-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"valid" versions
- Thread starter small fry
- Start date
- Status
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Neither is an answer,
Both are an answer.
That is why 'remove that day' and 'don't hang all night (or don't hang overnight) both must be.
BOTH:
In Jewish days, the 24-hour day starts at sunset (when night begins).
If you kill a guy at sunset, hang him on a tree at the beginning of the day and hang him there all night and bury him at dawn you have removed him from the tree the same 24-hour day and he has hung there all night AND overnight.
NEITHER:
In our days of 24 hours each that start at midnight, if you hang the guy up at dawn, remove & bury him at sunset - you have hung a man on a certain day, and removed him from the tree that certain daytime (12 hours) BOTH and you have NEITHER left him all night or overnight.
So we have spoken of 3 days:
-The part of the day which is daylight (12 hours on the average but varying from 0 to 24 depending upon season and longitude).
- the Jewish 24-hour-day that begins at sunset and ends next sunset
- the common world 24-hour-day of today that begins at midnight and expires at another midnight
There are other days:
- the time set aside for work (8-hour-day in Western World
- the 24-hour day (two of which are mentioned above) measured from sun to sun at one place on the earth
- the 24hors 4min day
- the 48 hour day (not in your dictionary) measuring the 24-hour day from all points on earth (It lasts 24 hours in the first time zone then buzzes around the world for 24 hours through the last time zone).
But the 'day' in Bible prophecy is 'the appropriate time'.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Can we get an official word on the use of the word ‘ignorant’ in reference to another poster on this board by a moderator? Is Ed correct when he states that we cannot call someone stupid, or a fool, but can call one ignorant? Just desiring to get the facts straight from one that might actually know.
I'll tell you, NEITHER! Because the hanged man would have to be removed before the night would have begun, and could not have hung any time during the night, what, overnight or all night.
So what does it matter? It matters in this respect quite simply, That the Crucified Jesus in order not to have hung all night upon the tree, had to have remained on the tree almost all night before Joseph would have removed him from the tree.
The newer versions have seen this dilemma for tradition coming miles off, so they so translated to make it say Jesus had to be removed from the cross before the evening would have started, and evening begun.
What problem is in it for tradition? That Jesus was not buried the same day He was crucified, but was buried the day after, so could not have been crucified on a Friday; and so could not have risen from the grave on a Sunday!
Now this 'doctrine' of Jesus' Sunday resurrection is the dogma the traditional - universal - Church shall defend with everything it has; it shall sacrifice its integrity for it, and its defenders their salvation.
So what does it matter? It matters in this respect quite simply, That the Crucified Jesus in order not to have hung all night upon the tree, had to have remained on the tree almost all night before Joseph would have removed him from the tree.
The newer versions have seen this dilemma for tradition coming miles off, so they so translated to make it say Jesus had to be removed from the cross before the evening would have started, and evening begun.
What problem is in it for tradition? That Jesus was not buried the same day He was crucified, but was buried the day after, so could not have been crucified on a Friday; and so could not have risen from the grave on a Sunday!
Now this 'doctrine' of Jesus' Sunday resurrection is the dogma the traditional - universal - Church shall defend with everything it has; it shall sacrifice its integrity for it, and its defenders their salvation.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Are you indicating that if one supports and defends the position that Christ was raised from the grave on Sunday that such a one will forfeit their salvation for it? Would it be fair to assume that you would question my salvation if in fact I support and defend a Sunday reserrection?
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
GE:
The topic is bogus translations. Now a bogus translation will see the light only for bogus reasons. Changes to the accepted and normative Translation will be made for immoral reasons, so as I have just illustrated. As these definite problems for the traditional positions and doctrines of the Church have become clearer and clearer with anyone of a very average intellect, the translators have themselves given away their game of deception with every consecutive 'translation' or 'version'. How could they think we - the average and even under average Dicks Toms and Harrys wouldnt' notice?
When they had to give up tampering with the Law of God; they resorted to tampering with the Word of God.
I have presented not this one case of their deception; I have presented MANY.
To the topic: I reject New Age Bibles for what they are: Corruption of the Scriptures.
And I say, if anyone thinks he may corrupt God's Word at will a claim, "Thus saith the Lord", i, cannot see him facing the Judge in peace on judgement day. That is what I have said, and that was what I have implied. Please do not twist my words to make them an accusation against you. But do with what I have said, what you like. It is none of my concern.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
And this has anything to do with salvation? Guess what? Jesus died on a day. He was buried on a day. He laid in the ground on a day and He rose again on a day. What days? I don't really give a rip. He fulfilled Scripture and that's all that matters. He rose again and in doing so conquered death, sin and the grave. Praise the Lord!! My Lord is risen!! My NIV says so. My ESV says so. Even my children's living Bible says so. Yep - BIG compromising of doctrine, huh?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Well there are some things NOT found in the Word of God that are found in other translations, one being that David was a ‘sinner from birth’ that we should give a rip about. (not saying that you don’t)
annsni said:And this has anything to do with salvation? Guess what? Jesus died on a day. He was buried on a day. He laid in the ground on a day and He rose again on a day. What days? I don't really give a rip. He fulfilled Scripture and that's all that matters. He rose again and in doing so conquered death, sin and the grave. Praise the Lord!! My Lord is risen!! My NIV says so. My ESV says so. Even my children's living Bible says so. Yep - BIG compromising of doctrine, huh?
GE:
"Guess what? Jesus died on a day. He was buried on a day. He laid in the ground on a day and He rose again on a day." For which you cannot give a single Scripture!
"And this has anything to do with salvation? " GE: That is up to you. "He fulfilled Scripture and that's all that matters." BUT: "I don't really give a rip." It's up to you, clearly! "He rose again and in doing so conquered death, sin and the grave. Praise the Lord!! My Lord is risen!! " BUT: ONLY, as I say He did. Whether He really 'fulfilled Scripture' in doing just this greatest of all God's works like "God thus concerning did speak" - is for the birds.
"My NIV says so. My ESV says so. Even my children's living Bible says so. Yep - BIG compromising of doctrine, huh?" Yes! it is too big a compromise if it be the smallest of compromise. ANY compromise must mean compromise of God's truth; of HIS, Word, of HIS, principles.
And mark you anti-compromiser with this compromising of me I do present before you the substance of all truth and saving faith.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I see your words as a direct accusation to every and anyone that believes and defends a Sunday resurrection. You have, as I understand you, stated basically that any one believing such will not find themselves as one of the redeemed. That is quite an accusation GE. Finally I have really witnessed one calling into question the salvation of others.
To assume without proof that changes that are made are for immoral purposes, may or may not be the case, and is a rash accusation for you to make. God alone will judge the motives of those involved. Without clear selfish motivation, no moral intent can be established. Ignorance may be the lone culprit, or simple deception, lack of sound judgment, or a variety of different causes may be at the heart of the changes. Certainly pride, arrogance, and many other self-interest may indeed lay at the roots of some changes, and may in fact be immoral in nature, but to simply call all changes as immoral is beyond moral reason to me.
There is still time for you to credit that period at the end of your sentence the mere results of a distraction. Possibly could have you really intended for it to be a question mark?
"And mark you anti-compromiser with this compromising of me I do present before you the substance of all truth and saving faith."
This perfectly was Justin Martyr's argument. So did he until this day win the day for Sunday -- with deception and compromise. What more despicable principles can there for a Christian be? Mark, that NIV etc are 'word for word translations' of Justin Martyr, pretending to be 'dynamic equivalent! Man, were I twice as blind as I am, I still would have seen right through whose 'thought' it is!
This perfectly was Justin Martyr's argument. So did he until this day win the day for Sunday -- with deception and compromise. What more despicable principles can there for a Christian be? Mark, that NIV etc are 'word for word translations' of Justin Martyr, pretending to be 'dynamic equivalent! Man, were I twice as blind as I am, I still would have seen right through whose 'thought' it is!
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NASB: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
ESV: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Youngs Literal Translation: Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
I don't see the issue here. Paul states that we were by nature children of wrath. Unless you don't believe in inherited sin, in which case I can understand your issue - but then even the KJV wouldn't work for you.
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
OK - PLEASE learn to use the quote codes so I can understand what you're saying.
Ya think I can't show Scripture that Jesus died, was buried and rose again?? Interesting.
It's a compromise that each of my Bibles say that Jesus died and rose again? Honestly, I think you're getting a little confused.
As to your last comment - are you saying that I'm not saved? I've been presented the saving truth of Jesus Christ and have been saved by the blood of the Lamb of God. Thanks.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Tee hee - you have painted yourself into a corner.
The scripture you had talks about the Jewish form of death: stoning. A person was killed & then put on a tree as a Sign of their evil. The person was killed first, posted on a tree and had to be removed before the night was over. Jesus was put on the tree and then killed - whole different thing. Anyway, the Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day. I doubt it was Friday - Wednesday sounds more likely:
3 nights and 3 days in the belly of the earth:
Thursday night half, Thursday day half - day 1
Friday night half, Friday day half - day 2
Saturday night half, Saturday day half - day 3
Jesus was Resurrected as the Sabbath day ended: 72 hours after being buried.
And I don't listen to anybody about which day of the Week I worship the Lord upon.
_KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NASB: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
ESV: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Youngs Literal Translation: Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
I don't see the issue here. Paul states that we were by nature children of wrath. Unless you don't believe in inherited sin, in which case I can understand your issue - but then even the KJV wouldn't work for you.
_________________
Ann
I thought it was the mother that was in sin, at conception?
NASB: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
ESV: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Youngs Literal Translation: Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
I don't see the issue here. Paul states that we were by nature children of wrath. Unless you don't believe in inherited sin, in which case I can understand your issue - but then even the KJV wouldn't work for you.
_________________
Ann
I thought it was the mother that was in sin, at conception?
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
It is no always acceptable to some to simply read a verse for what it says Mark1.
It is also interesting to note that the Jews DID NOT believe in original sin. Why would David, a Jew, be supporting a notion clearly not found or established in any Jewish writings?
Doesn’t every loving parent hold their precious babies in their arms and fully realize that these are not innocent babies but sinners at war with God and that from birth? I certainly do not hold to that. Neither does Scripture. Babies are innocent, without sin until they reach the age of accountability, sin, and become guilty before God. “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Note that we are not born astray, but rather have ‘gone’ astray.
Keep thinking Mark1! You are right on target.
It is also interesting to note that the Jews DID NOT believe in original sin. Why would David, a Jew, be supporting a notion clearly not found or established in any Jewish writings?
Doesn’t every loving parent hold their precious babies in their arms and fully realize that these are not innocent babies but sinners at war with God and that from birth? I certainly do not hold to that. Neither does Scripture. Babies are innocent, without sin until they reach the age of accountability, sin, and become guilty before God. “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Note that we are not born astray, but rather have ‘gone’ astray.
Keep thinking Mark1! You are right on target.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Psalm 51:5 is Scriptural support that it is speaking directly concerning the sin of David’s mother. “In sin did my mother conceive me.” How much more support does one need?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Certainly you may. Here would be my response.
The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is anyone suggesting for a minute that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!
Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.
In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin as some would attempt to indicate.
- Status