Discovery of New Lies and the Shame of Seventh-day Adventism

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/698630.html#Post698630

Gerhard:

What about Mark 15:42?
Compare the KJV with the NIV
and see if you can SEE the 'New Lie'?

Gregory:

A statement may be false. It may be false due to ignorance. But. a false statement is never a lie unless there is an intention to deceive.
It appears to me that you are attempting to charge a translation of the Bible with an intention to deceive. This is inappropriate in this forum.

Joe:

I agree with Gregory. Totally irrelevant compared to the fact that He DID rise.

Alien:

Mark 15:42, 43 KJV
And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
Mark 15:42,43 NIV
It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached,
Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
Whatever is this guy talking about? The only difference I can see is between "craved" and "asked", and "counselor" and "member of the Council", likely involving a hair or two to split.
Johann:
The creation of such hair splitting theories is what is destroying sections of our church today.

Gerhard:

I should have titled this thread, The Discovery of New, Intentional, Lies, Unseen by Many, Ignored by Most who Found them.
I assume you who so far have 'replied', are all, Sabbath believers.
Well, I am also a Sabbath believer.
I assume you who have replied above, are Seventh-day Adventists. Well, the SDA church has ALWAYS believed a day STARTS, "when the even was come" KJV AND EVERY English Bible ever translated up until the nineteenth century --- IT IS NOT ONLY THE KJV.
So, ALL English Bibles before the twentienth century speak of the BEGINNING OF THE PROSPECTIVE DAY: "WHEN THE EVENING HAD COME".
Just to confirm, compare Mark 15:42 and parallels Matthew 27:57 with Mark 14:17 and parallels Matthew 26:20 Luke 22:14 John 13:1,30.
When was the Last Supper? In the "NIGHT" : "WHEN EVENING HAD COME" "the hour" for it AFTER SUNSET???
Has the SDA position CHANGED, that the prospective day begins with its "evening" and the retrospective day HAD ENDED BEFORE "evening had come already"?!
It seems so because you – above - DENY "as evening approached" / "late noon" [in my own Afrikaans Bible] IS ANY DIFFERENT than "when evening had come / was come".
It was my personal EXPERIENCE with the translators of my own Afrikaans Bible, I can and MUST tell you for a FACT, that they CHANGED Mark 15:42, INTENTIONALLY with the very PURPOSE TO CHANGE the DAY on which Joseph "arrived".
And the GREATER FACT has been recorded and IS FIXED UNDENIABLY and for posterity unalterably IN YOUR OWN ENGLISH Bibles by the score in EVERY edition that ends up on the shelves in retail shops --- PURPOSEFULLY TO DECEIVE AND BACKED BY THE FISCAL POWERHOUSE OF THE VATICAN!
Why?
Because Mark 15:42 as used to be translated, meant the END OF EASTER AND ‘RESURRECTION SUNDAY’.

Tom:

Gerhard, if you are the only one seeing a lie, perhaps you should consider where that thought originates.
I think it is time for you to peddle your wares elsewhere.
Moderator

Gerhard:

Thank you, Tom Wetmore,
You are correct, I must consider <where that thought originates>!!
BEFORE GOD I SHALL NOT LIE BECAUSE ONLY AGAINST GOD SHOULD I SIN!
Where originated the thought --- the very AWARENESS of it??
Here is my story:
Sitting in the the pew in the church on a Sabbath to worship God the Saviour of my soul reading the _New_, International Version.
I did not know it was 'New'. I just read my Bible while before the service would start. I seldom if ever read an English Bible; I only read my Afrikaans Bible.
I read the passage because I wanted to contemplate on Christ's suffering --- for me.
It struck me, my Afrikaans Bible states "when it had been evening".
I always believed “evening” is after sunset. Everywhere in my Afrikaans Bible, the 'evening' CLEARLY is the NIGHT and starts after sunset --- no exceptions. I knew my Bible, I am not ashamed to say. My Seventh-day Adventist God-fearing PARENTS taught me to know my Bible.
But here, this new Bible tells me evening was approaching --- in other words, it was NOT EVENING YET but before evening would have begun sunset and after sundown.
I had NO other intentions or preconceived ideas or agenda ABOUT ANYTHING.
THIS was my own experience which I believe GOD sent on my way, which sparked the beginning of my LIFE-LONG DISCOVERY OF THE BIBLE….
…. and in passing, not only THIS NEW LIE but many more new and old LIES, ALREADY by brute force of majority-believing, cleverly worked into the Word of God.
Do not lay this LIE in the NIV at my door, Tom Wetmore.
I am not the liar here, the SUNDAY believing TRANSLATORS are the liars here as in many other places.

 

Johann:

Gerhard, now I'm beginning to see what you are hinting at. I was not exposed to the KJV until I was 19, but I never saw any problems. Already in my childhood my mother explained the text as saying this happened during the Jewish "evening" between 3 and 6 pm. When Joseph saw the sun getting lower he realized that Jesus should be buried before sundown - before Sabbath - and this is the time referred to in the text.
According to that it seems to me like it is your Afrikaan Bible which is faulty and neither the KJV nor the NIV.

Gerhard:

Thanks, Johann, for a considerate response.
It is so 'evening' has more than one meanings in the Bible. And what you mother explained to you is very true in the case of the Old Testament.
In the OT 'evening' and 'even' are used identically. Both English words are from the one Hebrew word for 'late'. 'ereb'. It can be both late afternoon or late in the early of dark --- after sunset.
In the Greek of the LXX it already no longer was the case, and several expressions are used in it to describe 'late (in the day)', but never with the word '(heh) opsia' - '(the) evening' - which is used in Mark 15:42.
The word 'opsia' in Mark 15:42 is 14 times (or fifteen) used in the New Testament WITHOUT EXCEPTION for the time of NIGHT after sundown --- confirming the Greek of 300 years before already.
That is point one that shows the night after sunset is mentioned and meant, in Mark 15:42 --- the Greek word 'opsia' as such.
Point two is the word 'evening' is applied in contextual unity with the Time-Aspect of the Verb which tells "it BECAME / HAD become The Preparation", Indicative Ingressive / Punctilliar as well as Constative Aorist - 'ehn' - which "IS BEST RENDERED IN ENGLISH WITH THE PAST PERFECT TENSE" (Dana and Mantey).
The orthography of the Aorist of 'eimi' - 'to be', 'ehn' - is the same in Aorist and Imperfect. The Participle 'genomenou' - 'had become (evening)' is Past Perfect Aorist: "already had become" // "having had become The Preparation" - 'ehn Paraskeueh' HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
But even more important-- The whole context indicates an absolute condition WITHIN "it having HAD become evening it having HAD become the Preparation", so that the Past Perfect Tense in English clearly is the only option for rendering the Ingressive Aorist within Mark 15:42 and Matthew 27:57.
When does a day begin and when has it "already begun" --- in other words, from when "WAS (it) the Preparation"?
From "evening had had come already SINCE IT HAD BECOME the Preparation".
As for your mother's argument.
Why would translators change the English <text> in Mark 15:42 if <<the time referred to in the text>>, is already <<saying this happened during the Jewish "evening" between 3 and 6 pm. (w)hen Joseph saw the sun getting lower (and) realized that Jesus should be buried before sundown - before Sabbath>>?
They changed their translation because what already stood written in the King James Version is NOT saying <<this happened during … "evening" between 3 and 6 pm.>> The translators would not and DID not make a ‘pointless change’. They wanted to make a point, which was, to make Mark 15:42 SAY, this happened during the Jewish "evening" between 3 and 6 pm --- QUOTE: “…as evening was approaching” // during the Jewish "evening" between 3 and 6 pm --- QUOTE: “late noon”.
You know what my mother told me – and she was the most wonderful and Godly woman just like your mother was, I am sure – she told me, Joseph prepared Jesus’ body for to bury it according to the LAW of God she so passionately believed in. She told me from I could remember, and that – now that I come to think of it – was why when I read the NIV the first time – Mark 15:42 like a fish-hook turned across in my throat … that was it … it must have been!
The NIV changed – CORRUPTED – the text in the VERB. It stated “evening had”, not “come already”; ‘evening APPROACHED’.
My Afrikaans Bible CORRUPTS the text in another way. It CORRUPTS the NOUN. “It was late NOON”.
The fact different ‘translations’ corrupt their versions in OPPOSING and CONTRADICTING ways, proves two things:
First, that the KJV was CORRECT;
Next, that the ‘new translations’ are no translations but CORRUPTIONS.
Then, ask yourself, why are so MANY changes made all having the same implication pertaining the time of day and the day that Joseph had Jesus buried on?
Then ask yourself even further,

WHY HAS THE SAME PROCESS BECOME OBVIOUS
A: Over the same time-era?; and
B: In EVERY new ‘translation’ into ANY language ANYWHERE in the world --- and
C: in THESE texts specifically?!

 

Tom Wetmore:

Gerhard, That what you read is perceived as a lie, is within your mind. As others have already pointed out, there are other possibilities. It remains that it is you who wants to characterize what you are reading as an intentional effort to deceive. Not everything is a conspiracy. Too often as it seems here, misunderstanding can lead to many a wrong twist and turn needlessly. And it seems that rather than automatically locking in on the worst possibility you would do well to seek wider counsel and the wisdom of others. To start a discussion raise a question rather than establish a conclusion expecting everyone to jump on board. Allow for differences of opinion and the distinct possibility that you could be wrong.
Maybe the problem is in the imprecise nature of certain languages and the difficulty of translating them into other languages, especially when the source material is centuries old. And then there is the interpretation put on that by readers, such as you or me. And add to that the far less precise way of describing time as was common in ancient times, before the advent of clocks.
Here is a short list of English translations and how each renders the text. There seems to be a fair bit of consistency.
KJV And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
NKJV Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
NLT This all happened on Friday, the day of preparation, the day before the Sabbath. As evening approached,
NIV It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached,
ESV And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
NASB When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
RSV And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
ASV And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
YLT And now evening having come, seeing it was the preparation, that is, the fore-sabbath,
DBY And when it was already evening, since it was the preparation, that is, the day before a sabbath,
WEB And now, when the evening was come, (because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath)
HNV When evening had now come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Shabbat, [/quote]
-----The changes made were not made all at once. Or in all Bibles at once.
But as the general Christian Church became aware of the apparent problematic implications which LITERAL translation had for the universally accepted doctrines regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection, it consciously steered away from literal and true translation and began to adopt and implement instruments like the so called ‘dynamic equivalent method’ for translation.
And as these modern ‘methodologies’ became used as the norm, the ploy deepened and widened to global dimensions. The ‘Dina commission’ had a worldwide successful campaign to UNITE all Christian denominations in an effort to have all translations speak the same ‘theological’ language. Still not every relevant text with regard to the timing and dating of Jesus’ death and resurrection was understood, and so could in some cases be overlooked. Translations until the mid twentieth century reveal these factors for anybody who does not approach the issue with biased pre-judgmental attitude.
That this effort for unity among all people and churches and translations progressed with giant steps during the latter halve of the last hundred years is indisputably clear at first honest glance at translations from those years in THESE TEXTS AND PASSAGES with direct bearing on the times and dates and days of Jesus’ last passover. NOT A SINGLE relevant NT text in this category escaped the attention of the translators during this time, and not one (to my knowledge) escaped CHANGE. Translators have made sure no differences of opinion would remain possible or that they could be wrong. <<Not everything is a conspiracy>> once one has seen what a real conspiracy is, for sure!

Briony-Gloriana:
Well, Gerhard the Credo is prayed daily by me and your version aint in it....not to worry, I shall pray for you and trust you will pray for me.:sleeping_2:

Gerhard:

Pray for yourself Gloriana, pray for yourself.
And don't worry about me. I would in any case not believe that you prayed for me. I won't.
In the middle of the desert there is standing a steam locomotive shipped from Europe or it could be America with which some would-be industrialists or farmers wanted to revolutionise their trade. This cast iron contraption with wheels of steel as high as a house and wide as an hamlet-sidewalk, made it all the way to its destiny which was halve way to its destination. For there it got stuck and stood to this day. ‘Here I stand; I cannot help; so help me God’— Luther of the Namib.
Had Luther not done, no move would venture men of less or lesser metal. HE STOOD ALONE!

Johann:

Now you are speaking in riddles, Gerhard. You started out by making such a great difference between the KJV and th NIV - where there was none.
Now you refer to an unknown global campaign. What are you talking about?

Gerhard:

The difference is, LITERALLY AND REALLY : AS DAY BY NIGHT.
And I, do NOT believe, YOU -- that is, ANYONE debating here in this discussion. I tell you straight, and, in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST : TELL GOD THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; NOT ME!

 

Gregory:
‘Dina commission’ had a worldwide successful campaign to UNITE all Christian denominations . . . quote
Where can we learn more about this?

Gerhard:
Check the 'Helps for Translators Series' by Daniel C. Arichea Jr. and Eugene A Nida, United Bible Societies for their study materials, copyrighted 1946, 1952, 1972.
Years ago it could be ordered from American Bible Society 1865 Broadway New York, N.Y 10023 USA.
The Nida ideology STILL underlies the current vogue in Bible translation. Unfortunately I have the guide-lines only in Afrikaans, but I'll try to get them in English from the Translation Committee for the translation of the new Afrikaanse Bybel for you.
THE NEW GUIDELINES ARE SO MASTERFULLY SUBTLE SHREWD AND CUNNING IT IS UNBELIEVABLE.

Why is it that I never encounter the above kind of controversy among Sunday believing Christians? Why don't they find my arguments, riddles and impossible to understand? Why don't they -- who themselves are making THESE very controversial 'translations' -- try to avoid the issues given rise because of itself?
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, to me?!
Why don't the Sunday-parties deny the very things I accuse them of doing, namely, to CHANGE these Scriptures : SO AS TO MAKE them fit Sunday-Resurrection and Friday-Crucifixion? They ADMIT it and they DEFEND it!
But the Sabbatharians everyone of them tell me I make up stories? That I speak riddles? That I carry the LIE within myself? That what I call LIES are no lies outside my own head?
I am not mad; and I am not deluded; and I am not ignorant. I am the best informed person in history with regard to THESE ISSUES. I call on God as my only Witness. I do not need the support of any human. With my God I jump over a wall not knowing or caring WHAT is on the other side.

LHC:
The last time I heard so many references through I and my, in personal egotism, was when I read this below.
"For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’"Isaiah 14:13-15 NKJV
Sounds like a fall is imminent.
"Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
“Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,..."
Isaiah 14:15-17 NKJB
Perhaps this might be of help.
"For in fact the body is not one member but many.
If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. "1 Corinthians 12:14-18 NKJV
God cares! Jesus saves!

Johann:
Are those any worse than the guidelines King James gave his translators?

Gerhard:
I know nothing about that. I try the KJV by the same rule I try any translation, "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" SHALL IT BE OR NOT.

 

Gregory:

You ask us to explain why Sunday keepers do not argue with you.
That answer is quite simple: They do not consider your comments important enough to respond to them.
At another point in your post, you said;
Quote:
I am not mad; and I am not deluded; and I am not ignorant. I am the best informed person in history with regard to THESE ISSUES. I call on God as my only Witness. I do not need the support of any human. With my God I jump over a wall not knowing or caring WHAT is on the other side.

Stan:

1) You may you not ignorant, but, why do you present yourself in that manner.
2) So, you consider yourself the best informed person in history on certain issues. Well, your do not seem to be so recognized.
3) You do not need the support of any human: That is a major reason why people do not listen to you and/or accept your views.
Let me compare this to the person in Church who has a different thought..
He shares it with his friends, perhaps that sabbath school class, and presents it as a discussion.
Usually no problem.
When He turns every single conversation in to that topic, it gets old and annoying.
After that, when he claims to be all knowing... it is even more annoying..
Pretty much headed to the previous comment.
If you are only here to go non-stop and feel that we must be your audience, well you are not playing well with others.
That is just kind how it works on internet forums.
Gregory put that comment together very well, take heed of what Gregory said.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/698719.html#Post698719
Gerhard:

Thanks to everyone for his or her comments in this discussion.
I appreciate each and every one and shall treasure it, BE ASSURED.
And thanks for the 'moderators' for this opportunity to thank you all.
This old Satan must go to bed now.
May God bless you all in all your ardent study of and brave stand for the Word of God.
I hope to soon have this conversation published.
The world will read it.
Further, I am waiting .... no regrets ... or excuses.

Signed:
Luther of the Namib
28 05 14 2:46 a.m.

 

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/698630/4.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TAJDLGQ21JKEEIQQ7/p2#lastPost

Gregory Matthews:

Folks who posted here, take heed. If I understand the above correctly, you who have posted here can expect to have your posts published elsewhere. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TAJDLGQ21JKEEIQQ7#lastPost

Co Aspen:

If that were to happen, then we would know the true character of the person. It would need to be self published, I believe, as I doubt a legitimate publisher would touch such a thing without permissions.

Maybe that is a question for Stan, about whether or not anyone can be quoted w/o permission from his ownership of this forum....stan....hello.....what say you?

Rudy Woods:

Not only is it legal to quote postings from an open forum (unless forum membership agreement specifically forbids it), but if the person (i.e. Gerhart) knows your real name, he can also include that, and if that is not known, then the screen name is used.

However, I agree with CoAspen - it's more than likely anything he "publishes" will be "self-published." But I wouldn't be too concerned.... I highly doubt it will be required or suggested reading at any theological seminary or university... erhmmm...well....perhaps in an abnormal psychology course...

Co Aspen:

…spew coffee…

Gregory:

I believe that Pam is correct.

I simply find it interesting that a statement is made that postings here will be published.

What does that mean? I do not know. However, I do believe that people posting here should know. Therefore, I point it out. In addition, there is another question: Do any of us believe that our postings here will be "published" here accurately and in context?

Joe Mo:

In a sense, our stuff is already "published" (at least electronically) right here on CA, isn't it? Anyone who really wants to see it can do so with minimal effort.

Gerhard:

...cleverly worked so that no comments by Gerhard can be made ....
Gerhard can even 'log in' --- on the 'forums', but not on 'theological townhall'.
He cannot make any comments .... FURTHER TO EXPOSE THE SHAME of Seventh-day Adventism ....
WHICH BY ITSELF is the best ever revelation of the shame of Seventh-day Adventism AND ADVENTISTS.
COWARDS and HYPOCRITES you all ...

Gregory Matthews:

Do any of us believe that our postings here will be "published" here accurately and in context?

Gerhard:

… afraid it would, you stooge ! ?

Alien:

I don't understand why there is a class of people who believe that the 1611 KJV is the one-and-only perfect English translation of the Bible. I personally don't think it's a great translation because the English language has changed significantly over the past 400 years, not to mention the better scholarship and greater number of texts used to arrive at improved modern translations.

I think the KJV purists should learn Biblical Greek and Hebrew, then perhaps they would be singing a different tune. I am disappointed that none of the English translations use the proper names as spoken in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Isaiah is actually pronounced something like Yeh-SHA-yah in Hebrew, and in Greek, Jesus is pronounced Yay-SOOCE, which is itself a corruption of his Hebrew/Aramaic name. Our English name for Jesus is therefore profoundly incorrect. If we could speak to Bible characters they probably would have no clue who or where we were talking about.

We can believe in translation conspiracies whose goal is to subvert the main tenets of Christianity and the Kingdom of YHVH, but I think there's an English translation for any reader where the basic principles of the Kingdom are present and easily understood.

Believest thou not that he who thinkest that this very KJV is the only translation dialect chosen by YHVH, that that one shouldst himself speaketh in the pure English of 1611?

Now, does "evening" in the referenced verse of the OP mean before sundown or after sundown?

Gregory:

Alien: You are on the right track in regard to the 1611 KJV.
I will comment on the Tetragrammaton which is commonly written as: YHWH.
Quote:
God's name is written as the Tetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH) in the Torah. The name is not vocalized in the manuscripts and I know it's considered ineffable by Jews and thus not said aloud. For that reason, the original pronunciation hasn't been preserved (as far as I know).
Christians commonly suggest the pronunciations Yahweh and Jehovah (which should of course be pronounced like "Yehovah"). Long ago I heard it claimed that the vocalization Jehovah is based on a misunderstanding, but I don't remember the reasoning.
What is the probable original vocalization?
Isaac Moses
20.9k329119
6 The misunderstanding you refer to might be that the vowels of word adonai were combined with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, that produced the word you mention. – jona21 Sep 2 '11 at 10:44
1 @Jona, That plus the "j" in German would sound like a "y", but when English speakers read it, they pronounce it like, well, a "j". – Ray Sep 2 '11 at 13:06
1 @Jona21: The vowels found in many printed books today are those of the word "l'olam". – Chanoch Aug 28 '12 at 12:52
"Jehovah" was a term invented, or at least first used, by the Spanish monk Raymundus Martini in his book Pugeo Fidei in the year 1270 A.D. – user3418 Oct 24 '13 at 15:17

Gerhard:

Behold who is worried about <accuracy and context> but does not give a darn about the topic.