The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[John317]

Do you really believe that God inspired men to write the truth of the gospel of Christ only to allow it to be altered and perverted by Satan? (God did allow some changes to made, but none of those changes alter the fundamentals of the gospel or would cause anyone to accept false doctrines.)

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

God allowed changeS to the Scriptures since the twentieth century and the increase of knowledge unprecedented in the history of mankind and CERTAINLY a sign of the soon Return of Christ for ANY Christian.

I'm not talking about changes in translations. I'm talking about changes in the manuscripts so that they teach false doctrines.

[John317]

I know what I am doing. And I can challenge anyone in the world today on every smallest as well as biggest 'point at issue'.

Then please respond to post #577651.

Quote:

So, do you believe that instead of its being dawn, the text says it was dusk, BEFORE it got really dark?

Why do you translate "early darkness"?

As I tried to explain to you before, the adjective/adverb prohi (early) modifies the verb erxetai (coming). Prohi (early) doesn't modify skotias (darkness). So Mary was coming early in the morning. It wasn't the early part of the dark as you think.

It was early morning. It was early on the first day of the week. In fact, the word prohi (Strongs #4404) means "morning." See Matt. 16: 3, "and at morning [prohi]..." Also see Matt. 20: 1, "... early in the morning [prohi]..."

Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated "morning" or "early morning."

In Acts 28: 23, it is translated, "...from morning [prohi] till evening..."

Could you please explain according to the rules of Greek grammar and translation why you believe John 20: 1 should be translated "early darkness"?

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: John317

Gerhard, the above post shows why both you and Samie should stop trying to translate the New Testament for yourselves and depend on the standard translations of the Bible. There's nothing more dangerous than having just enough knowledge to think you can translate the Bible for yourself, even after it has been shown to you that you are in error. You said yourself earlier that you are both terrible at translating the Greek, so why do you insist on doing it?

That would be like a person who doesn't know the Russian language going to Russia and insisting that it's the Russians who don't know Russian. Crazy, huh? Well, that's about what you guys are doing here.

Oh, thanks for the advice you gave that unluckily included me.

I had not insisted I knew Greek better than anybody else because I never will not, nor did I ever do it anywhere, anytime in this forum or anywhere else in this globe.

I had just merely shown that the very same rules used by the translators who taught the world Sunday resurrection are the same rules they themselves violated by just merely translating "sabbatou" to "week". Why?

Because the same Greek "sabbatou" used in the NT 12 times in these verses - Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; 6:2; 16:1, 9; Luke 6:5; 13:14, 16; 14:5; 18:12; John 19:31; Acts 1:12 - except for the contested verse and Lk 18:12 were all translated to refer to "sabbath". Score 10 against 2, in favor of "sabbath". What must prevail, sabbath or week?

In the LXX, "sabbatou" occurred 16 times - 2 Chr 23:8; Neh 10:32; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26; Ps 37:1; 47:1; 91:1; Isa 66:23; Lam 2:6 - and, as you have already admitted, were all derived from the Hebrew "shabbath" which always refer to "sabbath" and not to "week". Score: 16 - 0, in favor of "sabbath".

Summary of Scores:

1..."sabbath" 16 (LXX) + 10 (NT) = 26

2......"week" 0 (LXX) + 2 (NT) = 2

"week" scored 2 and that includes the verse at issue, Mk 16:9. So if we don't include Mk 16:9 because it is the one in contention, "week" has but a score of 1 for taking Luke 18:12.

If we further examine Luke 18:12, we find that the only reason given why "sabbatou" was translated into "week" is that it makes more sense to fast twice a week than twice a day. But is there Scriptural record of fasting twice a week? The answer is none. Therefore the translation into "week" was based upon the common sense of the translators which, sadly, has no Scriptural basis.

This brings us into the reality that Sunday resurrection is based upon the common sense of the translators, which has no Scriptural basis, after all. The world then, was for centuries made to believe in a doctrine that was based not on Scriptures, but on the senses of the translators.

Dear readers, this layman doesn't care to be castigated, called names, or whatever may yet come, for as long as I bring the truth, solidly based on the infallible Word of God, and in so doing expose the lie of Sunday resurrection, God be my Help.

Mark 16:9 is the only verse in Scriptures that explicitly say when Christ rose from the grave. Despite the absence of Scriptural basis for translating "sabbatou" to "week" the translation was done and the world believed the Sunday resurrection lie. Mark wrote of the Lord's resurrection occurring on Saturday, but translators made it appear He rose on Sunday.

[John317]

I had just merely shown that the very same rules used by the translators who taught the world Sunday resurrection are the same rules they themselves violated by just merely translating "sabbatou" to "week".

You've already given evidence that you don't understand the rules of Greek grammar and you don't understand them even when they are explained to you.

If you have Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, please see page 566 #2 under the word Sabbaton (Strongs #4521).

If you don't accept what Thayer says, try any other standard lexicon. If you think you know more than the Greek-English Lexicons, I can't help you.

Like I say, it would be like an English speaking American refusing to accept the definitions in a Russian dictionary even though he knows no Russian.

[John317]

Mark 16:9 is the only verse in Scriptures that explicitly say when Christ rose from the grave. Despite the absence of Scriptural basis for translating "sabbatou" to "week" the translation was done and the world believed the Sunday resurrection lie. Mark wrote of the Lord's resurrection occurring on Saturday, but translators made it appear He rose on Sunday.

Samie, Mark is speaking in Mark 16: 9 of the "first day of the week."

Your "translation" would mean Paul told the Corinthians to go over their finances on the Sabbath and set aside an offering at home on Sabbath. See 1 Cor. 16: 2.

1 Cor. 16:2

"On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come." ESV

You would have Paul say, 'On one of the sabbaths..." Nonsense!

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

I had just merely shown that the very same rules used by the translators who taught the world Sunday resurrection are the same rules they themselves violated by just merely translating "sabbatou" to "week".

You've already given evidence that you don't understand the rules of Greek grammar and you don't understand them even when they are explained to you.

If you have Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, please see page 566 #2 under the word Sabbaton (Strongs #4521).

If you don't accept what Thayer says, try any other standard lexicon. If you think you know more than the Greek-English Lexicons, I can't help you.

Like I say, it would be like an English speaking American refusing to accept the definitions in a Russian dictionary even though he knows no Russian.

Brother John, were you there when the Greek-speaking Jews were conversing about "sabbatou"? Did you hear them and understand they meant "week" instead of "sabbath"? No one alive now had that opportunity. You could be a natural born Greek, I don't know. But none of us had that first hand knowledge of how actually "sabbatou" was then used by the Greek-speaking Jews. The tons of books on Greek language were written by people who neither had first-hand knowledge. Great Greek scholars were taught by people who learned their Greek from people who learned theirs from perhaps natural born Greeks whose great-great grandparents never had met any Greek-speaking Jew alive around the time of Christ. So how do we know that what they teach us now is in fact, a FACT? Faith?

So upon what shall we rely on, other than the works of the Greek speaking Jews themselves that God caused to be preserved? And that is the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. And those are what I used.

I am unteachable? Yes, when attempted to be taught a LIE. Teach me truth, you'll find, I am.

I owe many thanks to the Greek lexicons, having access to quite a number of them, but I stand on the solid ground of God's infallible Word.

[John317]

Yes. I agree ...

... one exception though, John 19:39. Compare the TR and the CT. (I'm talking of the 'chronological' Scriptures.)

Are you sure you mean John 19: 39? I fail to see any differences that could be described as false doctrine.

KJV (based on the TR)--John 19:39

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound* weight.

ESV (based on the Critical Text): John 19:39

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds* in weight.

The only differences in the Greek between the TR and the CT at John 19: 39 is that the CT has auton (him) in place of ton iesoun (Jesus), and hosei (about) in place of hos (about).

Many of the translations of the CT supply the name Jesus so that they are identical to the translation of the TR except for the weight of the myrrh and aloes.

*The difference in the weight of the myrrh and aloes is not due to the Greek text but to the way they are calculated by the translator. Both the TR and the CT read litras hekaton.

[John317]

the adjective/adverb prohi (early) modifies the verb erxetai (coming). Prohi (early) doesn't modify skotias (darkness). So Mary was coming early in the morning. It wasn't the early part of the dark as you think.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

Well, thanks, dear John317, you said it, not I ---

the adjective/adverb prohi which means Prohï (early) modify both Verb, Mary was _coming early_erchetai prohï AS WELL AS the Noun, erchetai MM prohï skotias eti ousehs (darkness) Genitive early-OF-darkness when yet / still.

Then TOO, the Adverb prohï (early) modifies the nearest and most relevant adverbial modifier, the following Participle, ousehs prohï ousehs BEING early still BUT being early WHAT still? ---being early darkness still!

It wasn't the early part of the dark as I think; it was the early part of the night dusk / early dark as JOHN thought and could not help think, and, KNEW.

Gerhard, prohi (early morning) can't modify both the verb, erchetai, and the noun, skotias.

Prohi always means "early morning," NEVER early night or early dark or dusk.

It doesn't say "being early still."

It says "being dark still," i.e., Mary came to the tomb early in the morning while it was still dark.

There's not a single translation in any langauge that says Mary came to the tomb while it was "still early darkness," i.e., dusk. The reason no Bibles say it is that it's an invalid, impossible, unreasonable translation.

You are translating the Greek the way you want it to be instead of the way it actually reads.

You remind me of the guy that used to post here who believed Acts 2: 3 should read, "And there appeared unto them a cloven tongue like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them."

No matter what I said, he continued to insist that it said, "a cloven tongue." It was even published in a book by someone who knows nothing of the Greek language.

Crazy, uh? Well, what you are saying here is just as wrong. But you obviously want to believe it, so believe it you will.

[John317]

Correct; it does not say "being early still.";

it says, "being early of-DARK / DARKNESS still", 'prohi SKOTIAS eti ousehs.

Here's what you posted earlier:

Quote:

ousehs prohï ousehs BEING early still BUT being early WHAT still? ---being early darkness still!

My point is that it doesn't say "being early still" or "being early darkness still."

I have over 66 different English translations of John 20: 1, and not a single one gives it the way you think it should be translated. And why not? Because that's not what it says.

Mary did not come to the tomb in the evening before it got completely dark. It wasn't dusk. It was dawn, early in the morning. That is the only way prohi can be translated. It never means evening. Compare Matt. 16: 3 and John 18: 28.

Check out Vine's An Expository Dictionary of NT Words, page 756.

[John317]

Are you sure you mean John 19: 39? I fail to see any differences that could be described as false doctrine.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

not described as false doctrine but ascribed to, false to very false doctrine, the doctrine of a Friday Crucifixion AND Burial and a Sunday morning resurrection.

The whole idea centuries ago already with the insertion of Jesus, was, as I said, to eliminate the second of the three days, the Burial-day that began in Mark15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Luke 23:50 and began ending in John 19:42 and Luke 23:54-56.

Please explain how the insertion of "Jesus" in John 19: 39 changes anything of substance in that verse.

How do you know the reason that some manuscripts have "Jesus" and others have the pronoun, "him"?

How do you know whether the original had "Jesus" or "him"? Practically all Greek manuscripts of verse 39 have "Jesus."

Here is verse 39 without the name "Jesus" included:

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to him by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

Here it is with "Jesus"--

John 19:39

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

What difference does it make?

You wrote:

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

“… THEN came also Nicodemus” John 19:39a

[because Joseph somehow must have let Nicodemus know that he wanted to bury Jesus.]

“… and having come” John 19:39b

“… to him” John 19:39b

[“him”— Joseph; to help him; NOT ‘to Jesus’!]

“… THIS THAT VERY NIGHT THE FIRST”, 'elthohn pros auton NUKTOS TO PROHTON'

[night of passover’s Feast of Unleavened Bread Exodus 12:17,42]

“… THEY, therefore, handled / treated / embalmed the body of Jesus and bound it in (several more) sheets together with the spices … Nicodemus had brought.” John 19:40,(39c).

Verse 39 says that Nicodemus was the one who came to Jesus during the night, referring to John chapter 3 where it describes Nicodemus' talk with Christ.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: John317

Are you sure you mean John 19: 39? I fail to see any differences that could be described as false doctrine.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

not described as false doctrine but ascribed to, false to very false doctrine, the doctrine of a Friday Crucifixion AND Burial and a Sunday morning resurrection.

The whole idea centuries ago already with the insertion of Jesus, was, as I said, to eliminate the second of the three days, the Burial-day that began in Mark15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Luke 23:50 and began ending in John 19:42 and Luke 23:54-56.

Please explain how the insertion of "Jesus" in John 19: 39 changes anything of substance in that verse.

How do you know the reason that some manuscripts have "Jesus" and others have the pronoun, "him"?

How do you know whether the original had "Jesus" or "him"? Practically all Greek manuscripts of verse 39 have "Jesus."

Here is verse 39 without the name "Jesus" included:

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to him by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

Here it is with "Jesus"--

John 19:39

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

What difference does it make?

Absolutely none John, absolutely none.

[John317]

There's not a single translation in any langauge that says Mary came to the tomb while it was "still early darkness," i.e., dusk. The reason no Bibles say it is that it's an invalid, impossible, unreasonable translation.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

Marshall:

"Now on the first day of the week Mary the Magdalene comes early darkness yet being to the tomb" 'The Interlinear Greek - English New Testament' Samuel Baxter and Sons Limited London 1958

... not even TRIED to find it ... sat with it right next to me.

Please read the English translation. What does it say? Please quote it here.

You've just provided a good example of why it's dangerous to possess a little knowledge, just enough to make a person feel they know more than all the translators.

Yes, "....Mary comes early, it being yet dark, to the tomb."

A good translation is, "...Mary came early to the tomb while it was still dark."

It doesn't say, "Mary came to the tomb, it being still early darkness."

As I said before, "early" [prohi] is a reference to early morning, not to late evening or dusk.

See its other uses in Matt. 16: 3 and John 18: 28.

Matthew 16:3

And in the morning [prohi], It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

John 18:28

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early [prohi]; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Would you agree that in those verses, prohi refers to the morning and not to early darkness?

[Lysimachus]

You both are EQUALLY STUBBORN.

What surprises me also, is that both of you EQUALLY call on extra-Biblical ‘authority’ for support.

I have read Uriah Smith's 'article' and found nothing incontrovertible in it. He makes MANY mistakes. His Greek is hopeless, and like every Easter-proponent, he departs from a quicksand basis.

Uriah Smith was smarter on is worst day, than on yours and Samie's best day COMBINED!

His Greek was not hopeless. He had a deeper understanding on these concepts, not just from the Greek, but overall, from the circumstances, surroundings, situation, and a totality of scripture.

[Lysimachus]

Gerhard, the above post shows why both you and Samie should stop trying to translate the New Testament for yourselves and depend on the standard translations of the Bible. There's nothing more dangerous than having just enough knowledge to think you can translate the Bible for yourself, even after it has been shown to you that you are in error. You said yourself earlier that you are both terrible at translating the Greek, so why do you insist on doing it?

That would be like a person who doesn't know the Russian language going to Russia and insisting that it's the Russians who don't know Russian. Crazy, huh? Well, that's about what you guys are doing here.

Pin-pointedly stated brother, pin-pointedly stated.

[Lysimachus]

John317 is right.

Samie is wrong.

Todd_Vetter is wrong.

Go figure. :)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Please read the English translation. What does it say? Please quote it here.

I did, you just quoted my quote for your reply!

I QUOTED for you Marshalls _English_ translation and I gave you the source you could very well have yourself, the Nestle Interlinear with Marshalls translation

Eish!

Let's go real slow and look carefully at this again.

You're not understanding what you're reading in Greek or in Marshalls interlinear.

The Interlinear is giving you the translation of the Greek words, and it is giving you the word order of the Greek, but that is not the same as a translation. The translation is given to you in the side of the page. The translation puts the Greek in good English; the interlinear does not.

The Greek word order doesn't matter. It isn't like English. In Greek, the words can be in almost any order, and it wouldn't matter. What matters in Greek is the change in the prefix and the suffix of the words, because they determine the relationship among the words. Greek is a highly inflective language, meaning most words in the Greek change their spelling according to what relationship they have to the other words in the sentence. English isn't a very inflective language. In English, word order is crucial, whereas in Greek it is not.

How would you translate the following sentence---

Quote:

alektora phonesai tris aparnesee me

Some people might transliterate it this way: alektora phonhsai tris aparnhsh me

Please translate the above, placing the punctuation marks where they belong.

[John317]

Novum Testamentum Graece Wuerttumbergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart ton Iehsoun inserted, see which manuscript under John 19:39. See also George V. Wigrams Englishmans Greek Concordance of the NT, Various readings, Iehsous John 19:39.

I want to slow down the exchanges so that we make sure we're both understanding what the other is saying. Let each post look at a smaller number of issues.

Up to this point, you often only answer one of my questions after I have asked you several. And you also appear to me to have a misunderstanding of what you are reading in the books you refer to, including the Greek NT text.

What do you think the apostle John originally wrote in 19: 39?

It appears that you believe the words, "by night" were not in the original. Is this your belief?

The question is not whether some manuscripts have "Jesus" and others have "him." Nor is it a question of whether the verse contains variants. Of course that is true. The question is, what is the manuscript evidence for the inclusion of "Jesus"? And what difference does its inclusion make for the meaning of the verse?

But if you believe the words "by night" were not in the original, that is an entirely different matter. If that is what you think, let's talk about it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, "....Mary comes early, it being yet dark, to the tomb."

No; "Mary comes to the tomb on the First Day of the week, being early-of-dark still ..."

Gerhard, can you find a single English translation of the NT that gives the reading "being early-of-dark still"? If so, please quote it and give the title of the translation.

[John317]

The immediate relevancy being John chapter 3 where it describes Nicodemus' talk with Christ has no relevancy in the least. The relevancy here being Nicodemus also came there to where Joseph was busy preparing the body for to bury (it) according to the Jews ethics ....

The relevancy of the phrase "Nicodemus, he that came to Jesus by night at the first," is that it clearly identifies this Nicodemus as the man who had talked with Jesus in John 3. So it is saying that this same person helped in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial. This adds meaning to the conversastion Jesus had with him.

[John317]

...the difference it makes is the difference between the PURE Written Word of God and a CORRUPTION of it.

The reason we're discussing John 19: 39 is that you said the variants in this verse are important because they change doctrine.

My question to you is, how do these variants in this verse change anything of doctrinal significance?

There are many differences among the thousands of NT manuscripts. Do you believe each of them corrupts the PURE Written Word? If not, why do you believe this particular variant is a corruption?

[John317]

.... the BONE-day of the three days is the death-knell of a Sundays resurrection.

Gerhard, there are a number of "death-knells" for a Sabbath resurrection, but one of the most powerful "death-knell" is the truth of Ellen White's statement in Desire of Ages, page 785, 786:

Quote:

Christ arose from the dead as the first fruits of those that slept. He was the antitype of the wave sheaf, and His resurrection took place on the very day when the wave sheaf was to be presented before the Lord.

QUESTION: On which day was the wave sheaf presented before the Lord?

Lev. 23: 9-15 contains the answer:

Leviticus 23:15

"You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering."

[John317]

THEN came also Nicodemus John 19:39a

[because Joseph somehow must have let Nicodemus know that he wanted to bury Jesus.]

and having come John 19:39b

to him John 19:39b

him& Joseph; to help him; NOT to Jesus

THIS THAT VERY NIGHT THE FIRST, 'elthohn pros auton NUKTOS TO PROHTON'

[night of passovers Feast of Unleavened Bread Exodus 12:17,42]

I agree with you that Joseph had communicated with Nicodemus the fact that he wanted to bury Jesus. But there's no valid evidence that the words, "had come to him (or "to Jesus") by night at the first," is a reference to Exodus 12: 17, 42. (I've given a translation of those words that agrees with the literal translations of Robert Young and Rotherham, as well as just about every translation in the English language.)

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

THEY, therefore, handled / treated / embalmed the body of Jesus and bound it in (several more) sheets together with the spices Nicodemus had brought. John 19:40,(39c).

....The relevancy here being Nicodemus also came there to where Joseph was busy preparing the body for to bury (it) according to the Jews ethics or the Jews RELEVANT, passover-Scriptures, the most important, Exodus 12 to 14 TO WHICH John makes UNDENIABLE reference with THIS FIRST NIGHT ---THIS THAT NIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY OBSERVED the night-beginning of the fifteenth day of the First Month.

While I agree with you that Christ fulfilled the typical Passover, I don't believe the manuscript evidence offers support for it in John 19: 39, 40. Christ's fulfillment of the Passover isn't based on a certain odd translation or construction of John 19: 39, 40, such as you've given it.

Evidence for Christ's being the antitype of the Passover is found just as well in the standard translations of that verse, such as given by the KJV or NIV or NASB or RSV or English Standard Version, etc. We don't depend on that particular verse but on the entire Scriptures, which teach that Christ was the fulfillment of all the feasts, including the Passover.

We don't need to twist the Scriptures or make errors in translation in order to support the truth. That is what the Mormons have done in the "Inspired Translation" of Joseph Smith and it is what the Watchtower organization has done in the New World Translation.

[John317]

Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated "morning" or "early morning."

Luke 24: 1 uses prohi to refer to "early dawn" or "very early in the morning." There's no evidence that it refers to just after midnight.

The women didn't come to the tomb just after midnight. The women bought spices after the end of the Sabbath, when the sun set that day. They left home to go to the tomb when it was still dark, and when they arrived at the tomb, it was still early dawn on the first day.

This is in accordance with Mark 16: 11; John 20: 11; Matt 28: 1 and Mark 16: 2.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

or it can be when a gardener would begin his days work, sunrise or just after sunrise,early, John 20:11-17 = Mark 16:9; or it can be even after sunrise early, like when Jesus must have appeared to the OTHER women AFTER her;

Yes, in all those examples, prohi refers to early morning; NOT twilight, late evening.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

or it may be early before noon in the mid-forenoon, epaurion,early when today the sky is red and lowring, Matthew 16: 3

Verse 2 refers to "evening" [or late afternoon'] [Gk opsia] whereas verse 3 refers to "morning" [Gk prohi] (See NASB, ESV, Rotherham, NIV, KJV, Robert Young's Literal, etc.)

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

or early afternoon, deileh prohïa;

Please quote the verse where you find this and give the reference.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

or it can be early in the rainy season, James 5:7;

This "early" is a translation of a different word, the adjective proimos.

The main point is that prohi never refers to the late evening or twilight.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

or early time of the fruit-season, prohia karpimoh.

Could you please quote the verse and give the reference?

In any case, this is no evidence that prohia refers to late evening or twilight.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

You even get a late, early rain Hosea 6:4b.

Again, the word here is the adjective proimos, not the adverb prohi.

All of this evidence merely supports the conclusion that prohi NEVER refers to the twilight but always to the early morning.

[John317]

It says "being dark still,"

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

Beg your pardon, it does NOT say, "being dark still";

it says, "being EARLY of-dark / darkness still", 'PROHI Skotias eti ousehs’ ---which precisely was when Mary came to the tomb.

Yes, Mary Magdalene did come to the tomb while it was still dark, but it was in the early morning shortly before sunrise, NOT at twilight.

This is according to both the NT and the writings of Ellen G. White.

I can see why it's important for you to claim Mary came to the tomb "early of dark," or at twilight-- because it would mean for you that Jesus' resurrection occurred on the Sabbath. However, no matter how you slice it, there's no valid biblcial evidence for a Sabbath resurrection.

Our Lord slept in the grave, resting after sacrificing a perfect life for our salvation, just as He rested on the first Sabbath after finishing His creation of a perfect world.

[John317]

'Prohi' is Adjectival because of the Noun's Possessive Case ---the 'early' part or and quality of the dark is that "OF the dark" ... and - NOT DENIED - but secondary, 'prohi' is ALSO Adverbial, telling Mary comes early to the tomb, "it being yet EARLY dark."

Here is where you are making your biggest mistake in trying to understand the texts related to the resurrection of Christ.

As Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words tells you, prohi is an adverb, NOT an ajective. Adverbs usually modify the closest adjective, adverb, or verb. In this case, prohi (early) modifies the nearest verb, erchetai (came).

Prohi, contrary to your view, is not an adjective modifying the closest noun, skotias (dark).

Please take special note of the following:

Ajectives are inflected and agree with the noun they modify in case, gender, and number.

Prohi is not inflected because it is not an adjective, and therefore it is not modifying the noun, skotias.

This is found in all textbooks teaching NT Greek.

And this understanding of the Greek agrees with Mark 16: 2, which clearly states (as does EG White) that Mary and the other women came to the tomb "very early" [Gk lian prohi] on the first day of the week... the sun having risen."