Lord's Day

Ah, wrong again! Justin didn't say "after the day of Saturn", he wrote "Before the Day of Saturn (they crucified our Lord)" - which is also a wangling of Mk.15:57!

 

I was referring to Bob as the 7th day aventist.

I see now why you're all messed up on the Sabbath. Isa. 66 is not the Christian era, it concerns Israel during the Tribulation and the Millennium that follows.

Verse 3, is the reinstituting of sacrifices in the future Tribulation temple.

Verse 6, is the Tribulation temple yet to be built.

Verse 7, is the Trib. "Before she (Israel) goes into labor (Jacob's trouble) she gives birth (to the man child of Rev. 12:5); before the pains (of Tribulation) come upon her, she delivers a son (the 144,000).

Verses 10-14 is the Millennium.

Verses 15-16 is Armageddon.

Verse 20 is the gathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth (Mt.24:31) to the Millennial Temple (Eze. 40-48) during the Millennium.

Verse 23 is observation of the Sabbath by Jews and Gentile during the Millennium, not during the Christian era. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, I have too little life-time-leftover to "beat my brains out" on all this. I would rather stay a Calvinist and the old time Gospel interpretation of prophecy. As Spurgeon once said, I don't have time for prophecy, I must preach the Gospel!

 

??? I went to the Greek of the TR and LXX. They both say "sabbaton" (sabbaton) is Greek for Sabbath.

They read: "following the end of the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week".

Nothing about "day of the sun" or anything else. The claims made in your posts are fictional, and are not supported by scripture.

 

??? I went to the Greek of the TR and LXX. They both say "sabbaton" (sabbaton) is Greek for Sabbath.

They read: "following the end of the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week".

Nothing about "day of the sun" or anything else. The claims made in your posts are fictional, and are not supported by scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you try to tease me.
In Matthew 28:1 the Greek is exactly as I copied it, Opse de sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian sabbaton. Fictional? Consult Nestle Aland NT Graeca. And by the buy, significant you won't find variants!

 

??? I went to the Greek of the TR and LXX. They both say "sabbaton" (sabbaton) is Greek for Sabbath.

They read: "following the end of the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week".

Nothing about "day of the sun" or anything else. The claims made in your posts are fictional, and are not supported by scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]I quoted Justin as writing "day of the sun", mark you - not the Scriptures! "Day of the sun" - and "On the Day of the Sun" - tehi hehmerai hehliou" - is how Justin WANGLES the Scriptures, and everybody following him. Justin is NOT the Scriptures.

 

??? I went to the Greek of the TR and LXX. They both say "sabbaton" (sabbaton) is Greek for Sabbath.

They read: "following the end of the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week".

Nothing about "day of the sun" or anything else. The claims made in your posts are fictional, and are not supported by scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Tyndale and the Translators of the KJV translated the first from Erasmus' TR, and they say "IN, the end OF, THE, Sabbath ...". "Following the end of the Sabbath" is "fictional"! It's false, because it's not in the TEXT! (And I can't understand how you say the LXX says so.)

 

Johnv, I thought you would have noticed my error in "Mk.15:57".

 

And you proceeded to say that I was quoting Justin. I was not. I was quoting scripture in its source text Greek.

You're doing a word-for-word only translation, and you're not looking at the context. Contextually, the verse is "Following the end of the Sabbath". The most common translations concur in the way they translate:

KJV - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

NJKV - Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn...

ASV - Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

ESV - Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week...

NIV - After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week...

Any assertion that says anything besides this texts referring to the day after the sabbath is guilty of fiction.

 

Most if not all Christians today freely proclaim that Christ rose on week-day-1 not on Christ the Creator's Holy creation Memorial -- Sabbath. In fact - once again - He rested on His Sabbath day.

The Sabbath keeping people of God world-wide CONTINUE to honor the DAY BEFORE week-day-1 as Christ the Creator's creation memorial Sabbath AND all Christians world wide CONTINUE to regard week-day-1 as the day that Christ was raised -- the DAY AFTER the one that everyone admits to be Sabbath.

This is stated very well in Luke 23 "AND ON the Sabbath they rested" and in Luke 24 "But on the FIRST day of the week at early dawn " (week-day-1) ... they found the stone rolled away.

Now notice this in vs 21 the disciples declare about week-day-1 "THIS IS the THIRD day". That means that Christ HAD to have raised from the dead ON Sunday - for ON the third day HE was to rise!

Simple.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"After the Sabbath" on weekday-1 which was the THIRD day (Luke 24:21) since His crucifixion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

What your comment lacks in substance it makes up for in entertainment value.

Indeed - that is THE LORD's Day - (get it?)

And He says "THE Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" - (not just some jews -- get it?).

True -- enough - man made traditions were piled on top of God's Word.

Sort of like -- hmm - making up your own holy day.

But as Christ said so well "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind!" - as you note -- for a benefit to mankind.

Actually there is no penalty in God's Word for "breaking man-made fabricated traditions".

So you are contrasting the good that God's Word SAYS to do - with the man-made TRADITIONS that the jews invented out of thin air - and using THAT as an excuse to ignore Christ the Creator's own Creation Memorial - HIS Holy Day - HIS Sabbath?

Does that really make sense to you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

By the way, just for the record, I am not a SDA but I DO celebrate the 7th day sabbath.

I am not SDA because I do NOT believe a lot of the other things they preach.

Just so you know.



Tam

 

Gerhard is also not SDA, nor is Ben SDA and I am not sure that wopik is either. So no need to pretend that SDAs are the only ones who have figure out that the 10 commandments are legit and that the 4th commandment is one of them.

Having said that - Ben belongs to the Baptist group that actually introduced the Sabbath truth to Adventists! (Adventists were not Sabbath keeping until a Seventh-day Baptist by the name of Rachael Oaks introduced the subject to an Adventist preacher one sunday near the mid 1800's)

And having "said that" - it is also instructive that when you get on the Sabbath subject - the long knives are directed "by default" at the SDA church!

It is all pretty fascinating to me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Everything I post makes sense to me just like everything you post makes sense to you.

I'm not sure of what SDA stands for, I always thought it meant Seriously Defunct Aptitude, any thruth to this?

 

Everything you say is always 100%, Prophecynut -- you should know that by now.

(any truth to this?)

 

Someone in this conversattion mentioned the moral issue involved. I regret to say it's not just the moral issue of the 4th C. The SDA Church is as guilty of another moral issue involved in this matter, and that is they as every other Church go along with the manipulation of the Scriptures in order to fit and suit sunday sacredness. This for the SDA's is more serious because they doctrinally stress the danger that antichrist will tamper with God's Law so that he (will try to) change Law and Times.
Now above some of us participating in this discussion make use of these manipulations of the Law - the Scriptures - everywhere they touch on the Sabbath and Sunday.
All parties it seems rush in where angels fear to tread. The Reformers though in all their Standards / Confession, scarsely touched on the Sabbath issue, but now-a-days every Tom has become an authority - a fearless one - on the subject.
The old Protestants rather left unchanged the Scriptures they were unable to reconcile with the practice of their Church to keep Sunday, but in more recent time nobody hesitates to with great arrogance chop and change the Text to further their end of discrediting the Sabbath and promoting Sunday.
The SDA Church refuses to believe this, and therefore is double guilty of negligence and cowardice to face the truth.
The SDA Chuch is unable NOT to react in this way, because their doctrine is 'inspired' and is the 'full truth' - so how can they do differently.
It is therefore forgiveabl;e that the SDA Church is so singled out.
Another reason is the simple fact the SDA Church so to speak holds the monopoly as concerns the Sabbath 'truth' seeing they are by far the most numerous.

 

And you proceeded to say that I was quoting Justin. I was not. I was quoting scripture in its source text Greek.

You're doing a word-for-word only translation, and you're not looking at the context. Contextually, the verse is "Following the end of the Sabbath". The most common translations concur in the way they translate:

KJV - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

NJKV - Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn...

ASV - Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

ESV - Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week...

NIV - After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week...

Any assertion that says anything besides this texts referring to the day after the sabbath is guilty of fiction. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv,
As a friend now - I'm stupid on the computer - please explain to me how you get these nice 'quote'-blocks?
Thanks a lot!

 

I think, Johnv, you will agree your "contextually" rotates around the concept "dawn". Then of course your logic is correct in all cases where you quote translations that say "after" the Sabbath and "on" the First day. Naturally it connot be logically correst if a translation has "On" or "in" the Sabbath, because that would have been before sunset - Bible reckoning of the day.
I hope we agree on the logic of this.
But it unfortunately is not a matter of logic or of context when considered in a wrong, incorrect, "word for word" Translation.
There's no need for such complications though if both context and grammar and syntax of the original are followed. Which will again bring into contention the rendering of 'tehi epiphohskousehi' with "dawn". "Dawn" is wrong - also in the KJV. How can I be so sure (and assuming)? Compare Luke where he describes the time of day Joseph closed the door of the sepulcre - was it at dawn? No, it was "afternoon" as everybody universally admits! But Luke uses virtually the identical same word as does Matthew?
Now bring in all and every factor playing a role and you'll see the translators are right in the case of Luke, but wrong in the case of Matthew. Accidentally? Here's the true difficulty!

 

And you proceeded to say that I was quoting Justin. I was not. I was quoting scripture in its source text Greek.
... The most common translations concur in the way they translate:

KJV - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

NJKV - Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn...

ASV - Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

ESV - Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week...

NIV - After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week...

Any assertion that says anything besides this texts referring to the day after the sabbath is guilty of fiction. </font>[/QUOTE]First, Johnv,
How is it possible these translations all concur if the one says "on" the Sabbath or "in" the Sabbath, while the other says "after" the Sabbath?
They do not concur - they contradict one another.

Second, when I said you quoted Justin, I meant you quoting any translation that says "after the Sabbath" in stead of "on / in the Sabbath", and any translation that says "on" the First Day.
For these 'Translation' copy Justin, who, where Matthew uses the Genitive, uses the Accusative, and where Matthew uses the Accusative, uses the Dative.
And where Matthew says "late on the Sabbath", says "on the Day of Saturn the day after they crucified" Jesus;
and where Matthew says "towards / before / against (eis), and follows it with an Accusative, uses a Dative (Instrumental), "on the First Day".
So there you have the real 'Text' of these "Texts" - Justin Martyr, 160AD, and not Matthew, 70AD.