84 Sabbaths in the Book of Acts

[John317]

The inspired Word of God in the book of Acts, as written by Luke, records the keeping of 84 Sabbaths by Paul and his companions: first in Acts 13:14:

"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day..."

This event occurred in 45 A.D., fourteen years after the resurrection, and Paul and his associates were still observing the Sabbath.

He did not go to church only to preach to the Jews, for verses 42 and 44 add:

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

" Acts 13:42-44

This occurred in the city of Antioch in modern Turkey, a city that had mostly gentile citizens. If Sunday was the new day of worship for gentile Christians, this would have been a reasonable time for the New Testament to mention it. In that case Paul should have told them to come the very next day to hear the word of God preached, but instead they came together the next Sabbath.

The Gentiles also observed the Sabbath with Paul, and they heard the “word of God." No indication of a change is found. Besides worshiping in the synagogues, they also "on the Sabbath ... went out of the city by a river side." Acts 16:13 This was twenty-two years after the resurrection, in A.D. 53.

Reading further, you come to Acts 17:2:

"And Paul as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.

And finally:

"...Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:1, 4

The eleventh verse adds:"And he continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them.

As this amounted to seventy-eight weeks in all, (he preached on 78 Sabbaths), which added to the above, makes 84 Sabbaths in which the Scriptures state that Paul and his companions worshipped.

[Raphael]

Right, John317, very interesting.. but most knowledgeable fellow Christians beyond SDAs and other Sabbath keepers, I believe are 'kinda' immune to this.

I was fascinating that suppose, a financial payment product was formed for the specific purpose of avoiding transactions upon the Sabbath. Say, the transaction would transpire right after the Sabbath hours due to automated systems, perhaps that would make Sabbath more viable to the general non SDA public. Would that be acceptable as not sinning, let us say that the people involved would have all the noblest causes in their thoughts, providing the 'conveniently' righteous motives..?

If this is a good idea, I believe businessmen should not miss this excellent opportunity, since there is a good market out there with sufficient numbers that would need this services.

Banks, I believe all over the world, not only here in South East Asia are constantly evolving and coming up with new marketing gimmicks to make optimal use of their financial services, creating different kind of cards, platinum, gold, other names that would denote something for the teenager with relating discounts like buy one movie ticket and get two for certain chain cinemas.. and others. Even the Muslims are trying to come up with their own.. Why isn't there any for Sabbath keeping purposes?

Best,

Raphael

NB: Perhaps our SDA denomination should start up a bank or sort of financial institution first, think so?

[John317]

Right, John317, very interesting.. but most knowledgeable fellow Christians beyond SDAs and other Sabbath keepers, I believe are 'kinda' immune to this.

The only way anyone is converted to the truth is by the Holy Spirit. A person must be thirsty to know God's word and want to follow it. It's not our words but the God's that in the end make the difference.

[TreeOfLife]

Thanks for opening up this topic re the somewhat hidden topic of the Seventh-day Sabbath observance in the New Testament. What's being touched on above is just the top of the ice berg! I've found much much more...

If you wish to dive into this most interesting subject, why not begin by wetting your appetite at this home page of mine? You'll find some of the Sabbath texts towards the bottom of the page. ( http://TreeOfLife.lan.io/IFoundMannah/KJVRevisions/WeekDaysInNT.htm .)

[Ron Amnsn]

And finally:

"...Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:1, 4

The eleventh verse adds:"And he continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them.

As this amounted to seventy-eight weeks in all, (he preached on 78 Sabbaths), which added to the above, makes 84 Sabbaths in which the Scriptures state that Paul and his companions worshipped.

Actually, there were even more Sabbaths. Paul wouldn't have been allowed to teach regularly in the synagogue if he wasn't also keeping the seven annual Sabbaths of God's feasts (as well as observing the rest of OT law). During the 18 months Paul was in Corinth there would have been 10 of these annual Sabbaths during the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles.

If God's annual feasts were good enough for Paul, why are they spurned by the Seventh-day Adventist church?

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: John317

And finally:

"...Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:1, 4

The eleventh verse adds:"And he continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them.

As this amounted to seventy-eight weeks in all, (he preached on 78 Sabbaths), which added to the above, makes 84 Sabbaths in which the Scriptures state that Paul and his companions worshipped.

Actually, there were even more Sabbaths. Paul wouldn't have been allowed to teach regularly in the synagogue if he wasn't also keeping the seven annual Sabbaths of God's feasts (as well as observing the rest of OT law). During the 18 months Paul was in Corinth there would have been 10 of these annual Sabbaths during the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles.

If God's annual feasts were good enough for Paul, why are they spurned by the Seventh-day Adventist church?

Yes, indeed, and without giving credence to the Jewish rituals and the killing of animals as God's original intention, aren't those three annual feasts explicitly stated as being instituted for ever per the following references: Ex. 12:14, 17; 14:13; 15:18; 21:6; 31:17; 32:13; Lev. 10:9; 16:29, 31; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 25:23; Deut. 4:40; 5:29; 12:28?

But no, more than likely the words "a year and six months" of Acts 18:11 are a mistranslation from an original Hebrew text via Aramaic and Greek into English, which text is probably more accurately translated:

“And he [Paul] paused [his work] upon the announcement of the First Year [of Nero’s reign;] and six months [had he at that time been] teaching the word of God among them [the gentiles.]“ Acts 18:11 (TLT)

Cf. also this link to a table of dated events from the Book of Acts.

[Kountzer]

Originally Posted By: Raphael

Right, John317, very interesting.. but most knowledgeable fellow Christians beyond SDAs and other Sabbath keepers, I believe are 'kinda' immune to this.

The only way anyone is converted to the truth is by the Holy Spirit. A person must be thirsty to know God's word and want to follow it. It's not our words but the God's that in the end make the difference.

True. The world's customs and rituals are set against sabbath worship, and geared toward sunday worship.

[John317]

But no, more than likely the words "a year and six months" of Acts 18:11 are a mistranslation from an original Hebrew text via Aramaic and Greek into English, which text is probably more accurately translated:

“And he [Paul] paused [his work] upon the announcement of the First Year [of Nero’s reign;] and six months [had he at that time been] teaching the word of God among them [the gentiles.]“ Acts 18:11 (TLT)

The New American Translation: " And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."

Robert Young's Literal Translation: "And he continued a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God."

Is there good manuscript evidence that Acts was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated (badly) into Greek?

That would mean that the inspired Scriptures which the church has depended on for 2,000 years are unreliable and give false information. Are you OK with that?

As far as I have been able to determine, there are no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of Acts predating the ancient Greek manuscripts.

I'm familiar with Lamsa's translation of the Aramaic and of his viewpoint regarding the NT text.

I had not heard of the TLT. I assume it refers to the "Tree of Life Translation."

Who is the publisher of the TLT? Is it based on good, well-recognized scholarship?

Could you please explain how you arrive at the words, "he paused" (Strongs #2523) and "upon the announcement"?

What evidence is there for the words "upon the announcement of the" and "the first"?

These words appear in no Greek manuscript, nor do they appear in any ancient translation of Acts as far as I can determine.

Why would the announcement of the first year of Nero's reign cause Paul to "pause his work"?

I have asked a lot of questions, I realize, but only because I'm very interested in translation and in the ancient NT manuscripts.

[TreeOfLife]

Wow!

Thanks John317,

Thanks for your interest and your questions! Sometimes I feel as lonely with the rays of light I am being given as Elijah said he did before God made him understand differently…

Yes, I’ll do what I can to respond to your questions, but in the end what makes sense to you such that you are willing and able to accept what I share is what makes all the difference. In fact isn’t that what tomorrows memory verse is saying: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21.

1. Re your question “Is there good manuscript evidence that Acts was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated (badly) into Greek?”

Please go to this link for my response to this question of yours. (I am not able to find support for the Greek and Hebrew fonts I'd like to include within the post itself. Also the rest of my post below is much better formatted for easy reading under this first link)

2. Re your question “That would mean that the inspired Scriptures which the church has depended on for 2,000 years are unreliable and give false information. Are you OK with that?”

Before I could read I had to rely on the words from God as spoken to me through my father and mother. Yes, I was OK with that!

When I learned to read a modern translation of the Scriptures I did so. Yes, I am OK with that!

When I learned to use the computer and found access to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words through e-Sword.com etc I got even closer to the original even though I don’t speak either of those languages. Yes, I am OK with that!

God is leading me step by little step closer to an understanding of his words to me. Yes, I am OK with that!

As Jesus said: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Yes, I am OK with that!

3. Re your question “As far as I have been able to determine, there are no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of Acts predating the ancient Greek manuscripts.” Yes, unfortunately that’s what I have found too thus far… Yes, unfortunately that’s what I have found too thus far… Yet, the linguistic evidence for a Hebrew original in the extant Greek translations remains…

4. a. Re your question “I had not heard of the TLT. I assume it refers to the "Tree of Life Translation." Who is the publisher of the TLT?” Your assumption is close, but the correct words are “Tree of Life Time version.” The focus is on time related passages mostly from the New Testament thus far. Unfortunately, most time references in the New Testament are not brought forwards in a meaningful way in any available translation that I’m aware of thus far. The Greek translations are in most instances the best we have and the Greek does have a host of time references. Unfortunately the Greek time references do lend themselves to grammatically correct mistranslations, and I do not believe that until now the calendrical source material has been made available in order to correctly bring the correct time related translations to the surface. You may find what little that is available of TLT published at http://TreeOfLife.lan.io/home.htm.

b. Re your question “Is it based on good, well-recognized scholarship?” The translators are doing their best, and Yes, I am OK with that!

5. Re your question “Could you please explain how you arrive at the words, "he paused" (Strongs #2523) and "upon the announcement"? ” I’ll do my best while also trying to be brief:

1. First there is at the foundation an extensive multi-year study of the entire Scriptural chronology context in order to correctly correlate all the recognized time references available in the best available manuscripts of the bible, but other original and contemporary source material is used while being always as careful as possible in order to get as close as one can to the ultimate sources. The purpose is to be able to perceive the reality of the events as they happened as closely as possible. This is an ongoing pursuit and from time to time further revisions become necessary, but the hope is that with time and under God’s guidance we all do come closer to the truth. With God as our guide, no pursuit of the truth can be hopeless. That is our firm conviction.

2. As a part of #1 above the translators strive to get as close to the primary meaning of each word of the Scriptures, for instance by comparing the usual translations with the roots of the words. Traditional translations of words or passages are not given any priority. Prior translators of the Scriptures are highly respected and recognized for having done their very best, but none of them had a flawless or first hand understanding of the original events as they happened, and neither do we, any of us, whether as bible students or translators. The best we can do is the best we can do in order to get as close as possible to the source.

3. You may find examples of our methods of study at the following links: Link with a focus on the crucifixion week. Link with a focus on New Testament time related words.

4. Here is a link with what I believe are some relevant answers to your specific questions re the quoted TLT passage:” There is much more, but I trust this will suffice for starters?

5. Re Strong’s G2523: No doubt you can look up the full definition in Strong’s yourself and see that “pause” is much the same as e.g. “settle, hover, dwell” or even as translated in the KJV: “continue, set, sit (down), tarry.” The root, Strong’s G2516, means “sit down.” I believe “pause” is consistent with the central meaning of those words, but perhaps there is another better way of putting it? Here’s a link to a very little study I once did on G2523.

6. a. Re your question “What evidence is there for the words "upon the announcement of the" and "the first"? These words appear in no Greek manuscript, nor do they appear in any ancient translation of Acts as far as I can determine.” Yes, I agree. And as you will find under my link at #5 above the words “upon the announcement of” are italicized. As in KJV that means that those words are inserted for clarity though they may not necessarily be directly expressed as such in the Greek manuscript. Sorry for not having been adept enough to get those italics into my post!

b. Re “the first:” There is much more to this one than may at first appear! Please cf. this link while reviewing also the paragraphs above the point that the link brings you to for important context!

7. Re your question “Why would the announcement of the first year of Nero's reign cause Paul to "pause his work"? ” Perhaps there are better words to choose than “pause,” and I agree with you that he didn’t likely pause working, only that while moving on to another place he “ceased working for a while,” or “paused,” at the place where he had been. No doubt you recognize the intricacies involved in choosing the best possible words for expressing a thing.

Thanks again for your interest! I hope my answers are such that there can be “a meeting of the minds,” and that you find at least something little in it that adds value to your life. I am aware that this is quite a paradigm shift for most and that most people stumble on something or other before they get enough interest to even begin to see much light in all of this. I have no doubt but that much work remains before everything is crystal clear, but if no one keeps working hard on it none of us will ever have a chance of getting out of our many confusions re where we are in time relative to most important anchor point in our past!

Happy Sabbath!

[John317]

Wow!

1. Re your question “Is there good manuscript evidence that Acts was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated (badly) into Greek?”

Here is one example of linguistic evidence re Acts, but unfortunately I am not aware of the availability of an Aramaic or Hebrew transcription of an original manuscript of Acts as yet…:

Acts 26:13-14: About noon… as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun… and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [NIV]

However, based on internal linguistic evidence the book of Acts was originally written in Hebrew. Unfortunately, as I said, we have not yet uncovered the Hebrew version of Acts…

Nevertheless, the word translated “Aramaic” in NIV is “εβραιδι.” [Pronounced: “Hebraidi”] The word meaning is obviously Hebrew as any 3 yr old should be able to tell us…

Thanks for the link to the site where I could see the foreign languages.

This tells us that Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, but the fact that Paul tells his audience that the Lord said these words in Aramaic shows that he was not telling Agrippa the story in Hebrew but probably in Greek. Also, remember that Luke was not a Jew but a gentile whose first language would have been Greek. (Paul clearly distinguished Luke from the Jewish believers. Compare Col. 4: 11 and 14.)

As far as I know the oldest manuscripts of the book of Acts are in Greek. I believe that the two Third century manuscripts P45 and P48 are the oldest manuscripts containing Acts, and of course these are in Greek. Do you know of any manuscripts of the NT in Hebrew or Aramaic that predate the third century? (I remember you already answered this in the negative.)

I know that some of early Christians between the 2nd and 4th centuries said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but I don't know that anyone of the same period said that the book of Acts was written in Hebrew.

[John317]

2. Re your question “That would mean that the inspired Scriptures which the church has depended on for 2,000 years are unreliable and give false information. Are you OK with that?”

Before I could read I had to rely on the words from God as spoken to me through my father and mother. Yes, I was OK with that!

When I learned to read a modern translation of the Scriptures I did so. Yes, I am OK with that!

When I learned to use the computer and found access to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words through e-Sword.com etc I got even closer to the original even though I don’t speak either of those languages. Yes, I am OK with that!

God is leading me step by little step closer to an understanding of his words to me. Yes, I am OK with that!

As Jesus said: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Yes, I am OK with that!

I understand what you mean, but the question I'm posing means that the whole church has depended for virtually all of its history on half-truths, or at least on many things that were untrue. It means that God went to the trouble of having the Bible written but making it impossible for the church to truly understand it.

That is different in my mind from God's teaching an individual gradually. He would have been responsible for the church's not being able to know the truth.

Quote:

“Tree of Life Time version.” The focus is on time related passages mostly from the New Testament thus far. Unfortunately, most time references in the New Testament are not brought forwards in a meaningful way in any available translation that I’m aware of thus far. The Greek translations are in most instances the best we have and the Greek does have a host of time references. Unfortunately the Greek time references do lend themselves to grammatically correct mistranslations,

Have you studied Koine Greek yourself?

I studied it at Loma Linda University in 1976-1977, and have kept up with it since that time.

There are translators who have specialized in translation of Greek for many decades. Some, such Richard Lattimore, is a world-famous teacher of Greek and translator of the Greek classics. Are we to believe that none of these people know Greek well enough to come up with a correct translation?

Thanks for the discussion, Tree of Life.

And happy Sabbath to you as well.

[TreeOfLife]

Dear John 3:17,

As you, I too value the words of John 3:17, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

Those words are applicable to my thoughts as expressed below as well…

I understand what you mean, but the question I'm posing means that the whole church has depended for virtually all of its history on half-truths, or at least on many things that were untrue. It means that God went to the trouble of having the Bible written but making it impossible for the church to truly understand it.

That is different in my mind from God's teaching an individual gradually. He would have been responsible for the church's not being able to know the truth.

[TreeOfLife]

Dear John 3:17,

Re the first of your two posts dated 2/21/09 I have this…

Evidence that Acts was Originally Written in Hebrew

This tells us that Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, but the fact that Paul tells his audience that the Lord said these words in Aramaic shows that he was not telling Agrippa the story in Hebrew but probably in Greek.

[phkrause]

I'm not sure I agree, I've always heard that the NT was written in greek and or Aramaic. Most if not all the people in the NT spoke aramaic. I do believe that they probably knew Hebrew, especially those that were serving in the temples and had to read the OT scrolls which were written in Hebrew.

pk

[TreeOfLife]

I'm not sure I agree, I've always heard that the NT was written in greek and or Aramaic. Most if not all the people in the NT spoke aramaic. I do believe that they probably knew Hebrew, especially those that were serving in the temples and had to read the OT scrolls which were written in Hebrew.

pk

[Haldog]

Apart from the translation and original language discussion I am going to reply to the original post.

No disrespect John317, but I disagree with your original statement that Paul kept 84 Sabbaths in the book of Acts. I read the listed quotes and don't see any mention of Paul 'keeping' those Sabbaths. I attend the local SDA church frequently but haven't kept a Sabbath for close to 20 years. Why do I go there, for the same reason that Paul did, because that is where the people are who need the Gospel.

In your first text, Acts 13:14 Paul is asked if he would speak to the synagogue and he did. Remember the SDA mantra, context context context. Read Paul's sermon that follows verse 14 and then what happens on the next Sabbath in verse 46? The Jews won't let Paul and Barnabas back into the synagogue because they opposed the things spoken of by Paul. I understand how Paul felt ;-) That is when Paul declared that he had taken the Word of God to the Jews first but since they rejected it he would then take it to the gentiles. By the time we get to verse 50 the Jews have expelled Paul from that region. Doesn't seem to me that the Jews were very impressed with Paul's Sabbath keeping.

John317, you then make a statement without reference so I'm not sure where you get it. You wrote "The Gentiles also observed the Sabbath" Where did you find that as I can't find it in Acts. Your quote of Acts 16:13 says they went out of the city on the Sabbath, no mention of keeping the Sabbath.

Next up is Acts 17:2 which brings us to Thessalonica and 3 Sabbaths. No mention of keeping do I find, only reasoning from the scripture (nowhere in the bible is reasoning from the scriptures considered keeping the Sabbath). Why 3 Sabbaths? Because the Jews drove them out again, wanting to hurt them actually, so Paul & Company had to leave by stealth.

Then we come to the 1.5 years in Corinth in Acts 18. Again no mention of keeping the Sabbath, though it does say Paul reasoned every Sabbath in the synagogue until Silas and Timothy came and then when Paul spoke boldly he was again opposed by the Jews and driven out of the syngogue. AFTER Paul is opposed by the Jews he enters the house of Justus, which was next door, and continued for 1.5 years, Acts 18:11. So, the 1.5 years was in the house of Justus, not the synagogue, and it says nothing of keeping the Sabbath.

You can try but you will find no mention of Paul EVER keeping the Sabbath after his experience with Christ. Paul had a revelation of the Gospel that even Peter and the Apostles did not fully grasp at first.

That is why Paul had to go to Jerusalem in Acts 15 and set the growing church, as well as the apostles, straight on the matter of circumcision and the Law, Acts 15:5. And the rest is history. The letter sent out to the church's specifically states in Acts 15:24 that the gentiles were not to be troubled with circumcision or the law. In fact, it says it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to lay no greater burden on them than to abstain from meat offered to idols, from things strangled and sexual immorality. That's it. No mention of the Sabbath.

Alrighty, my armor is on, face mask in position, shield raised, have at me! ;-)

Shalom

BTW John317, I attended LLU 80-82, just missed meeting you it would seem.

[phkrause]

First of I'm didn't say I thought I heard that the NT was written in Greek or Aramaic, I said that I heard the NT was written in greek or aramaic. Here is a statement from Wikipeda: "According to Greek primacy, the original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45. Though Jesus speaks Aramaic in it, the New Testament (including the Gospels) was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire." Now I didn't get my info from here but I googled and was given many reference's as to the NT portion of the Bible being written in Greek. Like I mentioned I wasn't sure if it was greek or aramaic. I heard this from Professors that work here at AUC that the NT was written in greek and I know that they also mentioned that most of them spoke aramaic, that's why I mentioned it was either one or the other. So I'm not sure where the hearsay comes from but I would say that that is assuming something which is more of an error than hearing something that was spoken to someone. Or are we in a court of law!! All I did was make a statement disagreeing with yours. I didn't say that you were wrong, just that I'd heard something different, period!!! And if you need anymore on the NT just google it!!!!!!!

pk

[Woody]

Quote:

So I'm not sure where the hearsay comes from but I would say that that is assuming something which is more of an error than hearing something that was spoken to someone.

Yes. Sometimes it seems like we are in a court of law here. That would be one thing ... but what we don't need is all the condemning and harsh words towards each other.

There seems to be an excess of testosterone around here at times. Harsh words should be reserved for PMs if at all.

At some point ... this needs to be encouraged here. We are all Christians and we should be kind to each other.

When will we take personal responsibility for this? Probably never. We each think we are righteous in our own eyes. But at some point the 'body' needs to make a stand.

[B Humble]

The problem for John is simply this, he can't find a single scripture in Acts where Peter, Paul or any other evangelist commands any Christian to keep the Sabbath day. He quotes all of the scripture out of the biblical and historical context to serve his own purpose, ie..judaizing Christianity. If he were honest, he would admit there isn't a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that commands uncircumcised Gentiles to become Sabbath keepers as the Jews were commanded.

[TreeOfLife]

First of I'm didn't say I thought I heard that the NT was written in Greek or Aramaic, I said that I heard the NT was written in greek or aramaic. Here is a statement from Wikipeda: "According to Greek primacy, the original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45. Though Jesus speaks Aramaic in it, the New Testament (including the Gospels) was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the eastern half of the Roman Empire." Now I didn't get my info from here but I googled and was given many reference's as to the NT portion of the Bible being written in Greek. Like I mentioned I wasn't sure if it was greek or aramaic. I heard this from Professors that work here at AUC that the NT was written in greek and I know that they also mentioned that most of them spoke aramaic, that's why I mentioned it was either one or the other. So I'm not sure where the hearsay comes from but I would say that that is assuming something which is more of an error than hearing something that was spoken to someone. Or are we in a court of law!! All I did was make a statement disagreeing with yours. I didn't say that you were wrong, just that I'd heard something different, period!!! And if you need anymore on the NT just google it!!!!!!!

pk

[phkrause]

Thanks for the apology TreeOfLife, I guess I'm assuming it was an apology. I agree that Wikipedia is not the end all to everything. But from everything I have been able to find, the NT was written in the Greek Language and not Hebrew. Again thanks for your reply.

pk

[TreeOfLife]

Thanks for acknowledging my apology, PKrause!

I am sorry that I’m unable to present the facts of the matter re the NT being originally written in Hebrew and not Greek such that the evidence for the facts as they occurred become clear enough for you to accept at face value. May I assume that you’ve studied the details of that which I’ve laid before you in my prior posts within this topic?

TreeOfLife©

[Planey]

TreeOfLife, where is the Adamah Republic?

Graeme

[Woody]

Good Question Graeme. I was going to ask that ... but I didn't want to show my ignorance. But since you have shown YOUR's ... I don't mind.

[phkrause]

Good one Redwood, hide behind Planey. hahahahaha

pk