The Bible Says Christ Rose Early Saturday Morning

[John317]

You talk about reading the Greek and reading Marshall's Greek-English interlinear, yet your posts show that you don't even understand what you're reading.

You would be better off taking classes in the language you want to understand, before claiming to translate the Bible more accurately than thousands of translators who have studied and taught Greek and NT theology for many, many years.

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

"... for many, many years" never, never having faced the issues OF TODAY and never, never having been PROMPTED by enquiring MIND and always, always been indoctrinated and brain-washed by traditionalists and pedantic authoritarian instructors and dictators more blunt and dumb than they themselves.

How do you know this? It seems to me you are making a lot of judgmental statements about people you don't even know.

But if you are right about all those translators of the Bible-- most of whom are teachers of translation in the top universities-- why should anyone trust what you are doing and saying, since you demonstrate that you know far less about translation than the men and women who've devoted their lives to helping to spread the gospel through translations of God's inspired word?

[John317]

How do you understand "In the end of the Sabbaths..."?

Do you believe it is saying the various sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath, came to an end at that time?

Matthew 28: 1 isn't correctly translated "in the end of the Sabbaths..." It is translated, "After [Gk opse] the Sabbath...." (NIV). It can also be translated as "in the end of," or "late on." It is saying the same thing as Mark 16: 1, where Mark uses the singular, sabbatou.

"Sabbath" can be translated from either singular [sabbato/ sabbatou] or plural [sabbaton].

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

The NIV is the work of the devil; it misrepresents the Written Word of God FOR TO IDOLATROUSLY WORSHIP SUNDAY.

ONLY ITS ABUSE OF THE GREEK IS WORSE THAN ITS IDOLATRY.

Is this your complete answer to the question about the signficance of the phrase in Matt. 28: 1, "In the end of the Sabbaths..."?

[Lysimachus]

Gerhard,

What planet are you on?

Go back again and read my post. I never gave that "4angelspublications.com" website. It was Gustave. I responded to Gustave providing websites that REFUTED that website. You obviously are reading posts way too fast and not digesting what is being said.

[Lysimachus]

John317,

I want to thank you for all your posts. As someone who cannot claim to know Greek or Hebrew, it is refreshing when there is a Seventh-Day Adventist who does. Sadly, and unfortunately, when there are individuals who claim to be better translators of the Greek, and are outside of Adventist circles coming in as savage wolves, not sparing the flock, they often love to flaunt their so-called "knowledge" and use it to try and decimate their opponents who do not know Greek. Most Adventists then are left feeling helpless and not able to defend themselves against these wolves. The best they can do is rely on the Word of God as it reads in English, and believe just what it says---but these wolves will simply throw up the same old vomit at them over and over and over again: "you do not know the Greek, you are reading corrupt text!"---how Satan loves this to injure the faith in these poor souls who, love their Bibles to death, but now suddenly wonder if perhaps they cannot even depend on their own reading of the Bible, for men like Gerhard, Samie, and JASD are being used as instruments of Satan to injure people's faith in the Bible.

So when I see posts like yours, John317, it is refreshing, because it goes to show that, after all, and after the dust is settled, our traditional interpretations as Adventists have been CORRECT all along.

Christ was delivered into the hands of His enemies on Thursday evening.

Christ was crucified around 3:00pm Friday afternoon.

Christ was in the Tomb on Friday before sunset, through Friday night, through Saturday during the day, and through Saturday night.

Christ rose early Sunday morning before daylight.

This is what our Pioneers believed, and while all the hosts of Hell try to make minced meat of these arguments, and hurl their vitriolic hatred against our Pioneers, insulting their intelligence, and making them out to look like morons who did not know Greek, when all is said and done, and the dust is fully settled, we discovered that in the end, these teachings ARE in harmony with the Greek, and in line with the best translations of the original Greek AFTER ALL! =D

Keep up the good work John317!

Gerhard,

A small suggestion to you: If I were you, I would make up my mind to not be so dogmatic in your interpretation. Why? Because if in the end you discover you are wrong, you may be too proud to want to change, the humiliation will be too hard for you to bear. You need to be willing and open that you may be WRONG. You need to be HUMBLE and TEACHABLE. And willing to submit when people have pointed out that you have many defects in your understanding of the Greek. You need to be HUMBLE and TEACHABLE when people show you that perhaps, after all, Rome has not altered the Greek manuscripts. You need to be HUMBLE and TEACHABLE, and be willing and open to the FACT that just MAYBE this idea that Rome has tampered with these translations is nothing more than the FIGMENT of your IMAGINATION---and is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

[Gail]

John317,

I want to thank you for all your posts. As someone who cannot claim to know Greek or Hebrew, it is refreshing when there is a Seventh-Day Adventist who does. Sadly, and unfortunately, when there are individuals who claim to be better translators of the Greek, and are outside of Adventist circles coming in as savage wolves, not sparing the flock, they often love to flaunt their so-called "knowledge" and use it to try and decimate their opponents who do not know Greek. Most Adventists then are left feeling helpless and not able to defend themselves against these wolves. The best they can do is rely on the Word of God as it reads in English, and believe just what it says---but these wolves will simply throw up the same old vomit at them over and over and over again: "you do not know the Greek, you are reading corrupt text!"---how Satan loves this to injure the faith in these poor souls who, love their Bibles to death, but now suddenly wonder if perhaps they cannot even depend on their own reading of the Bible, for men like Gerhard, Samie, and JASD are being used as instruments of Satan to injure people's faith in the Bible.

Thank you so much for this, Marcos!

I would like to add that the Holy Spirit can speak to the humble one who meditates on the word of God. I received an example of this today. And when the Holy Spirit does it, AMAZING things are understood, praise God!

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

But, wrong is wrong, and she ain not no infallible missus.

>>Her position goes against...YOUR interpretation of the Greek,<<

Ain not my interpretation of the Greek. It is only that of the cognizant. I barely get by with English.

>>which many many people, and many many scholars, who do not even KNOW who Ellen White is, agree with Ellen White, whether they realize it or not.<<

Umm, you might wanna rethink your line of reasoning, as “many people, and many many scholars” believe in worshipping Gd on Sunday – and to trump even that – have believed that for 1500 years more than the Protesting voices. Are they right?

>>Thousands of scholars who know nothing of EGW agree with us. And they interpret the same Greek, and same texts very differently from you.<<

Goes to the above…; moreover, it is so transparent and obvious that the text, “…because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand” (Matt 13:13) comes to mind.

>>It's your interpretation of Holy Writ that she goes directly against. Not Holy Writ itself.<<

Doubtful, as it is not I who embraces .org dogmatology.

>>Sorry, that's just how it is.<<

Indeed, pity.

>>And no, Jesus resurrected on Sunday morning. Not late afternoon Dusk.<<

Non, non!—at no time morning, late afternoon, or dusk – Sunday. Not one minute of either evening or morning Sunday.

>>Your interpretation goes against:

1. The sound interpretation of MOST scholars, who know a lot more than you...and...<<

Most scholars thought at one time that the earth was flat.

>>2. The Inspired Testimonies of Ellen White---that happen to agree with most scholars.<<

“That guy ought to keep his pants on when going to bed.” [extemporized] --Testimonies

>>Thus, your case is far more hopeless condition than ours.<<

Yeah, dream on. Rotsa ruck. A simple read of Writ validates my position – don’t even need to know Greek; just have to know causal events and people.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

....that Matthew 28:1 declares Jesus Christ resurrected? that is, the evening of the Sabbath day...

>>Matt 28: 1 does not say Christ was resurrected on the evening of the Sabbath day. The verse says the women came to the tomb early in the morning as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.

ESV--Matthew 28:1

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

KJV--Matthew 28:1

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.<<

Oh, John, John, John, dost thou so quickly forget that you yourself noted that three time and three times only opse is used in Writ with it twice translated even/evening?—yet, you’ll so blithely go on that the third time it indubitably means after – without, I may mention, a single stick of support.

“In the end of the Sabbath…” means the end of the Sabbath the end of the Sabbath – and not some many hours later. The end of the Sabbath is readily identified.

Is the ESV copyrighted? Well, there you have it. Copyright law states that the submitted text must differ in substantial manner from one already copyrighted (and after qualifies as substantially differing) – and there’s a whole slew of thems copyrighted Bibles out there – attempting to differ sufficiently from the others so as to copyright their own translation.

Bible$ $ell! (“a mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound a buck or a pound a buck or a pound – is all that makes the world go aroung!” –Cabaret)

Anywez, why don’t you back-up a few posts and read what Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament sez…?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Ain not the above what might be termed circular reasoning I mean, proving the argument with recourse to the proffered numinous and extraBiblical by first asserting, is the truth?

>>On which day was the wave sheaf (the first fruits) presented before the Lord?<<

Was not arguing the day the sheaf was waved, but the path the reasoning took; however, I would be curious as to how you weave the sacrifice (again) of a lamb, flour, oil, and the wine into the significance of waving the sheaf – which was cut and gathered-in the previous Seventh-day Sabbath evening…

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Unless you also believe in "In the end of the Sabbaths..." of Matthew 28:1 - then I was not defending you - for my position is that Jesus Christ resurrected late afternoon to dusk on the Seventh-day Sabbath as was then practiced by the Jews.

>>How do you understand "In the end of the Sabbaths..."?

Do you believe it is saying the various sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath, came to an end at that time?<<

The various Sabbaths of the week inclusively, yes. It may even have meant that the keeping of Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews ended…, as you have said that from the time of Saint John the church was worshipping on Sunday.

I think it disingenuous to portray the Gospel writers as witless, not knowing the difference between the singular and plural usage of words – that one may use them, one and all, to insert, willy-nilly, ‘week’ into the narrative, rather than seeking to understand what they truly meant by utilizing either the singular or the plural of Sabbath(s).

Let’s say that I am Saint Matthew and I wanted to convey the idea of a multiplicity of Sabbaths, plural Sabbaths…, well, I use the Greek Sabbatwn. I write, and thereafter, behold!—the angel of the Lord carries me forward a coupla millennia and I find that I’ve been Oy!—translated and interpreted to have meant – WEEK! Wha’s THAT!? Mo betta I’d used the Greek hebdomas if I’d meant week, yes?

>>Matthew 28: 1 isn't correctly translated "in the end of the Sabbaths..." It is translated, "After [Gk opse] the Sabbath...." (NIV). It can also be translated as "in the end of," or "late on." It is saying the same thing as Mark 16: 1, where Mark uses the singular, sabbatou.<<

Matthew and Mark spoke of different subjects/antecedents; ipso, the one used the singular for the immediately preceding Sabbath and the other the plural for the multiplicity of the immediately preceding Sabbaths. Transparent.

>>"Sabbath" can be translated from either singular [sabbato/ sabbatou] or plural [sabbaton].<<

You assert that from a construction assumed of Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:1? Hail Mary?

[jasd]

>>…if perhaps they cannot even depend on their own reading of the Bible, for men like Gerhard, Samie, and JASD are being used as instruments of Satan to injure people's faith in the Bible.<<

And “JASD”!? Bite your tongue fellow. Don’t worry about jasd; rather, worry about truths – and stick to the KJV Bible – never copyrighted and never had the need to corrupt textual meaning…

>> Christ rose early Sunday morning before daylight.<<

Oh, and mind the placement of commas in Writ. Sometimes, they are deleteriously arbitrary.

[John317]

Matthew 28: 1 isn't correctly translated "in the end of the Sabbaths..." It is translated, "After [Gk opse] the Sabbath...." (NIV). It can also be translated as "in the end of," or "late on." It is saying the same thing as Mark 16: 1

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

The NIV in Matthew 28:1 does not translate from Matthew 28:1; it copied from Justin Martyr and smeared his heresy down in it.

The NIV and English Standard Version, etc., are translations of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament in Matt. 28: 1 as well as in the other parts of the New Testament. They are not "copied from Justin Martyr."

You are simply making a claim for which there is absolutely no valid evidence.

Since you like Marshall's Interlinear translation, let me quote the evidence found in it:

Marshall's interlinear translation of Matt. 28: 1 says that it was "dawning toward the first day of the week." When dawn of the first day occurs, the Sabbath has already ended. Therefore it is correct to translate it as "AFTER the Sabbath." So it was "dawn," according to Marshall's translation, not "dusk" or twilight.

Luke 24: 1 agrees that it was "very early."

Marshall's interlinear of Mark 16: 2 says the women came to the tomb "as the sun rose." Of course that is very early in the morning, not in the evening.

Quoting Marshall's interlinear, Mark 16: 1 reads, "And passing the sabbath" = "when the sabbath was past."

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.]

Marshall also translates sabbaton in Luke 24: 1 as "week," and says the women came to the tomb "while still very early."

[jasd]

>>The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.]<<

It may be that one is justified in taking issue with the above statement, “Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.” [/ed.jasd]

Without going into other translations or interpretations, Gerry Cabalo has interestingly observed that a (similar) phrase as mia ton sabbaton/first of the Sabbaths may in fact coincide here and be correct as it reads; that is, that Sunday was the first [day] of the Pentecostal Sabbaths.

The translators have too often arbitrarily strewn ‘week’ about as dragon’s teeth, regardless which inflection, singular, or plural they corrupt.

[John317]

Do you believe it is saying the various sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath, came to an end at that time?

Originally Posted By: jasd

The various Sabbaths of the week inclusively, yes. It may even have meant that the keeping of Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews ended, as you have said that from the time of Saint John the church was worshipping on Sunday.

What I said was that false doctrines began increasingly to enter the Christian churches about the time that Saint John died. Some of those false doctrines encouraged the idea that God's moral law is unimportant. About that time, also, Christians began to substitute pagan ideas for biblical teachings, and this included the keeping of Sunday in certain cities of the Roman Empire. It was the beginning of the apostasy that Jesus, Paul, and John had warned the church about.

I never said that the early church "was worshpping on Sunday from the time of Saint John." The truth is that until the 4th century, the churches almost everywhere (except at Rome and Alexandria) had worship services on the Sabbath. From about the second century to the 4th, many of them also had a worship service on Sunday morning. After that there were many Christian churches in various parts of the world-- such as China and some sections of Africa-- which still kept the Sabbath.

[jasd]

Okay, sometimes a rewrite is desirable; however, you may want to post your exact quote before it is thought that you're over-egging the pudding...

[John317]

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.]

Originally Posted By: jasd

Without going into other translations or interpretations, Gerry Cabalo has interestingly observed that a (similar) phrase as mia ton sabbaton/first of the Sabbaths may in fact coincide here and be correct as it reads; that is, that Sunday was the first [day] of the Pentecostal Sabbaths.

A number of Sunday-keepers have concluded that "first of the sabbaths" and "end of the sabbaths" are evidences of the change of the weekly Sabbath to Sunday.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the translation of sabbaton. These Sunday-keepers ignore the fact that most Greek words mean different things depending on their context and how they are used, and that sometimes literal translations can lead to misinterpretations of the text.

WE have many examples of this in English as well.

A translator runs into serious difficulties and misinterpretations of the meaning of the text if he insists on translating Greek words by the same English word every time.

Let me give an example.

In Matt. 8: 29, the demons literally said, "What to us and to you, Son of the God?"

That obviously wouldn't make sense to English speaking people. So my point here is that literal translations often make for difficult reading and understanding.

The same thing happens when translating from any language into another. A good translator of Spanish conveys the message in English in the same words as the original speaker or writer would have used had he been fluent in English. For instance, the translator of Spanish doesn't ask, "How are you called?" but "What is your name?"

The whole purpose of translating is to transfer a thought or idea from one language to another. The purpose is not to give a literal translation which doesn't convey the idea or thought that was originally spoken or written.

Translating John 20: 1 to mean "the first of the sabbaths" is a good example of giving a literal translation of a Greek word but without conveying the correct meaning.

If a translation doesn't convey the correct meaning from one language to another, it is not a translation in the truest sense of the word. It may be giving a literal translation of the word as it occurs in the dictionary, but that is not enough. A good translator must also consider its context and what it will mean to people who are speaking a different language.

For example, when John 20: 1 says, literally, "the first of the sabbaths," was John referring to sabbaths or to weeks? If he was thinking of what we call "weeks," then it wouldn't be correct to make him say "sabbaths," because such a translation conveys the wrong idea, even though it is literal.

Let's take another example from the NT.

In Matt. 4: 24, it tells us of various kinds of people who came to Christ for healing. Among them were people who were selhniazomenous--- literally, "being moonstruck."

But would a good translator use the word, "moonstruck," to convey the correct meaning in English?

No, a good translator would use the word "epileptic," not "moonstruck."

"Moonstruck" may be literal, but it doesn't express the idea that the text is intended to convey.

The same principle applies to "sabbiton" in John 20: 1, Matt. 28: 1, Mark 16: 2, and Luke 24:1, Acts 20: 7, 1 Cor. 16: 2, and in a number of other NT verses. The original writer wasn't referring to sabbaths but to the weekly, seven-day cycle.

[todd_vetter33]

Originally Posted By: John

Matthew 28: 1 isn't correctly translated "in the end of the Sabbaths..." It is translated, "After [Gk opse] the Sabbath...." (NIV). It can also be translated as "in the end of," or "late on." It is saying the same thing as Mark 16: 1

Originally Posted By: Gerhard

The NIV in Matthew 28:1 does not translate from Matthew 28:1; it copied from Justin Martyr and smeared his heresy down in it.

The NIV and English Standard Version, etc., are translations of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament in Matt. 28: 1 as well as in the other parts of the New Testament. They are not "copied from Justin Martyr."

You are simply making a claim for which there is absolutely no valid evidence.

Since you like Marshall's Interlinear translation, let me quote the evidence found in it:

Marshall's interlinear translation of Matt. 28: 1 says that it was "dawning toward the first day of the week." When dawn of the first day occurs, the Sabbath has already ended. Therefore it is correct to translate it as "AFTER the Sabbath." So it was "dawn," according to Marshall's translation, not "dusk" or twilight.

Luke 24: 1 agrees that it was "very early."

Marshall's interlinear of Mark 16: 2 says the women came to the tomb "as the sun rose." Of course that is very early in the morning, not in the evening.

Quoting Marshall's interlinear, Mark 16: 1 reads, "And passing the sabbath" = "when the sabbath was past."

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.]

Marshall also translates sabbaton in Luke 24: 1 as "week," and says the women came to the tomb "while still very early."

[todd_vetter33]

No controversy. The Bible has it. All we do is believe.

There is only one verse in the whole Scriptures that explicitly says when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the grave. All the other resurrection-related verses only inform us that when some of the Lord's followers went to the sepulcher, all they found was an already empty tomb! But when did He rise? That single verse tells us when.

No wonder, because the truth that verse tells would prove to be disastrous to the lie subtly perpetrated and peddled by the nemesis of truth, the father of lies seemed to have exerted all efforts to thwart any and all attempts to get the truth of that verse into people's minds. Abetted, albeit unawares, by many whom the world considers as pillars of theological studies, the author of untruth seemed to have his way. Many hold the position that because that part of Scripture where the verse is located does not exist in some old manuscripts, that portion of Scriptures could possibly be not authentic. Others contend that the best translation from the Greek manuscripts, is the translation almost all versions have. And to depart from the translation majority agrees with results into raising of eyebrows against any non-conformist from those whom the world considers are in the best position to interpret the Greek Scriptures being more knowledgeable in that language.

But truth cannot remain hidden forever.

When analyzed in the backdrop of Scriptural authority, the truth for which this single verse has the key, will open up the door of understanding to comprehend what others seem to consider as irreconcilable inconsistencies in the gospels. Did not Scriptures tell of four different phrases that describe the length of time from crucifixion to resurrection?

1. 3 days and 3 nights (Matt 12:40)

2. in three days (John 2:19-21)

3. after three days (Matt. 27:63; Mk. 8:31) and

4. third day (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mk. 9:31; 10:34; Lk. 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46)

Because the period of time from crucifixion to resurrection is definite, the above four different phrases must necessarily be all equal to that definite period of time. But is 3 days & 3 nights = in 3 days = after 3 days = third day? What appears as inconsistent, is actually consistent when we just let Scripture explain itself.

And that single verse will give us the needed key.

For centuries, the world was made to believe that from Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning before sunrise is a period equal to 3 days and 3 nights = in 3 days = after 3 days = third day despite the fact that it will take a first grader not a very long time to figure out that from Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning before sunrise is a period equal to only 2 days and 2 nights!

Belief in a Friday crucifixion is based on the prosabbaton of Mk 15:42. Yes, prosabbaton is the day before Sabbath. But which Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath, Saturday, or a ceremonial sabbath which could fall on any weekday? Why is the Greek form of "sabbaton" plural in the resurrection verses if only one Sabbath was involved in that paschal week? Don't Scriptures tell us the first day of the feast of unleavend bread on the morrow of Passover is a ceremonial sabbath as well, and therefore the day before it is likewise prosabbaton? Mere contentions do not and cannot solve the issue; only Scriptures can.

And that verse holds the key...

To let Scripture explain itself, Scripture can at no time be in conflict with Scripture. Scripture is words of truth spoke by inspiration of God. Below is a perfect example of Scripture expaining scripture where Christian doctrine does not illustrate scripture at all times concerning how Jesus fulfilled 3 days and 3 nights.

[John317]

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.)

Originally Posted By: jasd

It may be that one is justified in taking issue with the above statement, Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular. [/ed.jasd]

The translators have too often arbitrarily strewn week about as dragons teeth, regardless which inflection, singular, or plural they corrupt.

How do you know it is done "arbitrarily"? Do you know and understand the rules of Greek grammar and translation?

You might at least inquire as to why translation is done the way it is, instead of implying that you know better than professional translators and are ready to make corrections in textbooks that have been used for years to teach Greek.

That would be like a person in Greece who knows almost no English telling you that you are being "abitrary" in the way you speak English.

If someone did that, what would be your response?

[John317]

Dear John317, as we exchanged ideas on this forum, I turned back to our friend Lysimachus' post

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/578849/22.html

where he gave this web-page. http://www.4angelspublications.com/articles/Lunar_Sabbath_SDA_Church.php

.... I accommodated you, thanks to Lysimachus.

As I said, I repeat, it is of no interest to me.

No, you mean thanks to Gustave, who is trying to do the same thing you are, only from a Roman Catholic viewpoint.

You're right it's of no interest to you. In fact, the subject is of such little interest to you that you evidently didn't even pay attention to who wrote what. I clicked on the link and found that Lysimachus didn't post it at all as you claimed, but Gustave did.

As if that's not enough, you also apparently felt the need of sharing the same mistaken information with ClubAdventist members on a different thread.

[John317]

I find it humorous when Christian men who claim to be wise scholors claim you must know Greek to know the truth concerning what the bible says. Well Most christians in America speak english, Either your bible is speaking the truth in English form when translated to english or it is not speaking the truth, You don't need to know Greek if truth is actually being displayed.

I don't know of anyone who said people need to know Greek to know the truth.

All people need are several good, reliable translations of the Bible in their native language.

A knowledge of Greek is good for discerning false claims by people who give the impression they know the Greek text better than the translators.

[John317]

Marshall's interlinear of Mark 16: 2 says the women came to the tomb "as the sun rose." Of course that is very early in the morning, not in the evening.

Quoting Marshall's interlinear, Mark 16: 1 reads, "And passing the sabbath" = "when the sabbath was past."

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.)

Marshall also translates sabbaton in Luke 24: 1 as "week," and says the women came to the tomb "while still very early."

Originally Posted By: todd_vetter33

... John 317 in the above quote states so difinitively that

Quote:

When dawn of the first day occurs, the Sabbath has already ended

.

Yet John has nothing to say about how two Gospels specifically state when Evening had come Joseph went to pilate to beg for the body of Jesus. while one other Gospel attempts to imply Jesus was removed from the Cross before evening had Come. If Evening had come before Joseph had gone to Pilate to beg the body of Jesus, Would not Evening be the start of the Sabbath?

Are you suggesting that when dawn of the first day occurred, the Sabbath had NOT already ended?

Matt. 27: 57 uses "evening" [Gk opsias] to mean "late afternoon." It doesn't mean that the Sabbath had begun.

Luke 23: 54 uses a different term [Gk sabbaton epiphosko] which means "the Sabbath was about to commence." It literally means the evening-light of the Sabbath was approaching. (See Strong's #2020.) So it was shortly before sunset.

Both of those verses are in complete harmony.

Of course they don't contradict Mark 16: 2 because while the latter refers to the morning of the first day of the week, the others refer to late Friday afternoon.

[John317]

.... after the Jews broke the legs of the men who stole the law and peirced the side of Jesus and counciled to leave him on the cross.

Are you sure it was the Jews that broke the legs of the two thieves?

Not sure what you mean by "stole the law". Who stole the law?

Your sentence makes it appear you're saying it was the thieves who peirced Christ's side. I'm sure you don't mean it but that is what it says. It also says the Jews pierced Jesus' side.

[John317]

...

Two bible gospels state Evening had come before Jesus was removed while only one bible gospel states falsely that Jesus was removed prior to the start of the High Day Sabbath 15 Nissan.

Not true. The Gospel does not teach this. You are most definitely confused.

Which Gospel do you claim teaches falsely?

Originally Posted By: todd_vetter33

There is a reason that Joseph had to go back to pilate to ask for the body of Jesus to be removed; after the Jews broke the legs of the men who stole the law and peirced the side of Jesus and counciled to leave him on the cross. The Thieves were removed before the Sabbath, But Joseph had to go back to pilate under the cover of darkness for fear of the Jews because he did not agree with thier choice to leave Jesus on the cross.

This thread is clearly evident of the Confusion that is rampant in the Christian world due to the half truths mixed with lies found in Christian doctrine built on Catholic Doctrine (NT).

I'm afraid it's you who are clearly confused.

You have the Jews breaking the legs of the men who "stole the law." (My guess is that you intended to say "broke the law.")

You also have the Jews-- (actually the men whose legs were broken)-- peircing the side of Jesus. This is all clearly wrong.

Where does the Bible teach that Joseph "had to go back to pilate under cover of darkness"?

You claim that the Jews wanted to leave Jesus on the cross! But what does the Bible say?

ANSWER: John 19:31

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

Contrary to your version of the events, the Bible teaches that it was the Jews who asked Pilate to have the bodies removed.

I'm embarrassed for you. Your confusion is rampant in your posts. You really have no room for talking about other people's confusion. And it is astounding to think that you claim to make corrections of the translations of the Bible. Your last post gives persuasive evidence that you evidently find it difficult enough just to read and comprehend it in English.

I think this is enough to convince me that taking the time to discuss these matters with you and Gerhard is a waste of my time. When I began to post here about translation and the resurrection, I was under the impression that you were serious students of Scripture. I'm sorry to see just how wrong I was.

What you, Gerhard and Samie have posted on this thread should be enough to discourage anyone from giving your posts on this topic any further serious study. That is too bad, because the Gospels and the death and resurrection of Christ unquestionably deserve far, far better.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.

Quote:jasd

Without going into other translations or interpretations, Gerry Cabalo has interestingly observed that a (similar) phrase as mia ton sabbaton/first of the Sabbaths may in fact coincide here and be correct as it reads; that is, that Sunday was the first [day] of the Pentecostal Sabbaths.

>>A number of Sunday-keepers have concluded that "first of the sabbaths" and "end of the sabbaths" are evidences of the change of the weekly Sabbath to Sunday.<<

One may excuse them as Sabbatwn is twice used in the text – and following, the one should reflect the meaning of the other, yes? However, you know that I form my argument for choice os Sabaths from the two texts of Hosea and Lamentation - and the undisputed fact that the OT calendar, which was used to establish the Seventh-day Sabbath, has been lost – with its Seventh-day Sabbaths remove by Gd (for the very and incessant profanation of it before the heathen).

>>This is based on a misunderstanding of the translation of sabbaton. These Sunday-keepers ignore the fact that most Greek words mean different things depending on their context and how they are used,<<

May I add to a grammatical dissertation re context: prefixes and suffixes, as well.

>>and that sometimes literal translations can lead to misinterpretations of the text. […]

Let me give an example.

In Matt. 8: 29, the demons literally said, "What to us and to you, Son of the God?"

That obviously wouldn't make sense to English speaking people. So my point here is that literal translations often make for difficult reading and understanding.<<

The analogy by itself is good; however, as it bears upon what we’re discussing is qualified by the fact that the writers of the NT text had available to them the Greek hebdomas to use should they have wished to convey the meaning –‘week’. The question obtains, why did they not elect to utilize hebdomas when they meant week. I say again, “They were not witless.”

>>The whole purpose of translating is to transfer a thought or idea from one language to another. The purpose is not to give a literal translation which doesn't convey the idea or thought that was originally spoken or written.<<

The purpose also is not to corrupt the translation. Should the idea require a literal translation, then it is incumbent upon the translator to translate literally. A prime example is found in the text of Matthew 28:1 – where there were indeed several Sabbaths preceding the “end of the Sabbaths” and where the following day introduced the Pentecostal Sabbaths.

>>Translating John 20: 1 to mean "the first of the sabbaths" is a good example of giving a literal translation of a Greek word but without conveying the correct meaning.<<

It conveys and introduces exceptionally well the period of the seven Sabbaths.

>>A good translator must also consider its context and what it will mean to people who are speaking a different language.<<

Indeed, without corrupting its meaning.

>>For example, when John 20: 1 says, literally, "the first of the sabbaths," was John referring to sabbaths or to weeks? If he was thinking of what we call "weeks," then it wouldn't be correct to make him say "sabbaths," because such a translation conveys the wrong idea, even though it is literal.<<

No, no, the English equivalent ‘week or weeks’ do not enter into the content of the text, rather it corrupts. That Sunday was literally the first of the Sabbaths – meaning the seven subsequent Sabbaths comprising the Pentecostal Sabbaths.

Saint John would not have constructed text in such a manner were he speaking of, let’s say, the first day of the week two months later… Remember, we are discussing events as they occurred in the middle of the Vernal Feasts.

>>In Matt. 4: 24, it tells us of various kinds of people who came to Christ for healing. Among them were people who were selhniazomenous--- literally, "being moonstruck."

But would a good translator use the word, "moonstruck," to convey the correct meaning in English?

No, a good translator would use the word "epileptic," not "moonstruck."

"Moonstruck" may be literal, but it doesn't express the idea that the text is intended to convey.<<

Okay, where we speak of moonstruck and epilepsy – I hold no brief.

>>The same principle applies to "sabbiton" in John 20: 1, Matt. 28: 1, Mark 16: 2, and Luke 24:1, Acts 20: 7, 1 Cor. 16: 2, and in a number of other NT verses. The original writer wasn't referring to sabbaths but to the weekly, seven-day cycle.<<

We, you and I, look at clouds from different sides… We might bear in mind that that handed down to us comes by way of Ecclesiastics and the indoctrinated of the Universal Church. Were any of their formulated dogmas introduced by way of their scribes - into the Received Text?

I ask again, was or was not hebdomas available to one writing in Greek in the first century?

What you seem to have proposed is that any and all of these: sabbatou, sabbaton, sabbatwn, sabbatsin, sabbata, sabbatw – may be translated ‘arbitrarily’, as ‘week(s)’.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

The same interlinear translates Mark 16: 2, mia ton sabbaton as "first day of the week." (Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular.)

Quote:jasd

It may be that one is justified in taking issue with the above statement, Notice sabbaton is a plural noun which is correctly translated here as a singular. [/ed.jasd]

The translators have too often arbitrarily strewn 'week' about as dragons teeth, regardless which inflection, singular, or plural they corrupted.[/ed.jasd]

>>How do you know it is done "arbitrarily"?<<

It is prima facie. The question puts me to mind Othello, “Why, how should she be murdered?”

>>Do you know and understand the rules of Greek grammar and translation?<<

Absolutely not. I’ve stated many times that I barely manage English. That said, I, like others, resort to what material I have at hand or that I may access by Googling.

>>You might at least inquire as to why translation is done the way it is,<<

Oh John, don’t you know that Lexicons are compilations of the opinions of men and rife with the disagreements of scholars?

>>…instead of implying that you know better than professional translators and are ready to make corrections in textbooks that have been used for years to teach Greek.<<

Refer to my above statement. But, to my “implying”…, “better than professional translators”?—indeed YES!—where they obviously err!

I reference especially their introduction of ‘week’ where the linguistic components of the literal language forbid it. Tchah. Example: there is nothing first century, papyri or goatskin, secular or Holy, which lends to the authority seized - to substitute ‘week’ arbitrarily - where the language clearly indicates or inflects Sabbath.

Young’s Literal and Wescott and Hort agree that mian ton Sabbatwn translates first or one of the Sabbaths. ‘Week’ slouched its way to scribal benches and inserted itself as an illegitimate cuckoo. And, I note, that most new Bible translations are based upon Nestle-Aland by way of Wescott and Hort, Ghostbusters nonpareil…

>>That would be like a person in Greece who knows almost no English telling you that you are being "abitrary" in the way you speak English.<< [ed.jasd]

No John, no analogical comparison. I know absolutely no Greek. As I said, “Wrong analogy.”

However, I have access to information – and sift through the thoughts of those who actually have a somewhat knowledge of Greek – gleaning that worthy of keeping. Remember my above statement: “Lexicons are compilations of the opinions of men and rife with the disagreements of scholars.”

>>If someone did that, what would be your response?<<

I’d say that someone was attempting to Gerhard me, as well.