Featured What is the Lord's day according to scripture alone?

You ignore your own subjective, preconceived, biased presumptions or assumptions, or what you wish it ought to have been. You have not proven what you claim from Revelation 1:10's context.

 

S

Scripture simply does NOT say which day was the Lord's day in Revelation. And again, NOWHERE are gentiles commanded to observe a Saturday sabbath.

 

Just the other day I was talking to a SDA member, He told me he believed that the Scriptures are the inspired revelation of God to men; and that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice. I said, "Long as the Scriptures agree with EGW's writings". He immediately replied that she was a prophetess, etc. I replied that her "investigative judgment " hooey was nowhere in Scripture & Jesus is NOT the archangel Michael. He said she had been given new & advanced revelations for now.

Right! And I also believe in the Easter Claus & Santa Bunny!

 

Ellen White Theology to Sda trumps even Jesus Christ!

 

Scripture doesn't say.

Who is the Son of God-Michael or Jesus ?

 

Howdya know Sunday is wrong according to our common names for days of the week ? Tyndale wasn't RC; it was RC officials who murdered him.

 

Before the KJV, a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles and said to be 70% Tyndale's, could be Scripture in English, Tyndale's would need to be Scripture in English. If the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not Scripture in English, it would mean that the KJV also is not Scripture in English. Because so much of the KJV comes from Tyndale's translating work, he has been considered in effect the principal or primary translator of the KJV. Tyndale's is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the KJV is the word of God translated into English.

According to 1534 Tyndale's Scripture in English, the Lord's day in Revelation 1:10 is Sunday.

 

The 1560 Geneva Bible, the English Bible of the Reformers, has the following note for "the Lord's day" at Revelation 1:10 "which some call Sunday."

 

Your allegation is what is mistaken or wrong.

It is a verifiable fact that the KJV is actually a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles according to the rules given its translators, according to the 1611 preface, according to its title page, and according to any sound comparison of the KJV to those pre-1611 English Bibles. The KJV was more a revision than it was an original, new translation.

 

What I DON'T believe is man-made, cultic garbage, such as that of the Seven-day-Adlibbers.

 

I think I'm 'WAY aheada YOU in knowledge of Tyndale. He had written an article called The Practyse of Prelates, that condemned Henry VIII's annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Tyndale left Britain for what's now Belgium, but was caught there, tried for heresy for translating the Bible into English, & executed bt strangulation, & his body was then burned at the stake.

it's estimated that 83% of the KJV's New Testament is taken directly from Tyndale's work.

 

Ellen G White quotes who you call ECF ("easily confused fellows") as LEGIT.

CHAPTER XIV. THE GREAT APOSTASY

‘The pertinacious wickedness of the devil,’ says Cyprian, ‘has power up to the saving water, but in baptism he loses all the poison of his wickedness.’ The same writer insists upon the necessity of penance, a species of discipline unknown to the apostolic church, and denounces, with terrible severity, those who discouraged its performance. ‘By the deceitfulness of their lies,’ says he, they interfere, ‘that satisfaction be not given to God in his anger.... All pains are taken that sins be not expiated by due satisfactions and lamentations, that wounds be not washed clean by tears.’ It may be said that some of these expressions are rhetorical, and that those by whom they were employed did not mean to deny the all-sufficiency of the great sacrifice; but had these Fathers clearly apprehended the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, they would have recoiled from the use of language so exceedingly objectionable.”—Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 2, chap. 5, paragraph 17.