UDARNA SNAGA ISTINE - Nastavak II
 
Wednesday
2016-12-07
8:38 AM
Welcome Guest
RSS
 
My site
Main Registration Login
Nastavak II »
Site menu

Our poll
Rate my site
Total of answers: 33

Statistics

Total online: 1
Guests: 1
Users: 0

Login form

  Both years IIRC permit Friday crucifixion and a doubled sabbath (Passover concurrent with weekly sabbath).

John (19:31) calls the annual Passover Sabbath on Thursday that year “the great Sabbath” (μεηαλη…εκεινου του σαββατου) which is in Hebrew is: ha-shabbat ha-gadol. The official church explanation for this designation is that it was used when a Jewish feast day chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath.  This begs the question, though, as to the reason why the annual Passover Sabbath, which was the greatest and most important feast day of the Biblical calendar would only be called "great" if itֹonly chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath!  In the fourth century, the Church innovated to always call the Sabbath between Good Friday and Easter "the great Sabbath", contradicting the explanation of John 19:31.  Well after John, the Synagogue innovated to call the Sabbath before Passover "the great Sabbath".  Some explain the 10th of Nisan made that Sabbath "great" in the Exodus year—a very lame excuse, and lamer still since Seder Olam contradicts it.

Interesting point I'll have to review further. Nehemiah identifies the month as Nisan (2:1) corresponding to March 5, 444 BC. I would suspect that he would discern the difference.

   If you check out your Parker and Duberstein, you'll see that it doesn't work.  3/5/444 also puts the full moon before the spring equinox -- that that doesn't even agree with the Catholic tradition which they got from the Jewish tradition of intercalation.

While you may argue the prophetic use is invalid, if you use the AD 32 as the end of the sabbatical year - you still end up with AD 33. Now according to number / calendar crunchers more anial than I, this method from Mar 1, 444BC yields a termination on Nisan 10, AD 33, the date of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

 Problem is that the sabbatical was AD 32/33 and not 31/32.   Rabbi Yose Halaphta (Seder Olam, ca. 140 AD) puts the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69 and the seventh year is 67/68.   You'll see that the Torah was read by Ezra at the end of the 445/444 sabbath year per Deut. 31:10, and that the debt release was made by Nehemiah at that time.   Your 31/32 Sabbath year is an error based on Maimonides correction of the destruction date to AD 70 long after the Jews forgot when the seventh year was.   Also Donald Blosser pointed out that the Caligula incident in Jospehus totally invalidates the Zuckermann cycle.

Issue then becomes synchronizing the passover and weekly sabbaths to match the gospel accounts which is impossible for an AD 34 Friday cruxifiction.

   A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence  (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.

Or the term can refer as Lightfoot and other scholars of Jewish history and literature of the period point out that the phrase is a hebraism and possibly a reference to the first week of seven interveining between Passover and Pentecost - not necessarly refering to the weekly sabbath.

The earliest use of

אחד בשבת

is Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua.  And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath".  The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

You can plead variant interpretations all you want.  But they won't help you construct a consistent chronology.  Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says.  It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.
----------------------------

The gospel accounts are consistent on when Jesus was crucified - it was the day before passover. Passover of 34 AD fell on a Tuesday, which means he would have to been crucified on Monday. This would have his resurrection on Wednesday.
--------------------------
John (19:31) calls the annual Passover Sabbath on Thursday that year

Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.

This begs the question, though, as to the reason why the annual Passover Sabbath, which was the greatest and most important feast day of the Biblical calendar would only be called "great" if itֹonly chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath!

It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.

If you check out your Parker and Duberstein, you'll see that it doesn't work. 3/5/444 also puts the full moon before the spring equinox -- that that doesn't even agree with the Catholic tradition which they got from the Jewish tradition of intercalation.

I have found that the intercalcalatory month was present before Nisan in 444 BC. However, as noted earlier, this places Passover in AD 32 on a Monday or AD 34 on a Tuesday. The chronology of the gospels does not support a crucifixion on either days - the weekly sabbath would have been evident in the narrative - and it is glaringly absent.

Since you mention Hoehner, he differs in that he states Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (IIRC used by the kings of judah) year dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Along with other challenges such as when Artaxerxes' twentieth year and when the beginning of his rule argue for 444BC. Neither of us can declare an iron-clad case on this point alone.

A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.

On this point your interpretation is stretched to the point that it is a leap that Evil Knievel would not have taken. Fact - - the crucifixion occurred the day of preparation before Passover. AD 32 Passover would have been Monday. This would require crucifixion to have occurred on Sunday. This would also place a weekly sabbath before Passover - and there is no evidence of this sabbath from the gospel accounts. Your scripture citations only reference the metaphor of Jonah.

Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua. And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath". . . . The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

Sorry wasn't talking about One Saturday (אחד בשבת ) I don't think you understand the point I was getting at - the phrase "mia sabbathw" (one of the sabbaths - plural) is shown in jewish writings (as well as in the NT) of the era to be a hebraism used at the time to identify the day of their week as well as to identify the week between passover and pentecost. The Didache is dated by many to be approximately 70 AD, though most would place it late first century, its current redaction is mid second century.

Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says. It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.

Well, neither do your 'explanations' hold water either. The gospel narrative for the last week of Jesus' life do not have a weekly sabbath occurring the day before his crucifixion. Your narrative does not even come close to explaining these
------------------------------
Well, I found one of the books I was looking for.

HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY by JACK FINEGAN. Published by Princeton University Press, 1964.

The author is of the position that the Crucifiction was on a Friday and resurection on a Sunday. Otherwise he does not seem to have any special ax to grind.

I will enclose two tables from his work and let you all sort it out.

From page 297...Tertullian states that Christ was crucified ...."under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eight day before the kalends of April, on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even." (an answer to the jews)

Augustine gives the same date. "Now Christ died when the Gemini were consuls, on the eighth day before the kalends of April. (The City of God)

The problem is, it does not correspond to either Nisan 14 or 15 in the Jewish calender.
-----------------------------

Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.

 

I should be asking you to cite your sources, because both of your assertions here are false statements.  I hope it was not intentional.   If you consult Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, page 363, Table 179, you will see a chart of Fotheringham's calculations for Nisan 14  in the years 27-34 AD:

 

AD  Nisan 14

30    April 7 Fri      [Not here]

31    Mar 27 Tue

32    Apr 14 Mon

33    Apr 3 Fri        [And not here]

34    Mar 24 Wed   [Here is when the crucifixion was]

 

    Now I figure you are looking for the magic bullet to exclude AD 34.  I feel your angst at the lack of an easy out.  But your "citations" aren't going to work.   I did cite my sources already because that is just what Parker and Duberstein represent.   I fully realize that successful apologists for the Friday-Sunday tradition have to bluff their way to victory with wool but now days you've got Daniel 12:4 foiling such attempts.  I hope that's not your methodology.  Otherwise, this discussion won't be the challenge I hope for.

 

It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.

   
You can't make logic go away so simply.  The 15th of Nisan annual Sabbath was made greater by all accounts than the weekly Sabbath due to Israel's Exodus on that day.  The weekly Sabbath was never called great by itself (except by religious revisionists), so it is ludicrous to apply great to the annual Sabbath only when it lands on the weekly Sabbath.   Since the Gentiles in Asia Minor were still observing Passover by the Jewish Calendar, and not by the Roman Easter innovation, they would know the importance of this annual Sabbath.   But I suppose one has to actually observe it to understand why it is great.

    Since the only chronology that explains the facts adequately puts the annual Sabbath on Thursday, Nisan 15, it deductively follows that your argument from silence and against common sense for the meaning of "great" is error.  It also deductively follows from the Wednesday-Sabbath chronology that explains all the facts, that Nisan 15 was called "great" regardless of the day of the week it fell upon.

 

  • I have found that the intercalcalatory month was present before Nisan in 444 BC. However, as noted earlier, this places Passover in AD 32 on a Monday or AD 34 on a Tuesday. The chronology of the gospels does not support a crucifixion on either days - the weekly sabbath would have been evident in the narrative - and it is glaringly absent.

 

    You are not making any sense now.  Only two theories of a 360 day year and Daniel 9 are proposed,  445-32 (Sir Robert Anderson), and 444-33 (Harold Hoehner, et al).   I can confirm for you that Nisan 14 in AD 32 was on Monday, but the only value of this is that it destroys Anderson's theory.   The data you give for AD 34 is a false statementthe truth be that it squarely and fairly puts Nisan 14 on Wednesday.   Now the Addaru II you correctly discovered before the correct Nisan in 444 destroys the 444-33 AD Daniel 9 explanation.

 

  • Since you mention Hoehner, he differs in that he states Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (IIRC used by the kings of judah) year dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Along with other challenges such as when Artaxerxes' twentieth year and when the beginning of his rule argue for 444BC. Neither of us can declare an iron-clad case on this point alone.

 

      Yes, the a Tishri year is being used, but irrelevant to the invalidity Hoehner's 360 day/year theory.   As for the date of Neh. 2:1 being in 444 BC there is no doubt.  VAT 5047 in the 11th year (454) of Artaxerxes I takes care of that.   And I should remedy an oversight from your last post.  You suggested that the sabbatical year be 31/32 AD, and that 33 AD be the terminal year.  However that would imply that 446/445 BC would be the sabbath year.   Since the walls were rebuilt in 444, that reduces the count to 68 instead of the required 69 (7 + 62 = 69).   So plainly AD 33 does not work with ANY proposed Sabbatical year.   But like I said the correct Sabbatical year is 32/33.   BC 445/444 was the first and AD 32/33 the 69th.

 

  • On this point your interpretation is stretched to the point that it is a leap that Evil Knievel would not have taken. Fact - - the crucifixion occurred the day of preparation before Passover. AD 32 Passover would have been Monday. This would require crucifixion to have occurred on Sunday. This would also place a weekly sabbath before Passover - and there is no evidence of this sabbath from the gospel accounts. Your scripture citations only reference the metaphor of Jonah.


       From where I stand the whole traditional chronology is an absurd apostasy from the biblical truth, which declares plainly that the resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e.  μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" (cf. Lev. 23:15).   So far you've lost every point we've contended over.   It doesn't take a leap to see that your side seriously violates Okcham's Razor.

     The rest of your statement above makes no sense.  AD 32 is not relevant.  I feel like you just want to cheapen the debate with nonsense so that no one will read it.  I would hope that was not the case, yet your reasoning is incompetent, so I don't know what to think.   In AD 34 the preparation of the Passover was on Nisan 14, a Wednesday.  That is all that is required.

       It cited Mark 8:31 and 9:31, so your last sentence above is misrepresentation of what I said.   Mark 8:31 says "after three days" he would rise, a fact that fits Wednesday to Sabbath, but cannot fit Friday to Sunday.  I already posted a chart showing as much.

 

  • Sorry wasn't talking about One Saturday (אחד בשבת ) I don't think you understand the point I was getting at - the phrase "mia sabbathw" (one of the sabbaths - plural) is shown in jewish writings (as well as in the NT) of the era to be a hebraism used at the time to identify the day of their week as well as to identify the week between passover and pentecost. The Didache is dated by many to be approximately 70 AD, though most would place it late first century, its current redaction is mid second century.

 

      You probably don't know much Hebrew.  Otherwise you would not have made the gaff you did in the above paragraph.    Remember when Obama said "cinco de cuatro"?  It's about the same. אחד בשבת is used to mean Sunday in Mishnaic Hebrew.   However, the word "Sabbath" does not mean "week".  The proper translation is "one in connection with Sabbath".  It was a pious usage for Jews of the Mishnaic period to refer to the Sabbath when they designated days of the week.   Such usage, however is unattested before ca. AD 140.  AD 70 is an impossibly early date for the Didache.

      What you need to realize is that all your arguments are a form of circular reasoning.   You use a document from an apostate Church to prove your point.  You use the mistranslation "first day of the week" executed by apostate Christianity to prove your point.  All circular reasoning that disagrees with the whole chronology of Passion week and the literal meaning of the words, and totally disagrees with Daniel 9.
------------------------

Thank you Ruy for posting Finegan.
Table 140 is based only on astronomical calculations. (1) As calculated by Fotheringham is the correct Jewish method of intercalation. Column (2) is the Babylonian and Persian Method.

Table 142 is Finegan’s interpretation.
-----------------------------

I live in a heavy SDA populated area who wear their Sabbath like a chip on their shoulder. I decided to see what they believed on the subject, so I picked up a book WHAT SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE...published by the general Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists.

On page 253 they state that “On FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the SIXTH DAY OF THE WEEK, Christ finished his redemptive mission on earth. His last words were ‘It is finished!”

(caps added by me)
---------------------------
On page 253 they state that “On FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the SIXTH DAY OF THE WEEK, Christ finished his redemptive mission on earth. His last words were ‘It is finished!”Well.....I can't cannot speak for Daniel....but I've never seen too much about the SDA that I can agree with.
-----------------------------

It is too easy to read something and run with it.

Here is an example...

Pharasees ate only one meal on saturday, but three or more each day during the week.

Proof.
A pharasee goes to the temple and brags about how he fasts twice on the Sabbath day!

Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week (Sabbath), I give tithes of all that I possess.

The Greek reads Sabbath therefore he only ate one meal that day then proving that Pharasees were well fed the other days.

Which reminds me, I missed two meals Satuday morning and noon but had a cookout yesterday afternoon! Didn’t even think about it till I started to cook. Does that make me special?
---------------------------
Here's an article I've had posted on my site for quite some time. It gives some alternatives. I really don't have a firm position on the whole think except that sabbath does not mean "week" since it using the word was clearly a pious usage, and the pious user wanted the use of "sabbath" noticed, not "week".

Does "Sabbaton" in

Luke 18:12 really mean "week"?

 

For the 2nd Edition of the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Prophecy

       

               Our English translations of Luke 18:12 say, "I fast twice a week".   However, the word for "Sabbath" occurs in the Greek text where the translators have written "week":

 

 

         This text represents the Hebrew .    The genitive definite article before Sabbath is represented by the lamed and the vowel under the lamed.     The original Hebrew uttered by the Pharisee (and Yeshua) is clear enough in that language,  "I fast twice with respect to the Sabbath", which is the same as similar pious usage in other Jewish sources.    See my annotated Chart of the Week for these usages.   The point of reckoning time with reference to the Sabbath was to give a pious notice of the Sabbath.    If Sabbath meant only "week" then there is no reason that such usage would have supplanted the normal usage, "I fast twice a seven" which in Hebrew would be Shavua, a derivative of the number seven meaning "week".  Actually, it still has the sense of "seven".   The before mentioned chart of the week will show that "I fast twice a Shavua" would be the normal mode of expression.

          What remains then is to explain how the Greek text of Luke got the way it did.  Starting from the Hebrew above that is not hard to see.   standing without comprehension of the context of practices of the Pharisees can easily be either, "I fast twice to the sabbath" or "I fast twice the sabbath" i.e. on it.   While we know now that the Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays, this was not a fact known so widely to Gentile scribes.   Luke's first MSS could easily have read "to the sabbath" in the first century i.e. , and then have been altered by some scribe in the second century to thinking that the text meant "I fast twice on the Sabbath".   The scribal practices of Christian scribes were no where near as exacting as Jewish scribes.  In fact, it was regarded as allowable to improve the text in this period.   We have early MSS from the second century when compared with fourth century MSS that show these tendencies.   However, for this section of Luke we have no early MSS.   So the change has gone undetected.   Indeed, the text of the book of Acts is about 10% longer in the Byzantine MSS than in the older MSS.   This is because scribes tended to conflate various readings, which means they put both into the text.   Differences in case endings and spellings were not uncommon either, and here I am only proposing a case ending corruption, and a very easy one to make at that.  "Too" sounds very similar to "toe".

          For the sake of argument, I will mention Acts 15:24 where the late western text adds, "saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:".   These anti-Torah words are not in the earliest MSS, and have been correctly removed from translations like the New American Standard Bible.    However, would anyone in the 1700's know this?   Of course not, since the older MSS were only discovered later.  But since we have no old MSS of Luke, we have no way of knowing for sure.   Could such a change have been motivated by the interpretation of 'week' for 'sabbaton' in the resurrection passages?    How does a mistake in a few MSS get into all of the current MSS?    Well, we say that when the Romans purged most of the MSS that the one with the mistake is the one that survived, and then this one became the exemplar for the MSS that followed.   God knew that corruptions were bound to occur.  It's human nature, so that's why He gave us four gospels and not just one.

        One odd text is not sufficient reason to introduce a new definition to "sabbaton" for the first century period.    A lexical meaning should be established by many witnesses and not just one text.   In fact, three witnesses ought to be required where an immediate contradiction would occur if said meaning did not apply.   However, "I fast twice the sabbath" implies no immediate contradiction.   O.k., it only contradicts the assumption that Yeshua was talking about the Pharisees that fasted on Monday's and Thursdays.   But even if he was, the text does only becomes an anomaly and not definitive proof that "Sabbath" meant week.   If "Sabbath" meant week, plain and simple, then there is no apparent reason for the change from using the common word for week, i.e. seven or Shavua, and there is every reason to think that counting "to" the Sabbath was a pious usage, which exactly fits the character of some Pharisees.   Perhaps there was some unknown class of Essene type Pharisee that skipped two meals on the Sabbath.   There are just too many unknowns to go depending on one witness for the meaning "week" when the meaning "sabbath" gives sense also.

        If it even be admitted that "sabbaton" means "week" in this one passage (and I do not agree that it does), it would be insufficient data to take the phrase "one [day] of the Sabbaths" in the resurrection passages and apply it there.   This is because the construction of the phrase in Greek is based on the normal usage for the Sabbath day, "day of the Sabbaths", except that the word "one" has been tacked on the front, and the word "day" dropped because it is implied by the gender of "one".   This is sufficient from the Greek point of view to prevent from meaning anything but a regular sabbath with the word "one" or "first" tacked on the front, which is explained by Lev. 23:15.   And in fact, the whole phrase is a pure Hebraism for which was used to designate the first Sabbath after Passover as distinct from the first Sabbath in Lev. 23:11, which was called to keep it distinct from the first Sabbath after Passover.

        The rest of the matter is secured by the overall chronology and the many details that only make sense with the resurrection on the Sabbath.

 

Appendix I:  The Syriac Luke 18:12.   In the extraction below from www.peshitta.org the Syriac word below "in a week" is "unto the Sabbath":  "I fast two times on toward the Sabbath".  This shows the pious usage of Sabbath in counting the days of the week.

 




 

--------------
 

Don’t take what the General Conference says too seriously as an indication of what all SDA’s believe — espeically foregin SDA’s. The SDA church is as useless for chronology and eschatology as the Roman Catholics, however many of them don’t agree with the party line. The Church is a mixture of good and bad just like any other church. It is a real bummer that Ellen White endorsed a Friday Crucifixion, but then she contradicted herself on the “six days before the Passover” passage. I’ve bounced “first of the Sabbaths off of Desmond Ford and the late Samuuele Bacchiocchi face to face.
-------------------

“The first day of the week”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3157



 

  --------------
 
Here's the first mistake they make:

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton.

Your own post shows this discrepancy!

en de th mia twn sabbatwn sunhgmenwn twn maqhtwn tou klasai arton o pauloV dielegeto autoiV mellwn exienai th epaurion pareteinen te ton logon mecri mesonuktiou

The word is SABBATWN.....not SABBATON or SABBATOU. As you can see here, the word is different and the singular is SABBATW.

The word SABBATWN also appears in [Matthew 28:1][Mark 16:2][Luke 24:1]and John 20:1].....all the resurrection verses and the phrase means "One (First) of the Sabbaths". SABBATON means Sabbath and SABBATOU is the adjective describing the day as in "Sabbath day".

You folks can call this "First Day of the Week" until you're blue in the face. That still will not change the true meaning.
-----------------------
No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God’s blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity.

The above is from your link.

Now.....errors in the works of the learned men: Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26. Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false. Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins. Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. 2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children." Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ." Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws. Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this. Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

And from the New Testament: Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive." Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7. Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts. Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family! John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV). Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc. 1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish." 1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" 2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection. 1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ." 1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ." Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents. Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God." Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation." 1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits. Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four. Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously. Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

They also mistranslated the Greek words MIA TWN SABBATWN. It means "One of the Sabbaths". They translated it "First Day of the Week". They did this because most of them had been brought up in an Apostate Church.....and they didn't know any better as it had been crammed into their little heads as children.....much the same as the folks who nowadays believe this nonsense!
--------------------------

 

Calendar
«  December 2016  »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Site friends
  • Create your own site


  • Copyright MyCorp © 2016
    Free website builderuCoz