|
Previous Page
«
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
» Next Page
TMR:
5. The Israelites were to gather one omer
(measure) per person per day for five days, but
on the sixth day they were to gather a double
portion for that day and the seventh day, for
the seventh-day was the Sabbath, a Holy day of
rest unto the Lord. Once we established that the
first day of manna fell on the 16th
day of the month it is easy to add six more days
to calculate that the seventh-day Sabbath is on
the 22nd of the month. Ex 16:16-26
p.17
Comment:
We have previously seen that the 15th
was a travel day not a rest day.
Therefore the 22nd of the month
could not possibly be a seventh-day Sabbath.
Such a conclusion can only be reached by a rich
dose of assumptions combined with a
pre-determined outcome. Further, It cannot be
proved that the manna fell six days before the
Sabbath mentioned in this chapter; as the sixth
day here brought to view was certainly the sixth
day of the week, and therefore not
necessarily the sixth day of the fall of the
manna.
It
has no reference to the number of days upon
which the manna had fallen.
Once again we are faced with a conclusion built
on a mere assumption. These assumptions
constitute the warp and woof of the TMR
position, when these are taken away nothing is
left
TMR:
For the second month in a row, simple math then
places a seventh-day Sabbath on the 8th,
15th,
22nd,
and 29th,
giving us a complete layout of the 2nd
calendar month. p.20
Comment:
Once again, we have plain evidence of where a
false assumption can lead. The false premise at
the start guarantees a false conclusion at the
end. If this is how the reader wants to arrive
at truth then there is nothing more that we can
do! The evidence, for those who care to examine
it, speaks otherwise.
To demonstrate how this idea is built on mere
assumptions let us examine the illustration
provided taking note of the assumptions. We will
notice the following:
·
The 15th was a travel day not a
Sabbath rest day
·
Thus the 8th, 22nd and
29th are not Sabbath rest
days
·
No evidence the people complained on the 15th
·
No evidence that the manna fell on the 16th
·
No evidence the 16th was the
first day of the week
Thus the second month in a row fails to prove
anything in favour of the lunar Sabbaths theory;
on the contrary, it stands as a witness against
it. The conclusions are founded on nothing
stronger than sand. The structure therefore is
not sound and needs to be dismantled. With this
added evidence there is no need to proceed any
further. We have before us four more examples
of the Sabbath not being on the 8th,
15th, 22nd or 29th.
Even if the next month is seen as the TMR
article states, it would prove absolutely
nothing. Let us briefly examine the last month
and see what witness it provides for us.
|
