Featured The NET Bible

The Hebrew meaning a "chast girl" is translated as a "young woman" without qualification in
Isaiah 7:14, For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
____________
Where as the Holy Spirit uses "vigin" in Matthew 1:23, - "Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel," which means "God with us."
____________
Interpret's John's use of Roman hours to be solely Hebrew without note, the sixth hour in John 19:14, as "noon." Should be 6 am.

In Mark 15:25, It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him.

 

Perhaps if you had read the text notes you would not be against the NET so much.

"Traditionally, "virgin." Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Mat_1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen_24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, "young man"; cf. 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated "young woman." The Septuagint (LXX) translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean "virgin" in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa_7:14 n Mat_1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place."

"For John, the time was especially important. When the note concerning the hour, about noon, is connected with the day, the day of preparation for the Passover, it becomes apparent that Jesus was going to die on the cross at the very time that the Passover lambs were being slain in the temple courts.v. 6 required that the Passover lamb be kept alive until the 14th Nisan, the eve of the Passover, and then slaughtered by the head of the household at twilight (Grk "between the two evenings"). By this time the slaughtering was no longer done by the heads of households, but by the priests in the temple courts. But so many lambs were needed for the tens of thousands of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast (some estimates run in excess of 100,000 pilgrims) that the slaughter could not be completed during the evening, and so the rabbis redefined "between the two evenings" as beginning at noon, when the sun began to decline toward the horizon. Thus the priests had the entire afternoon of 14th Nisan in which to complete the slaughter of the Passover lambs. According to the Fourth Gospel, this is the time Jesus was dying on the cross."

 

We disagee. Putting the Holy Spirit's translation "virgin" as tradition, Matthew 1:23. Translating John 19:14 "noon" to contradict Mark 15:25, "9 am in the morning."

 

So which of these translations do you agree or disagree with?

 

Mark uses Hebrew hours.
The third hour. Our 9 am.
John uses Roman hours.
The sixth hour. Our 6 am.

 

Matthew, Mark and Luke are using Hebrew hours. John uses the Roman hours.

 

And you know this how.?
Funny how the translations do not agree with your view.

 

My 1917 copyright edition of the Scofield Reference Bible study note. Plus careful Bible study. Generally it well known what the Hebrew hours of the day are.

What is not universally acknowledge is John used Roman hours of the day.

At issue: If John did not use Roman hours then between John 19:14, sixth hour being noon and Mark 15:25 being the third hour being 9 o'clock in the morning becomes that well known contradiction on the morning between Mark and John against Biblical inerrancy.

John 19:14, Scofield notes,
'John 19:14
sixth hour



(See Scofield "Mark 15:25")'

'Mark 15:25
third hour



Cf. John 19:14. John used the Roman, Mark the Hebrew, computation of time.'

 

Parallel references,

Matthew 27:45, Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33, And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44, And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Understood to be from about noon to 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

 

No need to shout. I can actually read the smaller text.

That's nice the scofield notes say that but are you saying that all those other translations are wrong?

 

So you disagree with the other translations. Ok that's your option.

I am curious as to why you are so fixated on the exact crucifixion day and time. Do you doubt that it actually happened? From some of your comments in other threads it seems you think if you can not prove the exact day and time then you have no reason to believe that it actually happened.

 

It has an actual knowable date. And Scripture gives some times.

It is a knowable certainty.

 

The text size was "as is" from the Scofield commentary.

 

Actually the day/date of Christs' crucifixion has been a point of discussion for a long time. Various days have been put forward and all are backed up with scripture.

But as I asked before, why the fixation?

 

The disagreed differences are not all correct.

I have answered this.

I'll put it this way. There is only one correct historical date. Personally it was originally to find the answer between a Friday or a Wednesday.

Our New Testament documents is our God given evidence of our resurrected Savior.

Once we believe in our Savior, the indwelt Holy Spirit is every believer's personal evidence.

I am of the persuasion we can deduce the actual historical date of the crucifixion and resurrection from Holy Scripture.

Friday Julian date April 7, 30 AD was a handed down date.

Based on the interpretation of Luke 3:1 it was deduced "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," to be 29 AD. So one of the dates Sir Isaac Newton proposed was Friday Nisan 14th, Julian date April 3, 33 AD.

Others based on Matthew 12:40, being three days and three nights, discover Nisan 14th in 30 AD could be on Julian date Wednesday, April 5, 30 AD.

 

That is your reason but my question was why the fixation. If you could not know for certain the day/date would that cause you to question the event?

The date and time have been questioned by numbers of people and they all use the same texts but come to different conclusions. Al could be wrong or one could be right but the reality is that whatever one you land on it is still just the one you have accepted as correct.

The only thing that I see come out of these type of arguments is that non-believer now has more reason not to trust scripture. They can point to the fact that even believers can not agree.

 

A wrong question.


Do you deny?

Do you deny?

 

This problem already existed before me.