Comments on: Sabbatarian arguments 3: Mark 2:27, “Sabbath was made for man” means “for mankind” http://arnold.gamboa.ph/2005/08/sabbatarian-arguments-3-mark-227-sabbath-was-made-for-man-means-for-mankind/ technology. theology. politics. whatever. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:00:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Reading INTO Mark 2:27 – the most common Adventist error on defending the Sabbath- Resurgence 2.0 http://arnold.gamboa.ph/2005/08/sabbatarian-arguments-3-mark-227-sabbath-was-made-for-man-means-for-mankind/comment-page-1/#comment-106913 Reading INTO Mark 2:27 – the most common Adventist error on defending the Sabbath- Resurgence 2.0 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:56:07 +0000 http://arnoldgamboa.com/?p=430#comment-106913 [...] the “correct” interpretation of the context of Mark 2:27. In 2005, I posted a reply on this subject. A quick search, however, shares a more detailed explanation on the context of Mark 2:27 and how [...] [...] the “correct” interpretation of the context of Mark 2:27. In 2005, I posted a reply on this subject. A quick search, however, shares a more detailed explanation on the context of Mark 2:27 and how [...]

]]> By: Jeruel http://arnold.gamboa.ph/2005/08/sabbatarian-arguments-3-mark-227-sabbath-was-made-for-man-means-for-mankind/comment-page-1/#comment-105168 Jeruel Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:13:41 +0000 http://arnoldgamboa.com/?p=430#comment-105168 Here I go again. :) First of all, in Biblical interpretations, there are only faithful translations of the bible that are considered by the scholars as worthy references to establish doctrines or teachings. And in this case, the NLT is not among them, since it is considered as among the paraphrased bibles and not faithfully translating the exact words from the original manuscripts. I believe that it is true that the Sabbath was made for man [generic] and not man for the sabbath. This pertains to the Pharisees and modern people who makes the sabbath a burden. The Pharisees before added many more policies and guidelines how to keep the sabbath that made it rather a burden than a delight to keep. Jesus then showed them how to keep it -- that there are things or lawful to do on sabbaths -- healing the sick, raising the dead, eating but not harvesting [plucking of grains as opposed to harvesting them]. I think the keeping of the weekly sabbath should be based upon the principle why was it given to us by the Lord -- to benefit us. After the 6 days of labor, it would greatly benefit us to have a whole day rest and spend that time for Him and to the ministry. Here I go again. :)

First of all, in Biblical interpretations, there are only faithful translations of the bible that are considered by the scholars as worthy references to establish doctrines or teachings.

And in this case, the NLT is not among them, since it is considered as among the paraphrased bibles and not faithfully translating the exact words from the original manuscripts.

I believe that it is true that the Sabbath was made for man [generic] and not man for the sabbath. This pertains to the Pharisees and modern people who makes the sabbath a burden.

The Pharisees before added many more policies and guidelines how to keep the sabbath that made it rather a burden than a delight to keep. Jesus then showed them how to keep it — that there are things or lawful to do on sabbaths — healing the sick, raising the dead, eating but not harvesting [plucking of grains as opposed to harvesting them].

I think the keeping of the weekly sabbath should be based upon the principle why was it given to us by the Lord — to benefit us. After the 6 days of labor, it would greatly benefit us to have a whole day rest and spend that time for Him and to the ministry.

]]>