21; Acts 17:26)? Here is therefore the prophecy fulfilled of him (Anti-Christ). Even to exalt himself above everything that God is called (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4). This text, But the high (heavenly) saints (holy persons) he (Anti-Christ) shall tangle (ensnare), trap and destroy, and arrogantly think to change the times and laws, etc.; is of diverse (differing) men diversely (differently) translated. …” William Ambrose Spicer (SDA, 1918), Our day in the light of prophecy and providence, page 154 - https://archive.org/details/ourdayinlightofp00spic/page/154/mode/1up

Stephen Bohr (SDA), Studies On Daniel (PDF), page 175 - http://secretsunsealed.org/content/PDF_downloads/All of Pastor Bohr's Study Notes/BDAN.pdf

Roy Allen Anderson (SDA), Unveiling Daniel And Revelation, page 95 - https://books.google.as/books?id=ABuq_yAvNhkC&dq=Roy+Allen+Anderson+Phillip+Melanchthon&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Roy+Allen+Anderson+Phillip+Melanchthon

H.F. Thomas, Chancellor Of Cardinal Gibbons:

"Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [solemnity of the 7th day Sabbath to Sunday the first day of the week] was her act ... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things."

The Faith of Millions, By the Reverend John A. O'Brien, Ph.D, copyright 1938, Published by Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indian, Pages 397-398,401,403

"The attendance at [Sunday] Mass is the mark of a practical Catholic. ... the worship of God and demands the attendance at Sunday Mass every Catholic worthy of the name."

Dictionary of the Liturgy, Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM., Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1989

"Distinctive of the Roman Catholic Church, Sunday Mass observance became a mark of a practicing Catholic."

Greek Orthodox:

"... Sunday as a Mark of Christian Unity ...

... In order to fully appreciate Sunday as a mark of Christian unity we must expand our definition of unity." [by Rev. Dr. Demetrios E. Tonias – Dean, Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England] - http://www.ldausa.org/lda/sunday-as-a-mark-of-christian-unity/

65.167.226.11 (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Biblical references to the Sabbath Day

Is there something wrong with using the {{bibleverse}} template for this section? The last reversion removes all of the templates... I don't see any possible reason for not having the links. Ansell 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing links to external projects because it will divert traffic is not a valid reason. Reverting because of that. Ansell 11:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NOT. rv'd There appears to have been an edit overwrite/conflict earlier as I did not see your comment previously, nor delete it. --Vamp:Willow 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out what part of WP:NOT tells people to avoid using the bibleverse template to reference bible verses? Ansell 11:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think our goal should be to link internally, in this case to Wikisource, when possible. There is no need for us to augment traffic to other websites, when we can direct it to our own. Danny 11:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So deleting the templates does that how? It just removes easy access to the references. Its like removing a website link and saying, copy and paste this in. If wikisource has modern versions of the bible, and as many as available through {{bibleverse}} then why haven't the links been translated, not simply removed as they were. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files number 1. This isn't about the *Template*, per se, but about the fact that at the present time that template inserts external links. --Vamp:Willow 11:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not giving a "list" or repository of links. That part of policy is meant for putting in multiple links that are not valid as references, why not discuss this on the bibleverse talk page instead of removing the links here. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An *external* link to the text of the verse concerned can hardly be callsed a useful "reference" though. The target page has commercial elements on it too; indeed the text being referred to forms only a small part of that page. WP is not a link-farm --Vamp:Willow 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So an external link that has advertising is not classed as a reference? The text is the part of the page that is being referenced. As I said before, dont remove the way wikipedia "could" link to the verses, get the place they link to changed. Please keep the variety that is currently available with bibleverse though.Ansell 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, biblegateway.com doesn't have any commercial banners on it. It has one reference to a commercial company on it, in reference to keeping the website in business. It is a related company at that, a bible seller. Ansell 12:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem witht he {{bibleverse}} template, take it up on the Template talk:bibleverse page or WP:AfD. MyNameIsNotBob 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NotBob, did you mean WP:TfD??? Ansell 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this discussion because I have Essjay's page on my watchlist for reasons I've forgotten now. It seems to me that the {{bibleverse}} template should stay until there is a Wiki source for the same content. I think it is useful and consistent with guidelines and policies on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's keep the bibleverse tags in. Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep bibleverse until there is a useful internal alternative, NIV at the minimum, KJV is out of date and used by few Christians today.209.78.19.253 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many churches still use the KJV because it can be more accurate in most cases compared to others such as NIV... Some of these bibles like the NIV or the ASV, in fact most new translations take whole verses out and in a couple of cases whole chapters out of the bible.... KJV scriptures should be kept in my opinion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexme (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 May 2006.

Could you point to some references for your claims? Such as for the many churches claim, and to some notable removals of verses in some new translations? Ansell 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are missing verses and changed language for sure, but this is because the documentary evidence nowadays shows the occasional ancient copyist would embellish with his own ideas. The older documents we have that are much more reliable went into the NIV, whereas the KJV was based on more recent and less sound documentation. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vers1.htm for a comparison. The NIV should be used when possible. Vincent Valentine 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions: Mark 16, Western Acts, Pericope_Adulteræ, Comma_Johanneum, Additions to Luke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.20.61 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 May 2006.

With the exception of Western Acts, I believe that the other cases are included in the NIV but noted as objectively as possible to describe their history. The "Additions to Luke" are also as objective as possible given the total supply that was used to compile the NIV compared to the KJV. I believe that something compiled using more sources is much more likely to be closer to the truth. Hence I also recommend that the NIV be the standard version to use. KJV is not acceptable as the only possibility in a new system given that we have so many now to choose from. Ansell 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another page listing 40 missing or changed verses is http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

Main important verses missing in the NIV: Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (ALL 12 verses MISSING!!!)... Why are these 12 verses missing... Maybe the translators didn't like them, who knows?

John 5:4 "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." COMPLETELY removed. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?

Romans 16:24 - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." Sounds like a good verse why is it missing?

In the NIV I John 5:7 says,

NIV "For there are three that testify:"

Instead of KJV "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This verse listed in the KJV affirms the whole belief of the TRINITY where is it in the NIV? Do they not like the TRINITY? Well I know what Bible I will be using...

--Alexme 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are more personally comfortable with a particular point of view says nothing of that point of view's accuracy. It is unfortunate that the documentary evidence does not support your preferred beliefs and preconceived notions, but comfort is not a reason to ignore a conclusion reached by the weight of available evidence. The NIV is the edition we ought to use. The links right now point to the NKJV, I will try to fix that later. Vincent Valentine 13:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about comfort it's what I think God would prefer the whole Bible... not just parts of it... God's word says we shouldn't add or take from the Bible, the NIV Bible had done that.. If you choose to use the NIV because of the clarity of it's that's fine, no more arguments from me. --Alexme 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read the NIV actually reverts additions to the bible that happened in the few centuries after Christs death. It goes back to the earliest known sources to determine this, sources which were not available to the KJV scholars. I am sure the KJV was the best interpretation that was available at the time, but we know more now. Ansell 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, if not many, Eastern Orthodox would prefer the King James line (new King James preferably) because it follows the "majority text" (aka textus receptus) instead of other translations that aim for antiquity. Similarly, we prefer the Septuagint over either the Masoretic text or the Dead Sea scrolls (note that the New Testament authors also quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew). It's a question of whether or not you trust the ongoing editing community or not. Orthodox would tend to say that the Septuagint and textus receptus have been refined, made to say what was originally intended. What becomes accepted by the whole Church is also important to us, individual texts possibly being aberrant. Roman Catholics would tend to agree, I would think (correct me if I'm wrong). Some Protestants, on the other hand, would see the continual editing as intervening interpretation to be avoided. They try to get back to the original author's intent. Likewise, they would view majority acceptance as irrelevant because they don't trust the editing body. The "correctness" of one translation over another will be colored by your interpretive community.

Of course, there are other reasons to not prefer a certain translation. The NIV, for instance, is either preferred or discarded because of the way in which it was edited. Having so many people working on disparate sets of scriptures makes for either a good common denominator, or a monstrous patchwork of differing theological positions.

No one translation should be used for this page. If representing the Orthodox opinion, supporting verses should be in NKJV. Likewise, a viewpoint dependent on the NIV translation should use NIV verses to support it. Sometimes the difference in POV can be traced (at least partially) to the sources you are using -- such an observation might be valuable content for this page.

BTW, saying that one version "took verses out" or another "put verses in" is merely an appeal to one's own POV. You could similarly say that the first appropriately left out unique inventions and the second preserved an otherwise missing text. Certainly you can't say that the NIV modified the text of the KJV or vice versa, it's simply not true (the former wasn't their MO, the latter isn't possible chronologically).

An appeal for "this or that translation is correct" is usually, IMHO, a masked battle for the correctness of one's theology, ecclesiology, etc... If theology or ecclesiology (or other) is at issue, then let's talk about that and not the intermediate issue of translation. Translation without interpretation is impossible.

(an Eastern Orthdox, who as a Protestant, studied under NIV translators) Epte 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the Bible, the Sabbath is a weekly religious day of rest as ordained by one of the Ten Commandments: the third commandment by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Lutheran numbering, the fourth by other Protestants" you need to add "and Jews" to this, as they use the Biblical reference that places it as fourth also.

Change From Saturday to Sunday as a Holy Day

Hi, folks. Someone created this new article about the Saturday/Sunday switch in Christianity, which seems to be mostly original research and may overlap with the Saturday vs. Sunday section here. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether to suggest a merge or whatnot, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Feeeshboy 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After no attempts were made to save the content, the PROD warning expired. So, nevermind... Feeeshboy 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Sabbatarianism

Call me crazy, but shouldn't " arguments for Sabbatarianism" go in the Sabbatarianism page? Epte 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? I've read this (and the preceding paragraph) several times and I don't think it makes any sense. I don't want to remove it if the information is important, but could someone please remove it or rewrite it so that a reasonable literate person could understand it. It is in the New Testament Arguments for Sabbatarianism section -Diego Gravez 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another consideration can be given to Biblical Typology. This is taking into consideration stories told in the Bible that have happened, and how the same story might show relevance at a later time such as 1st) CREATION WEEK of 7 days 2nd) the time span of humanly recorded History as reckoned by some people. James Ussher placed creation of man (not earth's creation as it was already in eixstence when man was created)) at 4004 B.C. and it has been 2000 + years into "Anno Domini" "In the Year of the Lord" see Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8. This example shows a connection between creation week and the span of time humanity has existed since creation week.

SDA POV

I have worked hard over the last couple of days to remove the SDA POV. Hopefully I have been successful. As such, I am removing the NPOV tag from the article, but adding a cleanup tag to the Seventh-day sabbatarian section, which is still very messy. Tonicthebrown 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

what does sda and cog mean?

???Seventh Day Adventist Point of View??? ???Church of God??

We really need to rein in the sda's on any article to do with the sabbath or sunday or anything related to it. The article just becomes an apologetic for sda teachings and all to often a chance for some catholic bashing. How about we find someone who isn't sda to write it?

I'm not SDA and I wrote a good deal of it. I'll admit many SDAs and COG have been coming to inject their doctrines as incorrigible truth but I've tried to keep the article relatively NPOV. Can you point out specific issues with any parts of it? I'd be glad to help revise sections you find to be POV. Vincent Valentine 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section needs to be revised:

[The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the early Church met on Sunday according to its own authority, and not on the basis of any Scriptural mandate to do so. Although of no official standing, the Keenan's Doctrinal Catechism, a Catholic Catechism, declares that there is no scriptural basis for first day observance: "Q; Have you any other way of proving that the [Roman] Church has power to institute festivals? A: Had she not such power she could not have instituted one in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day of the week. A change for which there is no Scriptural authority"

Other Roman Catholic sources can be cited, to show that according to the Catholic Church, there is no scriptural basis for neglecting Saturday observance: "Nowhere in the bible do we find that Jesus or the apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is, the seventh day of the week, Saturday. Today, most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman] church outside the bible." (Catholic Virginian, Oct. 3, 1947)]

Sda's have a nasty habit of using obscure quotes. Why not use the official catechism of the catholic church instead of an old out of date one? You don't have to go to the Catholic Virginian which is merely a diocesan newspaper. The sda's want it to appear that catholicism is cavalier when it comes to scripture. Here is what the offical catechism says:

[ The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."[104] Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,[105] it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday: We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.[106] Sunday- fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:[107] Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.[108] 2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."[109] Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."[110]

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.[112] The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another."[113] Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer.... Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.... We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."[114]]

You can also use the cited footnotes. I think this is much more accurate then the unofficial resources quoted in the article.

There are some other very official quotes that are quoted stating that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. I will be happy to share them with you or you can see many of them for yourselves at Light Ministries. Most Catholics that I know are proud of the fact that the man that they follow (the Pope) has the power to change the day of worship. If you believe that the Pope is the Vicar or substitute of Jesus Christ, then you must believe that he has the power to do this. So whether the quote is from an obscure but valid source such as the Catholic Virginian or else from more recent, less obscure, and official sources such as The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine or Canon and Tradition or Catechism Made Easy or The Catholic Encyclopedia, which all state that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, it matters not. The Catholic church is not shy about admitting to making this change, and since it is NOT shy, why should you be upset about the fact that they did?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist. Studied in Rome and uses that as a bid for legitimacy. He is certainly biased.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi is an Italo-American scholar who has studied and lived in several countries. He was born and brought up in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the Vatican wall. For his college education he went to England where he earned a B. A. degree in Theology at Newbold College. From England he came to America for his graduate studies and earned a M. A. and a B. D. degrees at Andrews University Theological Seminary. Upon completing his seminary training in 1964, he went with his wife, Anna, to Ethiopia where he served for five years as Bible and History teacher.

In 1969 Dr. Bacchiocchi returned to his native city of Rome to study at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, where he was the first non-Catholic to be admitted in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of summa cum laude for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday.

After completing his doctorate in 1974, Dr. Bacchiocchi was invited to teach in the Religion Department of Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He has served at Andrews for 26 years as Professor of Theology and Church History until his retirement on July 2000.

Dr. Bacchiocchi is more than qualified to make legitimate, intelligent, and well-researched contributions. What makes you think that he is a biased apologist?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I notice COGwriter has made contributions. He is a member of an Armstrong offshoot group. A rather small sectarian movement. Like sda's they are very biased and their scholarship is...interesting for lack of a better word. They have their blinders on.

Thank GOD someone finally agrees with me. I kept saying that but we'd just get in revert wars and it was going nowhere. I completely agree, the obscure SDA quote thing is 100% accurate, this is a common method, kinda like quoting a single scientist who says "evolution is bunk" when you have a million voices screaming the opposite behind him. Let's revise, remove the obscure quotes and add official catechism quotes and footnotes, shall we? I can't get to it tonight but I will try tomorrow.

I'm also aware of COGWriter's additions and his unorthodox sect. I never agreed with any of his work but I didn't have the background to debunk it. I was very cautious of his additions and many of them seemed borderline POV to me. I figured I'd let it slide until someone came along with more knowledge on the subject.

Vincent Valentine 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to help. I did some checking on COG and his degrees are not in theological studies. He is an ex-Catholic. Obviously his pov is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who are not sabbatarians. His denomination is a splinter of a splinter. Of course for them the Pope is the anti-Christ etc. Not exactly mainstream. In the interest of full disclosure I am a Catholic priest with several degrees and am currently studying at a Pontifical University for my Licentiate. I also was a Presbyterian minister in a previous incarnation with a graduate degree from a Protestant seminary as well as my Catholic seminary training. If you need it I can ask some of the finest scripture and patristic scholars in the world to check facts, but I don't think COG or the sda's would like it. I was just looking around and discovered this entry. I wondered if the sda's were trying to stake a claim. It is important that this be as objective as possible. I don't mind having their pov recognized, but they can't be allowed to falsify the other pov. Thanks for helping to keep this entry accurate.

I chagned the section you mentioned. Let me know if it's any better now, I did try to keep it NPOV and in line with the Catechism. I'd be glad to rewrite/revise/reconsider any parts.

I've kept a personal eye on this article since I figured it would be a hotbed for sectarian activity since many new Christianity splinter cells are based entirely on Sabbatarianism and most older churches have considered the issue long since settled and likely wouldn't even think to visit let alone edit an article on Sabbath observance. To them, I conjectured, it would seem as silly as putting contemporary Christian arguments in a kosher eating section. As I thought this article has, at various times, become an intense battleground between smaller splinter sect representatives and ... well, me. I can attest that Godwin's law is 100% accurate. :-P

Hopefully my newest edits are helpful. Vincent Valentine 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to bad. It makes things clearer. Also it omits the unofficial texts for something that is endorsed by the Church. Maybe you could refer them to paragraph 2174ff, so they can refer to the whole section of the catechism on the sabbath if they are interested. You are correct this is a battleground. Some of these groups have staked their souls on it and view Catholicism as the archenemy. They tie the two issues together. Ah, the stories I could tell. But I think this is much improved. Be aware that the Lewis book they mention is a 1903 work of uncertain reputation. SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own. I actually caught them using the elipse to omit part of a quote and made the quote say the opposite of what the author intended. When I pointed it out they shrugged and refused to correct it. If I think of anything else that might be useful I will let you know. Btw, the is the first time I have really made a contribution to wikipedia, hooray.

I made the change as to what I think you meant, if I messed up please feel free to fix it (I'll be honest -- I've never quoted an official catechism before :-P). Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Christianity splinter cells," "His denomination is a splinter of a splinter," "Not exactly mainstream." Careful, Christianity itself started as a small (acts 1:15) sect known by the Jews as "The Way" (Acts 24:14,22). Christ Himself declares that it is the minority that will find life (Matt 7:13-14; Matt 22:14). "SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own." This is sadly true many times even in my own experience, and I do agree that good sources should be expected. "Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist." As a priest are you not an apologist for your church as well? While you may be loyal to the ex cathedra position of your church, I certainly don't recognize that authority. And while I don't have a clue what this "Lewis" book is, to simply say of "uncertain reputation," doesn't tell me any reason why one way or the other. Without a rationale, and no it doesn't matter how may degrees you have, positions taken up against Sabbatarianism can be just as fickle. I gather by your statements you have had or known negative experiences with Sabbatarians, particularly SDAs; consider that SDAs may have their own stories to tell on the opposite side. Further, a large part of the negative position that various Protestants have with the Catholic system is the knowledge of its past persecution, by way of inquisition, and the concern that as it gains its power back, and I personally believe it inevitably will gain it back, so also will open persection begin afresh. Before running with picking out specific groups for labeling Catholicism as anti-Christ, consider that it doesn't take much to find that Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers said as much as well. Don't think that I hate Catholics, there are many at my place of work and I love them all. As to why some Sabbatarians resort to old sources, this is due to the observation that over the last ~200 years there has been a shift in mainstream Protestantism from opposition to Catholicism to embracing it; a stellar example would be the presence of the US President at the funeral of the late John Paul II; simply, they don't trust modern scholarship because they believe it has turned a blind eye to the past and contains a bias in the present. Wintermancer 07:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We are just saying their groups are splinters and don't represent mainstream thought. These splinter groups tend to be illogical and fanatical, and positively hostile toward anyone who disagrees with them. Trust me, I've been called many nasty names on this talk page alone when just asking for fact-checking and reliable sources.

I'm simply saying that we need to watch out for them to insidiously infect the article with their POV throughout its contents. I'm not saying their POV should be ignored or that they are vandalizing lunatics just because they are part of a small sect. All I'm saying is that if someone is a convicted pedophile, you wouldn't put them in charge of a daycare. This has nothing to do with us trying to exclude others or force our POV on the article, it is simply us trying to maintain neutrality in this article which easily becomes a battleground between various warring sects. Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vincent, maybe you should simply post all the catechism paragraphs I cited above. Together they explain why Catholicism rejects the sabbatarian position. And it does so in a nonpolemical way. I don't see how anyone could object.

Wintermancer, I suppose I could refer you to the Protestant inquisitions. Ask the Catholic Irish how they were treated. Perhaps read about the English martyrs. Maybe the last 200 years has been good for all of us. It is nice the President would go to the Popes funeral. I suppose I am an apologist, but a relatively benign one. You on the other hand accuse us of nefariously planning to kill you and all your Protestant brethren. Please share with us the evidence of this coming Catholic persecution. You simply prove my point by such absurd statements. Yes, I have had bad experiences with sda's. I don't care for bigots of any stripe. Especially I don't like it when they misrepresent or even lie about my beliefs. Truthfulness should transcend ones individual bias. My desire here was to ensure that our reasons for worshipping on the Lord's Day were accurately stated. The catechism does that well and it avoids the typical strawman approach favored by anti-Catholics.

I considered posting the whole catechism section but I was concerned about going off-track and adding to article bloat (which I'm afriad this article already suffers). Feel free to revise my edits if you like, you're certainly more qualified to talk about the Catholic position on the Sabbath than I am. Vincent Valentine 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the change and just put in the sections of the catechism. I figured that it would speak for itself without commentary. At the very least it says what we really believe. Hopefully this is adequate.

It's a shame that you took out legitimate sources, of which I can name a hundred more, and only put in part of the Catholic Catechism. Just because a source is old or local doesn't mean that it is not a valid source. The Catechism itself states that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia. If the Catholic church is proud of this fact, why are you so loathe to allow any sources be cited to this affect on this page? Are you ashamed of what your church is not? --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge / Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I propose Sabbath (the english version of the word) incorporate the other variations of the word, since they all share the same etymology, and it would also help to avoid edit disputes and duplication of effort. Comments anyone? --Rebroad 11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Though these articles are related in concept they should be kept separate due to the basic and fundamental differences about them. One is about the Christian day of rest and the other is about the Jewish day of rest. Merging them would create confusion and chaos. Yaanch^Speak! 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy disagree. Rebroad, have you read the pages in question? They are full of encyclopedic content that is not suitable for merging. Oh, and I see you started Chip on shoulder. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• No way. It's a huge article! - Y (Y NOT?) 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. Though the word is basically the same, the concepts & their practical consequences are completely apart from each other. A merger would be akin to trying to undertake a Theology course by attending classes alternatively in a Yeshiva one day and in a Christian Seminary the next. Guess what would be the outcome! --AVM 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Disagree. Article contains too much encyclopedic content on its own to be merged. Also agree with AVM. --Smokizzy 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - for reasons already stated above. I think it is necessary to have 2 separate articles for a concept in 2 different religions. Tonicthebrown 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree the disambig at the top works fine. the word sabbath (sah-bauth) and shabbath (sha-baut) have very different connotations that make them distinct. While they have the same etymology they are still very different words and ideas. Jon513 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Disagree. If you merge the two, you're going risk having the Jewish community go crazy on the topic. For example, take a look at the Passover wikipedia article. The Jews will absolutely not allow any non-Jewish commentary on Passover, period. In fact they've forced any other views into another junk "Passover (Christian holiday)" article. If people are worried about groups such as SDA or COG or others and their influence on this article; you haven't seen anything once the Jews decide they're going to own it. They use Jewish Wikipedia admins to block others out annonymous or not, I've seen it personally...it's just a really bad idea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.100.241 (talk)
• Disagree because the Shabbat article is not about a "dictionary" definition, it's about the day that is holiest to Judaism, the Jewish RELIGION, and it has unique sources, laws, observances, customs, and a history all of its own that merits and justifies its long-established status as "Shabbat." The Shabbat article is the lead article for Category:Shabbat with many articles in it and many being added constantly. Would User:Rebroad now also propose to eliminate Category:Shabbat? That would be a fine joke indeed! P.S. This discussion was also held once-upon-a-time and it was decided that it was best that the Shabbat article be created as a separate article NOT to be conjoined or merged with any "Sabbath" articles. In any case this proposal is a huge joke that shows that it's based on ignorance of the subject matter. For example, there are multiple articles that are DIRECTLY connected to the Shabbat article only and could not exist without it, such as Special Sabbaths, Kiddush as well as everything connected with the Shabbat Torah readings (Parshas, and Maftirs and Haftarahs) all contained in Category:Weekly Torah readings. IZAK 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree As Yaanch points out, as used in English and described in the articles, Sabbath in Christianity describes a Christian holiday and Shabbat a Jewish one. Merging would seem to be a bit like merging Bar Mitzvah with Confirmation, Brit Milah with Circumcision, or Kohen with Priest. Also, as AVM points out, there is enough content involved that were the articles merged right now, the total would be too big and we'd be looking for ways to split it up into sub-articles. Finally, not sure what merge proposal has to do with WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since both articles clearly address different encyclopedic concepts in an encyclopedic fashion. Indeed, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY would seem to be a strong argument against basing article merge decisions on dictionary definitions. I simply don't understand how it is being used as an argument in favor. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree per arguments already stated. The two articles address different concepts and are not mergeable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --eLeigh33 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Absolutely no merging. Just because they look like cognates doesn't make them the same thing. --Khanele 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree ABSOULTY NOT! If you have read both articals, they are of two different religions and two different holidays. None of the page content is duplicated, and there is no posible way to merge them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.249.109 (talk)
• Strongly Disagree - Christian tradition has, for many people, given "Sabbath" a different meaning to "Shabat". r.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.157.71 (talk)
• Comment - I disagree with the merge just like all above. However the articles seem like POV forks to me. I agree with the nominator that while the concepts are quite different, the colloquial English term for Shabbat is "Sabbath", the etymologies and origins are the same, and that this article should cover all nuances of the word Sabbath in common usage. I agree with everyone else that a merger is not needed, but I propose that a short summary-style paragraph on Shabbat be included in this article, with a {{main}} link to Shabbat as a legitimate content fork. Colin MacLaurin 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) There is a common POV shared by Jews and Christians from Creation right through to the time of Jesus, regarding Sabbath. I suggest content forks after that time. Colin MacLaurin 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the same reasons, I think Passover in the Christian tradition, such as the NT view of Passover, ought to be mentioned in the Passover article. 2 billion Christians in the world constitute a significant POV. Passover is the commonly used English word, so should serve all definitions. A fork to "Pesach" or similar title about contemporary Jewish observance with a summary left behind could be justified. Colin MacLaurin 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

The overwhelming consensus here is that there should be no attempt to merge the articles on Christian sabbath and Jewish sabbath, which in reality are two separate topics. However, Rebroad and Colin MacLaurin have legitimately pointed out that the etymology of Sabbath and Shabbat are the same. Therefore, there is genuine potential for confusion. To deal with these concerns, I have renamed the "Sabbath" article to Sabbath in Christianity, and replaced "Sabbath" with a disambiguation page. This parallels what has been done with Faith in Christianity, Hell in Christianity and other similar issues. In addition, it removes the implication that Christianity has a greater claim than Judaism on the word "Sabbath"—this was a problem with the previous state of affairs. I hope that satisfies everyone. Tonicthebrown 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructure proposal

The flow of the page seems awkward. I propose some restructuring. How about two major divisions:

• a "History" section of various movements and POVs regarding the Sabbath, including the ancient Hebrew views and that of the Hebrew Bible/OT, then branching into various POVs. One: Sabbath/Sunday in early Christianty through to modern views concluding in a (brief) mention of the impact major events of modern scholarship have made their mark on history. Another is a contemporary Jewish POV if it differs from the ancient concept or biblical view.
• a "Theology" or Arguments section. This would include all the variations of forms of Saturday/Sunday keeping, and most importantly the major scholarly views to back up information which is currently uncited and hence presented as original research.

Currently sections on Saturday and Sunday are separated. I propose that these be combined into a single coherent history section, so that the interaction between the two is more apparent. I also suggest a brief "Cultural references" section at the end, which would mention sabbatical year and also the use of "sabbath" in other religions apart from Judaism and Christianity (could be kept brief if the idea is to keep this as an Abrahamic religions POV article). (I don't suppose the Friday prayer in Islam has any relation?) Colin MacLaurin 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article needs 4 main sections: (1) Outline of early church history, documenting the decline of Sabbath observance and rise of Sunday worship; (2) A section about sunday observance, which includes some history as well as a more extensive focus on contemporary practice among various Christian denominations; (3) A section about contemporary Saturday-sabbatarianism, where we can include SDA and COG points of view and arguments; (4) A section about non-Sabbatarianism (i.e. the Christian opinion that we are not under law and therefore do not need to keep a sabbath).

I am prepared to work on (1) and (2) when I have more time (i.e. in mid-semester break). Personally, I would hesitate to include much Hebrew/Jewish content since this is already covered in Shabbat, and this article is specifically about the Christian POV. Tonicthebrown 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Colin MacLaurin 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that point (4) above, non-Sabbatarianism, is actually the majority view among Christians today? Would someone please comment. Also, there are some notable individual Christians who keep a Sabbath, but not on either Saturday nor Sunday (I have some to add). I have not read it yet, but I understand that From Sabbath to Lord's Day edited by Don Carson actually contains different POVs - some contributors believe in Sunday Sabbath, others believe that the day does not matter. Colin MacLaurin 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only comment on Australian protestantism. In my experience, most Anglicans do not believe we have to keep a Sabbath, or that it is a matter of personal choice (as per Romans 14). Presbyterians tend to be stronger on Sunday=Sabbath. Baptists can go either way, though my observation is that they are increasingly less sabbatarian. Not too sure about Pentecostals, though I suspect they are not very sabbatarian either. Out of quite a large number of Christians I know, very few (if any) would object to working on sunday, or playing sport, or shopping, etc. Anyone else have any observations? Tonicthebrown 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that the predominant view of Mosaic Law among Australian evangelicals (particularly Anglicanism) is that it should not be divided into moral/ceremonial, but that the whole Law is fulfilled in Christ. So none of Exodus-Deuteronomy applies today as binding Law; our task is to seek out the underlying principles for modern application. This means that some laws (eg. do not commit adultery) are more directly applicable, whereas others (including the sabbath) are less directly applicable.Tonicthebrown 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sabbath" POVs

I can think of many different possible beliefs about "Sabbath": Friday sunset to Saturday sunset; midnight to midnight Saturday; Sunday (is there variation in the time periods?); any day or 24-hour period as a Sabbath; no Sabbath necessary but spiritualised. There is a big difference even among Sunday/Lord's Day POVs - Sabbatarian-Sunday observers; and those who worship on Sunday but do not observe it as a day of rest. Also different beliefs about Sabbath in context of Lord's Day interpretations - Sabbath is Saturday and should be observed; Sunday and should be observed; or Saturday but obselete and Sunday should be observed as the Lord's Day; Saturday but both days should be observed; Saturday but spiritualised and no longer needed; Saturday but any 24-period OK (perhaps). Presumably some are more significants POVs than others, and others may be primarily historical with little or no representation today. I look forward to this information, together with answers, being integrated into the article eventually. Colin MacLaurin 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History of modern Sabbatarian movement

Sorry Colin, but I'm removing this paragraph because I think it is misleading:

The modern Sabbatarian movement primarily traces its history to the Adventist movement sparked by Baptist layman William Miller in the mid 1800s; a movement which was characterized by questioning traditional Biblical interpretation.

It seems to suggest that Miller originated Sabbath-keeping when actually the truth is that Sabbath-keeping started with the Seventh-day Baptists and was spread to (some of) Miller's descendants via Rachel Oakes Preston and T. M. Preble. Also, it implies that the SDA church is the exclusive body which is keeping saturday Sabbath today, when in fact there are almost certainly other (albeit much more smaller) groups who keep the Sabbath who don't trace their lineage back to Miller. Tonicthebrown 08:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to suggest that the Millerites originated Sabbath-keeping. Certainly, they derived it from the Seventh Day Baptists, who in turn got it from other groups, and so on. My source for this information was a website, which is why I didn't cite it (yes, all major Wikipedia additions should be cited, and I was hoping it would be eventually, but then again this page is very poorly cited overall ATM). It was not a Seventh-day Adventist source, and I don't think it was Millerite or Adventist at all (if it was one could suspect bias). I believe the statement is accurate. For example, The Worldwide Church of God traces back to the Millerite movement (please note I'm not saying they are Millerite, nor that they actually started then). Of course the Seventh-day Adventist Church is descended from the Millerites. The two earliest founders of the True Jesus Church were SDA or had read SDA theology. Their belief in the Sabbath was confirmed by a seventh day Church of God missionary (another Millerite group). Colin MacLaurin 10:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a statement like this is included, there needs to be a very clear explanation that Sabbatarianism per se did not come from the original Miller movement (which was sunday keeping), and that it was a post-Miller/post-1844 development. There would also have to be a clear definition of what exactly is meant by "the modern Sabbatarian movement". Otherwise there would be a hazard of creating historical inaccuracy. Sabbatarianism should not be regarded as a bizzare 19th century innovation, but rather as something which had been around for 2 centuries prior.

I think it is important to keep in mind that historical Seventh-day Adventism is a conglomeration of ideas and theologies which derive from diverse backgrounds. Sabbatarianism comes from the Seventh-day Baptists, the prophetic/premillennial system from the Millerites, free will soteriology from the Methodists, sacramental theology from the Baptists, Arianism and Christology from the Christian connexion, soul sleep and annihilationism from somewhere else. Even if there is a (small) link between the True Jesus Church and SDAism in terms of sabbatarianism, I very much doubt that that there much about the TJC that could be called "Millerite"! Even the pre-reformed WWCOG seems to have had very little overlap with Millerite theology! Hence I would be very hesitant to make much of a connection between Millerism and Sabbatarianism -- they are separate categories as far as I'm concerned Tonicthebrown 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfair Removal

Hello. I would really like to talk to someone about how to post to this site without getting my postings immediately deleted. I added a large amount of content to this topic and within minutes, it had been deleted, cited for reason of Original Research. My subject matter was not original research, and was well cited, and the person who deleted the information did not even have time to read everything I input before he deleted. I went back in and added back in one paragraph, again citing my sources, and I added a link to the external links. Again, within a couple of hours, someone else deleted my information, and also my link. This time I received a message saying that I was spamming. The link in question is http://www.sabbathtruth.com. It is a webpage full of the history of the Sabbath. It is not spam and has plenty of wonderful information concerning the topic of the page. My paragraph that was deleted stated "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia. I have written and asked what exactly I need to do to get this information posted, but have received no response so far. I certainly want to stay within the Wikipedia guidelines for posting, but I cannot see what I have done wrong. Any help or suggestions in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kimberlie Currier, Ph.D.

Other removals

Was it really correct to revert these edits? At least some of the content seemed good to me, although I don't know much about the Seventh Day Baptists. Colin MacLaurin 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article appears to be a favorite of anonymous editors and vandals. Over time, it has acquired a distinctly polemical character in favor of seventh-day observance, so that readability and credibility have suffered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ToDo

1. When catholic sources are cited for polemical purposes by a seventh-day apologist, the source (and thus, its polemical purpose) should be clarified. This mis-identification of sources is the principal weakness of the article. For example, instead of claiming "catholic sources freely admit that they are cavalier regarding scripture's authority (references) ", the article should state, "seventh-day apologists cite catholic sources with the intention of showing them to be cavalier regarding scripture's authority (references)". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Cite credible and general sources rather than obscure and narrow ones. Mis-use of sources seriously weakens the credibility of the article. If a narrow source is cited (such as a church newsletter!), make sure that it is cited only for a narrow purpose (such as, proving that such and such is the view of a certain priest in Alganac Michigan).— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. The article contradicts itself. The catholics are said in one place to have "changed" "from a Saturday Sabbath to a Sunday Sabbath". But in the later discussion of the catholic practice, the article says (correctly) that the catholics make a distinction between the Lord's day and the Sabbath - while certain moral Sabbath obligations apply to the Lord's day, other, ceremonial obligations, do not. While the Sabbath concerns the creation, the dawning of the promised Day, κυριακήν, concerns the passing away of the old creation: they are not the same ordinance transferred to another day. The article should agree with itself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

There are currently primary sources from the early centuries since Christ quoted in the article, but without any citations of modern scholars to give interpretation of the sources. The policy Wikipedia:No original research states that a good article can use a mix of primary and secondary sources, but that "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources..." –Colin MacLaurin 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a problem in both the Early church observance of the Sabbath and Christian Sunday observance sections. Hopefully when I get some time I'll have a look at Carson's book and introduce some secondary material. Tonicthebrown 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article is very lacking in good sources, as hinted above by another editor. Let's discuss which sources are the best ones to use. For the Saturday Sabbath POV, I understand that Seventh-day Adventist Samuele Bacchiocchi is the leading scholar and hence best reference to use. Comments please. For the non-Saturday-Sabbath POV, the best reference I know of is Don Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord's Day. Apparently this book is not unanimous in its POV, with some contributors believing that the day does not matter, and others that observance has been transferred from Saturday to Sunday. Your comments on sources please! Colin MacLaurin 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Desmond Ford's book could also be used as a good source for the Saturday POV. I have access to Carson's book, and will make use of it to update the article in about a month's time (when exams are over!) Tonicthebrown 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I would also be interested to know the POV of each individual author in Carson's book, and think this would be relevant to the article (if very brief). Colin MacLaurin 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few other sources to the "Recommended Resources" section. I am confident that these are some of the best available, but am not an expert so if anyone knows of any others, please add them. Any additional ones now should be justified. There is also information in Ten Commandments#Sabbath day and Christian Torah-submission#Late History we could add, although technically this ought to be independently verified. Colin MacLaurin 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This amazon.com list of Books on the Sabbath contains many of the most important books; although remember the compiler is presumably non-notable. Another list, So you'd like to... Learn more about the Jewish roots of Christianity may also contain some good references, although probably from a more Sabbatarian POV. Colin MacLaurin 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Biblical references in Wikiquote article?

How about moving all biblical references to Sabbath to an article on Wikiquote like wikiquote:The Bible on the Sabbath? This would remove the need for "Biblical references to the Sabbath Day", as the major texts in the debate would be discussed in this article, and a link to a Wikiquote article for a complete list. Colin MacLaurin 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church as a "Sabbatarian" sect?

I just discovered this treatment, & I think it is not accurate. The Ethiopian Church is not part of this Sabbatarian movement -- which grew out of Protestantism -- but is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, in communion with the Copts, Armenian, Syrian and Indian churches. That the Ethiopian Church observes two Sabbaths -- Saturday in honor of the Old Testament, & Sunday in honor of the New -- dates back to the 14th century when the monk & religious leader Ewostatewos first advocated this practice, & is a secondary development. I feel is only proper that this unique practice merits a separate section for the Ethiopians. -- llywrch 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but IIRC, the view predates Ewostatewos, and he was calling for a return to the Saturday Sabbath (perhaps as well as the Sunday one, in order to honor both Testaments? This is the view taken after the council of Debre Mitmaq). He may have been referring to the OT rather than the Zagwe dynasty, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Major changes

Regarding User:Ipernar's large changes, please discuss on the talk page before making such, particularly as this topic has been moderately controversial. The two new articles Christian Sabbatarianism and Opposition to Christian Sabbatarianism are a clear POV-fork, in direct contrast with the required neutral point of view. Related changes have also been made on other articles. I do think that a legitimate content fork could be made at some stage - maybe a History of the Sabbath in Christianity, which would include Sabbatarian groups (in place of the new Christian Sabbatarianism). After all the current page is long and has lots of information, and still needs more work. For now, I believe the changes should be reverted. Colin MacLaurin 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. The massive changes and 2 new articles reflect a POV. I'm going to revert. Tonicthebrown 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear users, its not about POV, its just that I have divided article. It has been to big. I just divided it on three sections. One article cant discuss too many things.

Futuremore there is a history of Christian Sabbatarianism, as well as Sunday observing. That is the only reason why I have divided this article. I have not added or remove text. If I did there were only minor changes. Also if there is one singe article only about "Sabbath in Seventh-day Adventism" or simmilar, there can be one single about Christian Sabbatarianism at all. user ipernar

I agree that the article is large. I also think it is unfinished, and I agree that a legitimate content fork could be warranted in the future. I created the article Sabbath in Seventh-day Adventism. It is not a polemic for the Adventist point of view, it is largely a summary of the history of the Sabbath within that church, and I have described many detractors of the teaching, particularly as it relates to the church, e.g. from former Adventists. However your articles cover subjects from particular points of view only - see the fundamental policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. On another positive note, thank-you for discussing this on the talk page. It's a good sign. Colin MacLaurin 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Category

I propose a new Category:Sabbath. It would be a child category of the categories this article is currently listed in. Category:Shabbat would be one subcategory. There are lots of articles floating around relating to the Christian Sabbath, so this would collect them, into Category:Sabbath in Christianity I guess. Colin MacLaurin 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

I find the edits made by 98.197.18.75 to be less than helpful to the article. To call it the "Biblical" Sabbath as opposed to the "Jewish" Sabbath actually makes the article less clear, since most Christians would read that as Sunday. The other edits I would almost call vandalism, but it isn't quite. However, I seem to be unable to revert them. Would an admin roll it back?

Also, I would like to debate one edit made by Timotheus7--I don't have anything personal, I'm just curious for the rationale behind deleting "for the sake of the Jews", something that I'm pretty sure has been proven from Biblical text. His other edit was a good catch, so please don't take this the wrong way and satisfy my curiosity. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Archived old talk page

I've gone ahead and archived the talk page which was largely outdated discussion and overly bloated as is. Vincent Valentine 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sabbatarianism, which was not merged to this talk when its article was merged here, has now been moved to Archive 2. Its timeframe interleaves with Archive 1 and with the present page. JJB 07:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Text

Category: Christian Sunday observance, sub catagorie: New Testament background.

It is suggested here that eight days after a Sunday is a Sunday. I am going to remove this, unless someone points out what I am missing.

Eight days later, I am finally making this change, as there have been no comments. Note for someone interested, or the original author: the text used to read that Jesus appeared on "first day" i.e. a Sunday, then eight days later, which is another Sunday. As a metaphor this is interesting, so there could be some justification here... But literally this would be the second day of the week.

I don't understand what makes Sunday the "second day of the week", in your argument above. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why

Merged from "Talk:Sabbath in Christianity/Comments":

Why do you consistantly say that it is a Jewish day?

wasn't it established at creation well before any Jews, Hebrews or any other such nations of people? I am a reletivly new christian & am baffled buy peoples interpritations.

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.54.202 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish naming of festivals

Some of the Hebrew names used in this article, have no source in the Hebrew Bible, however, come from the Rabbis. Why are they even in this article? ems 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what Hebrew do you speak

You got some weird translation of Simchat Torah. its defently not the Hebrew the whole world accepts as Hebrew. ems 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding factual templated, or anything else that might be more fitting. ems 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You should only tag the section you have an issue with, not the whole article. Or, hey, fix it yourself. Don't just haphazardly toss tags around. Most of the article is well-sourced and it's very annoying to have someone barge in and toss factual accuracy tags around. I agree the Hebrew part is probably bunk, that was added by a fringe sect member who claimed to be an authority -- I don't know any Hebrew so I took his word for it. Take it out if you have evidence that it's no good. Vincent Valentine 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, I added it to the section that had the error, the intro. ems 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no? You used the "whole article" tag and put it at the very top of the article, flagging the entire article as needing factual reinforcement. You can use the section tag on sections you find to be factually lacking, but I'm curious -- what specifically are you referring to? The "Simchat Torah" simply is referring to the Eight Day of the Feast. The sentence after that "the Hebrew word refers to.." is talking about what the word "Shabbat" means. I don't see any problems here except maybe you think the "Simchat Torah" is what is being defined as "day of rest" which I agree is wrong. If you want to clarify that part go ahead. Vincent Valentine 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Simchat Torah means 'rejoucing of the Torah'. It isn't even the Eighth day of the featival, its the last day, which in Israel is the Seventh day. ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all Hebrew translations, because:

1. Half of them were wrong.
2. They all link to the Jewish version of the holiday, which is confusion, as the Christian holiday can be something totally different.
3. Half of them were wrong. Oh wait, I said this one already. :P

ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

-Obscure quotes-

I find it interesting that those who are bothered by "obscure quotes", from the various Catholic sources, want it replaced with something updated. The updated quote from the Cathechism (above), does absolutely nothing to change what is found in the obscure, and outdated quotes. Still, not one Biblical authorative reason is found in their updated version. The only real difference is the obscure quotes boldly announce they are basing Sunday keeping upon church authority and not the Bible. It's no wonder why Sunday advocates want such texts removed and replaced with something that doesn't make their ears itch.

Just my 2cents.

This page and Seventh day Christian groups

The list of Saturday keeping groups here seems to be more expansive than the one at Seventh day Christian groups should that page simply redirect here? MyNameIsNotBob 09:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Many seventh-day keepers see the Sabbath as an object of personal pride and sect identification. Because of its status and supposed uniqueness, many sect members have been more than willing to identify their churches on this list. At times we've had to pare it down as it was beginning to get bloated with miniscule churches in remote areas with total memberships of less than two dozen. As for your concern, I think the "Seventh day Christian Groups" should link here, not the other way around. I see virtually no purpose in having an obscure article title like that -- I don't find it notable. Linking here would be fine, though. Vincent Valentine 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Seventh day Christian groups now redirects here. MyNameIsNotBob 09:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks really good, thanks. I think this was a positive change. Vincent Valentine 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mexican minority sect?

Is the Soldiers of the cross link in violation of WP:NN?Dominick ^(TALK) 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NN is not actually a wikipedia policy, it is not even a guideline, it is just an essay about what is generally thought about the topic by wikipedians. Furthermore, the essay is about articles, however, if there are too many links, it is a good guideline about what to keep and what not to keep. Ansell 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK is a mexican sect notable enough,considering they are such a small group? Dominick ^(TALK) 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed. It was non-notable and added nothing worthwhile to the article. And was entirely in Spanish. Functionally equivalent to linkspam. Vincent Valentine 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Soldiers of the Cross Church is not a Mexican sect. Although small, it is an international religious organization with headquarters in the United States. See their Atlanta, GA Spanish/English website [4], or their Dallas, TX site [5]

The Mexican site functions as their web portal and mentions over 20 countries in which the organization operates. One of the group's core beliefs is Sabbath keeping, and it seems perfectly appropriate to include them in a list of Sabbath-keeping churches. Excluding them seems arbitrary and overly dependent on a particular POV about what counts as a significant or important religious movement.

That's fine. Before someone had just dumped a link to a remote church with some .com.mx address (the site was entirely in Spanish) which is totally inappropriate for the English Wikipedia article on the Sabbath. Plus you should note we're very accustomed to linkspam on this page. Vincent Valentine 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Has anyone else been noticing how anonymous contributors have slowly removed all the anti-Sabbath external links? Vincent Valentine 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the people who have removed the superfluous external links can be considered "anonymous" as they each have usernames logged in the edit history ... --Vamp:Willow 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't imagine that VampWillow and I would be considered anonymous. You should probably check our User pages first. As for removing the links, we were clearing the way so as to replace them with links to Wikisource, a Wikimedia Foundation project. In my view at least, that is far better than maintaining 196 external links to a decidedly POV website. Danny 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need so many external links in this article. This is supposed to be an article about the Sabbath as a Christian concept, not a linkfarm. And I'd hardly call Danny Wool "anonymous". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy. I wasn't referring to Danny, see when I posted that it was before his "contributions." We used to have it nice and separated, with "Anti-Sabbath" and "Pro-Sabbath" sites. Yea, a lot of it was linkspam but after many revisions I thought it ended up quite nice. Then you barge in, don't bother posting to the talk page, delete all the nice Bibleverse links we so carefully constructed and dump half the links. The churches keeping a Sabbath/no Sabbath I thought was informative at the least. I mean that information seems relevant to the article. So rather than get offended by my revert let's talk about the reasons you've decided to dice up most of the references/links in the article. The only ones I particularly care about are the Catholic Catechism links (which were useful and well-placed I thought) and the church links. The rest I could care less about. I'm not sure a separate "List" page is warranted on account of notability, but the information certainly seems relevant to an article. Vincent Valentine 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah - date noted; our mistake. This page has one of the highest counts of links leading outside Wikipedia and the sister projects and leading users away is not of benefit to us; as such where verses need to be quoted they should be from one of our projects (in this case, Wikisource). The links to lists of churches, again, offers nothing of *encyclopedic* value. --Vamp:Willow 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)`

How does the list add nothing of encyclopedic value? I mean, if nothing else it seems like it is an obvious thing to have, even if only keeping the main churches (ie, SDA, Seventh Day Baptists, etc.) listed. I agree the fringe churches can go, I've tried to keep those trimmed off as much as possible. I could be seeing this from the wrong light, I just think it's a useful tool in understanding where the concept takes shape. I would reference other articles that do the same, but just because someone else does it doesn't make it right :) Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Biblical references

The section "Biblical references to the Sabbath Day" is missing quite a few references such the begining of Genesis were God blessed the Sabbath.--63.42.12.24 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Find the word Sabbath in there. Can't find it? That's because it isn't there. That verse is probably literary prolepsis from Moses btw. Vincent Valentine 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no: Sabbath simply appears as a verb and not a noun in the verses: Vayishbot = And he rested, ki bo shabat mikol melachto = Because on it he rested. Danny 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get all literal, I was tacitly referring to "The Sabbath" as in the day of rest which runs from Friday sunet to Saturday sunset -- which isn't in there. Vincent Valentine 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Claim of misleading sentence

How is this sentence misleading?:

According to Exodus 31:16–17, the Sabbath is to be a "lasting covenant ... a sign ... forever."

"Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’" (NRSV)

Read again skippy. "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.

Perpetual covenant for the children of Israel (Jews). Leaving that part out is misleading and wrong. This article is about the Sabbath in Christianity, not Judaism. Vincent Valentine 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added "perpetual covenant ... [for] the people of Israel". Also note that this is the Old Testament Sabbath, the Old Testament is part of most forms of Christianity. 64.169.0.16322:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

hi if you were to read or only take into consideration what the Bible says to Christians then we might as well scrape out 80% of the Bible. The Bible was written for every one togain knowledge from, it is directed to everyone, so please do not choose the stuff that sounds easy and morally acceptable thing to do. the Bible is a basic instruction kit to the road of salvation even the Old Testament[[Category:no misleading sentence]] )