Theology Club: Today Many in the Neo-MAD Camp are King James Only

[Danoh]

Major red flag for me.

How so?

 

[lifeisgood]

How so?

Because when someone bashes the KJV they are telling me that they want me to take up a water-down version of God's word and abandon God's 'too hard' word.

For example, many do not like the word 'hell' and prefer the ambiguous 'hades' and 'sheol'.

The KJV warns me that 'hell' is a real bad place. Its temperature is really, really, really, reaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllly hot. Bad place to go to. You don't want to go there, the KJV warns me.

The new versions talk about something that is called 'hades' and 'sheol'. Doesn't warn me nothing about its temperature. 'Hades' and 'sheol' do not make my antennae ring. 'Hell' on the other hand makes my antennae ring loud and clear.

The new versions lull the unwary to sleep.
The KJV does not let me sleep (spiritually speaking).

 

[Danoh]

Because when someone bashes the KJV they are telling me that they want me to take up a water-down version of God's word and abandon God's 'too hard' word.

For example, many do not like the word 'hell' and prefer the ambiguous 'hades' and 'sheol'.

The KJV warns me that 'hell' is a real bad place. Its temperature is really, really, really, reaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllly hot. Bad place to go to. You don't want to go there, the KJV warns me.

The new versions talk about something that is called 'hades' and 'sheol'. Doesn't warn me nothing about its temperature. 'Hades' and 'sheol' do not make my antennae ring. 'Hell' on the other hand makes my antennae ring loud and clear.

The new versions lull the unwary to sleep.
The KJV does not let me sleep (spiritually speaking).

Respectfully, that reads like another version of Jerry's take it or leave it dogmatism.

Consider that in the above, what you are actually asserting is that (one reason) you prefer the KJV is for its use of the word "hell" due to the meaning you have come to attach to that word.

Take the word "sheol" for example:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol

Had it been the word you came to take as "the right word" rather than the word "hell," you'd have no beef with it.

The word "hell" is just your preference because that is what you have become accustomed to.

While, to insist on it is to go down Jerry's one way street.

Observe your response to this post of mine, as you post it. What does it tell you are concluding?

 

[lifeisgood]

Respectfully, that reads like another version of Jerry's take it or leave it dogmatism.

Consider that in the above, what you are actually asserting is that (one reason) you prefer the KJV is for its use of the word "hell" due to the meaning you have come to attach to that word.

Take the word "sheol" for example:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol

Had it been the word you came to take as "the right word" rather than the word "hell," you'd have no beef with it.

The word "hell" is just your preference because that is what you have become accustomed to.

While, to insist on it is to go down Jerry's one way street.

Observe your response to this post of mine, as you post it. What does it tell you are concluding?

Are you sure you are not Jerry disguised?

 

[Danoh]

Are you sure you are not Jerry disguised?

I did say "Observe your response to this post of mine, as you post it. What does it tell you are concluding?"

Jumping to conclusions about a thing and others is exactly his problem. You have just made it yours.

Don't do that to yourself. Remain skeptical, yes. Always, as it is very important.

At the same time, strive to keep an open mind to what you might learn that you may not have been aware of.

That is exactly what Jerry does not do.

This is where we each fail to learn from Jerry's kind of "take it our leave it" error, even as our own, three fingers continue to point back to us.

Where we fail to ask ourselves 'am I being/when am I like that?'

This is a failure I find in myself as well.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

All you are doing is attacking me in the hope that others reading this thread will not see the truth that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the Bible.

When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice—we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it?

When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord"—to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, Reformed piety taught that the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (WLC, answer 157). It is contrary to Reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, all the while esteeming them both as the Word of God.

For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history. Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Moreover, I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to what I consider the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

Concerning the question as to the priority of translation or confession—if we follow the path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgment, then translation naturally comes first.

On the other hand, if we follow the path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then confession must be placed in the forefront.

We must begin with the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ builds His church and preserves it from the gates of hell. Those who confess Christ Jesus the Lord are the true successors of St. Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, those who do not begin with this confession, undertake the work of translation with a veil over the eyes of their understandings. They might understand well enough the literal sense of the letters and syllables, but they will constantly corrupt the spiritual message, because they will not see the heavenly reality to which the earthly language points. The Gospel of John provides numerous examples of this earthly-minded folly.

Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources.

On the foundation of our faith, Turretin says: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here.

More from me on this topic:

Spoiler

I don’t mind some scholarly skepticism in the realm of historical criticism (higher criticism), but I reject the idea of its proponents who, owing to their emphasis on textual corruption, believe it is impossible to even speak about an original text, since these persons view the text as being unstable for many years, even centuries.

For me, an autograph is an original manuscript, the production of which is clearly described in Scripture (Exodus 24:4; Colossians 4:18; Galatians 6:11). This autograph includes manuscript production by amanuensis, who directly received the text by dictation from the Biblical author (Jeremiah 36:4,17-18; Romans 16:22; 1 Peter 5:12). All this was done via the divine instrumentality of God (1 Chronicles 28:19; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

I adopt the WCF’s distinctive reformed view by noting that the WCF’s identifying the Hebrew and Greek texts as authentical in no way requires a direct reference to the Hebrew and Greek autographa—as if some scaffolding for mounting an argument for infallibility is required. No, the arguments for (1)a received text free from major error (discounting scribal errors), and (2)Scripture as our infallible rule of faith and practice, rest upon the examination of the apographa we have received, as transmitted via the providential, preserving care of God from faithful copies.

On the matter of the term inspiration, I agree with A. A. Hodge, who writes in Outlines of Theology:

It is meant that the divine influence, of whatever kind it may have been, which accompanied the sacred writers in what they wrote, extends to their expression of their thoughts in language, as well as to the thoughts themselves. The effect being that in the original autograph copies the language expresses the thought God intended to convey with infallible accuracy, so that the words as well as the thoughts are God’s revelation to us.

That this influence did extend to the words appears—

1st, from the very design of inspiration, which is, not to secure the infallible correctness of the opinions of the inspired men themselves (Paul and Peter differed, Galatians 2:11, and sometimes the prophet knew not what he wrote), but to secure an infallible record of the truth. But a record consists of language.

2nd. Men think in words, and the more definitely they think the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an exactly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought cannot be secured or preserved independently of an infallible verbal rendering.

3rd. The Scriptures affirm this fact, 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

4th. The New Testament writers, while quoting from the Old Testament for purposes of argument, often base their argument upon the very words used, thus ascribing authority to the word as well as the thought.—Matthew 22: 32, and Exodus 3: 6,16; Matthew 22: 45, and Psalms 110: l ; Galatians 3:16, and Genesis 17: 7.

Can copies of Scripture be inspired? It depends. We can certainly deduce that the autographa were inspired, but it is also very logical for me to claim that apographic Scripture, what I define as faithful copies, is also theoneustos. When Paul wrote that all Scripture was theoneustos in 2 Tim 3:16, what existed at the time was not the autographa, but the faithful copies, the apographa. Accordingly, inspiration cannot be restricted to some lost autographs, unless we want to claim the church today is without an infallible Scripture.

I deny the views of some, such as Bart Ehrman, that there is no possibility of recovering the original text (OT and NT) from existing manuscript witnesses. We have the preserved textual variants in our possession, which means we have all of the original words of Scripture—they are not lost to us. For example, along these lines I view the existence of textual archetypes as one potential means of recovering the original text. While we cannot prove the archetype is the original, we cannot prove that it is not. So, in my opinion, the skepticism of men like Ehrman is but a mere preference, probably determined by external presuppositions. When we can recover the original text is not something I can speculate about, yet that does not remove my confidence that it is possible.

There is a difference between verbal inspiration and verbal inerrancy. Inspiration concerns the words of the text (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 1:12), and inerrancy concerns the truth or trustworthiness of the statements they make (Luke 1:1-4; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:16).

When all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including Scriptural assertions/affirmations of doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.

God spoke through the authors and He is not the God of confusion. God spoke phenomenologically when describing things, that is the way they appear to to human observers. So we find passages stating that the sun rises, which we know from science that it does not "rise" but appears to us to do so. Indeed, the Bible is not a scientific book, but the Bible does not impart misinformation when touching on scientific matters. For more, see Gerstner, The Foundation of Biblical Authority.

Exegesis/Hermeneutics

I do not believe we can no more separate exegesis from hermeneutics than we could separate the act of using a shovel from the hole it digs. If exegesis is nothing more than the science of parsing words, then it is the stuff of rote machine intelligence that results in a cold and wooden translation.

Moreover, I do not believe we can, nor should, attempt to divorce ourselves from all our presuppositions during the interpretative encounter with Scripture. There are some presuppositions we bring to the process that are vitally necessary. Awareness of them is one thing all should endeavor to discover in themselves, but I believe that a view that presuppositions are to be eschewed to the best of one’s ability is a view that ultimately leads to rejection of too much truth contained in Scripture.

What do I mean by inerrancy and infallibility?

Inerrancy means the Scriptures do not err, a necessary theological deduction from inspiration, not a demand for scientific precision or wooden literalism.

Infallibility means the Scriptures cannot err, which is the higher standard over inerrancy.

My position is that the church divines when writing, WCF I.IV, got it right when noting that God is the Author of Scripture:

the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends upon God, the author thereof: and therefore it is to be revered because it is the Word of God.

As the Author, God is not an author of confusion, thus where we encounter what we consider to be contradictions or errors, we cannot claim these to be genuine and must continue to diligently seek to resolve, including via the analogy of faith, what we think are contradictions or errors. As Warfield writes:

• . . . it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error—whether those statements are found in the same of different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. (See B.B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 439)

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. God's sovereignty prepared the writers, their lives, experiences, vocabulary, so that they would write exactly what God wanted to be written. Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. The writers of Scripture were uniquely superintended by the sovereign action of God via the Holy Spirit in all factors related to their writings.

On these topics, especially on matters related to inspiration versus mechanical or organic dictation (<--my view, as well as the WCF's), see:

1. http://www.reformed.org/bible/boettner/index.html

2. http://www.the-highway.com/scripture_Young.html

See also:
http://christianreader.typepad.com/christian_reader/2010/03/the-genesis-of-scripture.html

The basic argument that must be mounted by the opponent of inerrancy is quite simple:

They must conclusively show that the inspired writers of the words of God communicated through them has has no metaphysical warrant to an expectation that God can communicate through such men without error. In other words, they must show that God is not wholly sovereign over His creation and His creatures, but instead, while God accommodated Himself to using human language, He also accommodated Himself to human error, as if error is essential to our nature. Adam, a human, did not err until the fall. Christ was also human and did not err.

Frankly speaking, attempting to mount such an argument is a fool's errand:

http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

A friend of mine asked Dr. Maurice Robinson last week...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority (AMR's preferred manuscript tradition)?

His answer...

Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%.​

While a lot can happen in 3%, if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

Which tradition you favor has everything to do with how you weight the various criteria in textual criticism. For instance, if one ties God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and does not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries, then the TR/MT will likely be your choice.

If you believe God's providence can work in preserving manuscripts outside the church as well as inside, then the CT will probably be your choice.

As to individual variants, if you believe that the majority rules, then you will probably hold to the MT.

If you believe that geographical distribution and the age of the manuscript is more important, then the CT will probably be your choice.

It is extremely difficult to choose among these criteria, and there are strong arguments for both positions. Both positions should be treated with respect in any discussion.

AMR

 

[Danoh]

AMR, good to see you. Hope you are well, brother.

 

[lifeisgood]

I did say "Observe your response to this post of mine, as you post it. What does it tell you are concluding?"

That 'hell' tells me exactly what it means and 'sheol' and 'hades' are ambiguous?

Jumping to conclusions about a thing and others is exactly his problem. You have just made it yours.

No, I simply gave you my response.
I do not have a tendency of copying others' style.
Never was it may intention to offend you with my response.
I ask your forgiveness.

Don't do that to yourself. Remain skeptical, yes. Always, as it is very important.

I am always skeptical of anyone, and I mean anyone, who tells me that this Bible or that Bible is better than the KJV.

At the same time, strive to keep an open mind to what you might learn that you may not have been aware of.

My mind has been closed for certain things and I will not budge on them.
The KJV being one of them; however, I do not impose my belief on anyone else.

That is exactly what Jerry does not do.

I have no idea of what exactly Jerry does as I have had but a couple of interactions with him and I have not read him much.

This is where we each fail to learn from Jerry's kind of "take it our leave it" error, even as our own, three fingers continue to point back to us.

Where we fail to ask ourselves 'am I being/when am I like that?'

This is a failure I find in myself as well.

I do not believe I told you that you were wrong and I was right.
I also do not believe I told you to ‘take it or leave it’.
I simply responded to your inquiry.

Again, I beg your forgiveness if I did something inappropriate in my response.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

You confuse translations of the Word of God with the Word of God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's the same day.

OK, I agree with you. The "day" mentioned in both of these verses is the same exact day:

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12; KJV).​

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

Now that we agree that both of these verses are speaking of the same exact day now let us look at this verse again to determine what day of the month these things happened:

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12; KJV).​

You said that the day when the Passover was killed on the 14th:

Passover lambs were killed on the 14th.

That means that the day mentioned here was the 14th:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

We can know that this translation from the KJV which says "the first day of the feast of unleavened bread" cannot possibly be correct since that day was on the 15th and not the 14th:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:6; KJV).​

The translation at Matthew 26:17 in the KJV is in error.

 

[Right Divider]

OK, I agree with you. The "day" mentioned in both of these verses is the same exact day:

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12; KJV).​

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

Now that we agree that both of these verses are speaking of the same exact day now let us look at this verse again to determine what day of the month these things happened:

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12; KJV).​

You said that the day when the Passover was killed on the 14th:



That means that the day mentioned here was the 14th:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

We can know that this translation from the KJV which says "the first day of the feast of unleavened bread" cannot possibly be correct since that day was on the 15th and not the 14th:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:6; KJV).​

The translation at Matthew 26:17 in the KJV is in error.

You're STILL confusing TRANSLATION with what you THINK THAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID.

You're a moron JS.

 

[Danoh]

That 'hell' tells me exactly what it means and 'sheol' and 'hades' are ambiguous?

No, I simply gave you my response.
I do not have a tendency of copying others' style.
Never was it may intention to offend you with my response.
I ask your forgiveness.

I am always skeptical of anyone, and I mean anyone, who tells me that this Bible or that Bible is better than the KJV.

My mind has been closed for certain things and I will not budge on them.

The KJV being one of them; however, I do not impose my belief on anyone else.

I have no idea of what exactly Jerry does as I have had but a couple of interactions with him and I have not read him much.

I do not believe I told you that you were wrong and I was right.
I also do not believe I told you to ‘take or leave it’.
I simply responded to your inquiry.

Again, I beg your forgiveness if I did something inappropriate in my response.

Likewise on my end.

At the same time; believe me, I never took offense. I was simply sharing some observations from life in general that apply as to these issues as well.

Right now I'm reading Grady's "Final Authority" in one hand, and Funk's "Honest to Jesus," in the other.

And I find the same dogmatic conclusions. Where their respective author will project what he wants a thing to mean as to what someone wrote that he is quoting.

In my above hello to AMR, I related that "I hope" he is "well."

Does that right off mean I believe in "hope" in the way the world does?

Who knows? I'd have to be asked.

Does that also mean AMR has not been well? Or that we know one another? Or that perhaps we have had some issue in the past and I want to make up, or I want to let him know, all is well, or that this, or that?

But that is exactly how both sides of this fence are far too often found "studying" this issue out.

As is often the case with many other issues, and just as often, as dogmatically.

It gets one nowhere.

Again, I'm just attempting to look at the approach to these issues from a bit more objectivity (I hope, lol).

 

[Angel4Truth]

I prefer the NKJV and the NASB for reading, but i use many translations for study

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're STILL confusing TRANSLATION with what you THINK THAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID.

This translation says what I think should have been said:

"Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (Mt.26:17; NASB).​

You're a moron JS.

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

 

[Tambora]

OK, I agree with you.

Yep, same day - the 14th.
Because, per scripture, the entire 8 day period can be referred to as Passover or Unleavened Bread.

Luke 22 KJV
(1) Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.​

Right there is proof that the feast of unleavened bread can be referred to as Passover.
And then, the same day is mentioned again, but calling it the day of unleavened bread.

(7) Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.​

Easy peasy when you harmonize scripture instead of straining at gnats.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yep, same day - the 14th.
Because, per scripture, the entire 8 day period can be referred to as Passover or Unleavened Bread.

We are not talking about the entire eight day period. We are talking about this one day which is the same exact day in both verses, the 14th day of the month:

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12; KJV).​

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

Both days are speaking of events which fell on the 14th. Therefore,this translation cannot possibly be correct:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

That translation cannot be correct because "the first day of the feast of unleavened bread" happened on the 15th, not the 14th:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:6; KJV).​

This isn't rocket science but yet you cannot grasp these simple facts.

Luke 22 KJV
(1) Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Right there is proof that the feast of unleavened bread can be referred to as Passover.

The entire feast of unleavened bread, which lasted seven days, was called the Passover. But Matthew 26:17 and Luke 14:12 are speaking about a single day and not seven days.

And then, the same day is mentioned again, but calling it the day of unleavened bread.

(7) Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

Again, Luke 22:1 is not referring to a single day but instead seven days. You are trying to make things which refer to a week to be the same thing as a single day. You are totally confused and have no grasp on these things.

Easy peasy when you harmonize scripture instead of straining at gnats.

Of course you think it is easy because you think that it is perfectly allowable to say that a word which is speaking about seven days is referring to a single day.

 

[patrick jane]

You're STILL confusing TRANSLATION with what you THINK THAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID.

You're a moron JS.

yes and that's in the dictionary. it's a legitimate word, not slang and it's only an opinion.

 

[intojoy]

So?

Just as the beginning of the day changed the beginning of the year changed as well (Ex.12:2).

As I said, the Jewish day started in the morning, as witnessed by what is written here:

"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 sepulcher" (Mt.28:1; KJV).​

The two Marys came to the tomb at the rising of the sun (Mk.16:1) and that is when the first day of the week began.

According to you the day spoken of there would have ended in the evening. But when the evening of that day came that day remained the first day of the week:

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you" (Jn.20:19; KJV).​

12am?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

12am?

You've lost your edge since you've been gone!

 

[Tambora]

Deuteronomy 16 KJV
(4) And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.