Is it bad to go to Church on Sundays, why do some now say its Saturday only ?

Bound:
"AD 190: "He, fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord's day... glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVII"

GE;
"The Lord's Day ... according to the Gospel" :
Show the Lord's Day according to the Gospel!: "For God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake: And God the Seventh Day rested from all His works" ... "through the Son" ... "in these last days" the Christian age or Gospel-era. "God the Seventh Day rested THEREFORE the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God." "IN FULFILMENT OF THE PRECEPT" ... who said it again?

 

Bound:
"AD 197: "For we solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath." Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 16"

GE:
What were we talking about, 'the Lord's Day'?

 

Bound:
"The truth is, there is not a single historical text that speaks of Christians observing the Sabbath as their primary day of worship."

GE:
The only truth here, is your total ignorance and obstinacy.

 

Bound:
"The truth is, there is not a single historical text that speaks of Christians observing the Sabbath as their primary day of worship."

GE:
The Sabbath not only was the primary day of worship for the first Christians; it was their only, and only uninamously acknowledged day of worship. Read Acts 15:21, Col2:16-17, and, most importantly because the later of the New Testament books, the Gospels, where you will find no clue at all to another day of the worship of the ESTABLISHED Christian Church.

 

Bound:
"So, despite sabbatarian claims to the contrary, it is an unavoidable historical fact that Sunday was established as the highest and holiest of days long before the councils and proclamations of the fourth century."

GE:
Candidly admitted!

Bound:
"It was observed by the very first Christians and by all succeeding generations."

GE:
Candidly refuted and rejected for nothing but presumption.

Bound:
"In the end, the only way sabbatarians can really refute the historical evidence that Sunday is the God-ordained day of Christian worship is to accuse the early Christians - including the very first Christians - of apostasy."

GE:
God is the only Judge. But if I may appeal on behalf of those Christians of yonder dark ages, they were simple men. How many could read? How many Bibles were in circulation? How much of printing presses and computers? Or just time or a light to study at in after-work-time? etc. WHO WOULD HAVE MADE OF THE DAY OF WORSHIP A TOPIC FOR DISPUTE WHILE ONE'S LIFE WAS IN CONSTANT DANGER JUST FOR CONFESSING ONE BELIEVED IN CHRIST? If I were judge, I would make the responsibility of your modern-day Mr. Know-all so much the greater for the ancient's want of privileges he so heavily relies on.

 

Bound:
"In the end, the only way sabbatarians can really refute the historical evidence that Sunday is the God-ordained day of Christian worship is to accuse the early Christians - including the very first Christians - of apostasy."

GE:
In the end, the only way Sunday-worshippers can really refute the historical evidence that the Seventh Day Sabbath is the God-ordained day of Christian worship, is to accuse all Sabbath-keepers - including the very first Christians - of apostasy.

 

GE:
I thank God that you see it, Joe. If you can see this much, you must come to see further, that Jesus 'finished' honouring and magnifying the Sabbath of the LORD your God, when He finished "all the works of God", his Father, as He said, "The third day (according to the Passover Scriptures) I FINISH!", "When God raised Him from the dead", by and verily in, "the exceeding greatness of his Power to us-ward, according to the working of his Mighty Power which He wrought in Christ WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND IN HEAVENLY EXALTATION" --- "Sabbath's-time"!

 

GE:
Bound, you have seen it! You have seen it! This is the crux of the WHOLE 'Sunday-Sabbath-issue'!! Joe (above) has not seen it yet. But you did!
And that brought YOU, to the axle around which everything rotates and rests on: "Then He should have rose on that day then and we Christians won't celebrate the Lord's Day". But the unfortunate reality for "we Christians" is, that "the Lord's Day" is the Seventh Day Sabbath upon which God raised Christ from the dead, and we, will NOT celebrate "the Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak" the Seventh Day being the Lord's Day. WE WILL NOT, but CORRUPT GOD'S WORD THE SCRIPTURES TO SAY: 'ON' THE FIRST DAY, INSTEAD OF "ON THE SABBATH", so that we can go on to "venerating worship superstitiously" the "day" of the Sun queen of all the "days" of "former (pagan idolatrous) beggarly first principle not gods".

(I could hear you mutter, The man is mad! I thought so too myself for long.)

 

GE:
No Joe, I retract -- I don't think you have 'seen' anything yet.

Jesus' resurrection from the dead is not people picking any day they want, but God who appointed and applied the Day of Jesus' resurrection for His Holy Purpose. No other reason could be more 'Biblical'! The eventuality of Jesus' resurrection specifically on the Sabbath Day is not any reason that might have appeared significant in their minds: It is God's reason for calling the Day of His THUS blessing, of His THUS sanctifying, of His THUS resting, of His THUS finishing ALL the Works of God's utter GREATNESS AND POWER, TO call it THE Sabbath Day, The LORD'S Day. It is the beginnings of God's Rest-Day; it is Christ's "making" of "the Sabbath".

"THEREFORE", We can celebrate NTHER day. "THEREFORE", We can go to church on NTHER day of the week LIKE THIS. Therefore we shall work hard towards keeping it for this reason its greatness and honour received from God. It is most direct a command "GIVEN", as it's quite obvious there is this clear partially by our Lord upon which day he chose in that He chose it to finish all the works of God on, and raise Christ from the dead on. The day HE prefers. The day which comes up in Scripture as the day of GOD'S REST IN CHRIST. No need or right to take liberties to change it into Sunday.
We aren't to judge if others do change the day of rest, God judges the intent of the heart. I don't believe it's a salvation issue; I think it is far more serious: I think it is a damnation issue. That's why we shy away from it. (It won't help if I retracted my last statement; people will think it anyway of me.)

 

Grace and Peace Gerhard Ebersoehn,

I don't think you are 'mad'. The sabbatarian reasoning is actually understandable. The reason is quite simply, really. Sabbatarians look at the Ten Commandments and see no other choice but to worship on Saturday:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11).

From the heights of Mt. Sinai, God commanded that the seventh day be kept as a holy day of rest, commemorating His creation of the world. What's more, sabbatarians are absolutely correct when they teach that changes to the calender - including the change from the Julian calender to the Gregorian - never altered the order of the days of the week. Saturday is, and always has been, the seventh day. So the question is raised 'why don't all Christians worship on it?'

If we ask our adventist friends, the answer we get is:

In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians.... He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathen, it would... advance the power and glory of the church. But while many God-fearing Christians were gradually lead to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held the true Sabbath as the holy of the Lord and observed it in obedience to the fourth commandment (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 53).

According to sabbatarians, the Church made the State's "betrayal" of the Sabbath official at the Council of Laodicea (343-381). Canon XXIX of the Council states that "Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day."

Their conviction that Sunday worship is the fourth-century invention of an apostate church, and that the frist Christians worshiped on Saturday, also leads sabbatarians to interpret certain New Testament passages in unique ways. Take, for instance, Colossians 2:16-17: "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Most Christians take St. Paul to mean that we no longer have an obligation to worship on the seventh-day Sabbath. But sabbatarians insist that the Apostle cannot be talking about the weekly Sabbath here. He must be speaking of Jewish "high Sabbaths" - special holy days like Passover or the Day of Atonement.

Another passage that frequently comes up in Sabbath-versus-Sunday discussions is St. John's reference to being in the Spirit on "the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10). Most Christians interpret "the Lord's Day" as the day on which He rose from the dead - that is, Sunday. But sabbatarians maintain that "the Lord's Day" refers to the Sabbath. They cite Matthew 12:8 - "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" - as grounds for their interpretation.

I ultimately disagree because I believe these sabbatarian arguments are founded upon serious misinterpretations of history and of the Scriptures.

Let us first investigate the already-mentioned passage in Colossians:

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, bt the substance is of Christ (Colossians 2:16, 17, italics mine).

As I said, sabbatarians argue that St. Paul refers here to special festal Sabbaths, and not to the weekly Saturday Sabbath. But when this scripture is allowed to speak for itself, one can only conclude that St. Paul is telling the Colossians that they no longer must worship on Saturday.

Why do I say that? First of all, there is the natural logic of the text. St. Paul first mentions "festivals," which are yearly. Then he speaks of "new moons, which are monthly. The next logical step is his discourse would be something occuring weekly - like the Saturday Sabbath.

Secondly, the Greek word for "sabbaths" in this text is sabbaton. As I said, sabbatarians insist that this word refers to Jewish "high Sabbaths." But when you look up all the New Testament instances of the word sabbaton, you discover that in every case, it refers to the weekly Sabbath.

There is yet a third way that the text makes reference to the Saturday Sabbath. Suppose we ask, "What are these 'festivals' of which St. Paul speaks?" To answer that question from the Scriptures, we must turn to Leviticus 23. In this passage, God delineates for Moses all His holy feasts. He speaks of the Passover, the Feast of Firstfruits, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. But the very first festival mentioned in this chapter - the first on the list of feasts - is the weekly Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3).

So in reality, there seems to be no way that Colossians 1:16, 17 can be understood as not referring to the Saturday Sabbath. St. Paul's teaching on the matter is plain. The weekly Sabbath, along with other Old Testament holy days, is a "shadow" of something greater and more real - Christ. As we have seen, the historical record also shows that the early Christians entered into the deeper reality of Christ by worshiping on Sunday.

 

What Day is "the Lord's Day"?

It would not help the sabbatarian argument, obviously, if the early Christians actually gave the special title "the Lord's day" to some day other than Saturday. That would indiciate that the Sabbath did not hold a position of primacy in their worship. So sabbatarians insist that when he uses the expression "the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10). St. John must mean the Sabbath. As I mentioned above, they support their claim by invoking Jesus' statement that He is "Lord even of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8). But this argument cannot pass muster.

First of all, the fact that Jesus calls Himself "Lord even of the Sabbath" in no way implies that Saturday is the day denoted by the idiom "the Lord's day." Let me ask a simply question. What would Jesus say if we asked Him, "Are you also Lord of Monday, or are you only the Lord of Saturday?" I think Jesus might very well answer, "The Son of Man is Lord even of Monday." The truth is, He is Lord of all days! So, if "the Lord's day" means only "the day of which Jesus is Lord," then any day of the week is as much "the Lord's day" as Saturday is. Matthew 12:8, then, does nothing at all to help us understand what St. John means by that particular phrase.

So how can we determine what he means? Whe can figure it out the same way we figure out the meaning of any idiomatic expression. We find out how others in the same culture, at the same time in history, use the phrase. When we do that, the meaning of "the Lord's day" becomes crystal clear. The fact is, "the Lord's day" in early Church writings always refers to Sunday.

St. John wrote the Book of Revelation sometime around AD 95. Only a few years later, St. Ignatius composed a series of important epistles. Ignatius had convered to Christianity in the days of the Apostles. He was ordained the third bishop of Antioch in AD 69, and shephered his flock through some of the greatest persecutions the Church hs ever known. In AD 107, on his way to martyrdom in the Roman arena, St. Ignatius wrote this to the church at Magnesia:

If, therefore, they who were under the older dispensation came into a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord's day, on which day also our life rose through him and through his death,... how shall we be able to live apart from him, of whom even the prophets were disciples, and waited for him in the spirit as their teacher? (St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter IX, italics mine).

This epistle is extremely important for any of us who really want to know on what day the early Church worshiped. When St. Ignatius talks about those who had been "under the older dispensation" and "who came into a new hope," to whom does he refer? Clearly, he means the first Jewish Christians, the ones on whom the "new hope" first dawned.

This is made doubly obvious by the fact that Ignatius himself was converted in the middle of the first century. So when he speaks of his predecessors in the Faith, St. Ignatius can only be referring to the very first generation of Christians. And one of the central features of their faith was that they were "no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord's day"! Ignatius also makes it plain that the "Lord's day" is Sunday, the day on which "our life rose through him."

 

Bound:
"Most Christians interpret "the Lord's Day" as the day on which He rose from the dead - that is, Sunday. But sabbatarians maintain that "the Lord's Day" refers to the Sabbath. They cite Matthew 12:8 - "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" - as grounds for their interpretation."

GE:

I haven't much time today, unfortunately.

You mention here THE point of contention I have EXPERIENCED with either sides re WHY the Sabbath and not Sunday? I have found the SDAs, the self-appointed gaurdians of the Sabbath, most vehement, pertinacious to the point one react in horror and disgust, and leave off discussion with them. From the other side I have had to meet with much subtler, much wiser, but still cowardly and hypocritical rebuttal.

Most Christians interpret "the Lord's Day" as the day on which He rose from the dead.

Now that to me is without controversy. The Day upon which God "WROUGHT", THAT IS, AVAILED, TRIUMPHED, BY THE UTTER POWER OF GOD'S OMNIPOTENCY. That Day, the Lord by exactly it (Col2:15c) is made 'LORD', Conquerer, Potentate, Master , and, as Paul states this very fact in Eph1:21, "is NAMED above EVERY NAME that is named" by the NAME of the LORD, which I have never seen anyone acknowledged yet, that the point here is not so much above all names of OTHER, LESSER potentates, but above all Names of GOD'S OWN! No higher name has God, than "Lord"!! THAT, is what Paul emphasises in Eph.1:!9-23, and THAT, Paul attributes inseparable to Christ's RESURRECTION from the dead!!

SO: Asks, Karl Barth in a sermon to the inmates of his prison-parish: "What is it that makes of THIS DAY, THIS PARTICULAR DAY? IT IS THAT WHICH HAPPENED ON IT AND TO IT".

There you have why it MUST be concluded the DAY named, "The Lord's Day" IS, THE DAY upon which Christ rose from the dead, and God in the exceeding greatness of his POWER and "ENERGISING" or "WORKING" and "FINISHING" "all the works of God":::: "RESTED". Which, throughout the Scriptures, not only in Mt28:1, IS, "the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God".

So I don't care a hack what 'the sabbatharians' think or say; it is what the Scriptures - in toto - has to say.

 

Bound:

"As I said, sabbatarians argue that St. Paul refers here to special festal Sabbaths, and not to the weekly Saturday Sabbath. But when this scripture is allowed to speak for itself, one can only conclude that St. Paul is telling the Colossians that they no longer must worship on Saturday."

GE:

I really must go now, though I could go on all day.

Just this on the above: Colossians 2:12-19, there is your proper appropiate pericope. Verse 18 by contrast emphasis this: That, Here is the Body of Christ's Own, "feasting, (spiritually) eating and drinking whether of month's or of Sabbaths' Christ-Feast", and Paul undauntedly commends: "Do not you let yourselves be judged or damned in it!"

See book 4/2, http://www.biblestudents.co.za, the book I enjoyed most to write.

 

Unadulterated????

I'd suggest that the translators of these 15 versions which cover a 450 year period, were just as "unadulterated" as is the translator of the version you are either quoting (or translating yourself), per se.

And the only two of these I cited that agree exactly are two separated by an ocean and a 65 year interval, at that.

The 15 versions, alone do not necessarily make a single one of them a better (or worse) translation, of the passage in question, but it does, nonetheless, show that your own observation/preference may not be exactly 100% 'unbiased.'

Ed

 

Unadulterated????

I'd suggest that the translators of these 17 versions which cover a 450 year period, were just as "unadulterated" as is the translator of the version you are either quoting (or translating yourself), per se.

And the only two of these I cited that agree exactly are two separated by an ocean and a 65 year interval, at that.

The 16 versions, alone do not necessarily make a single one of them a better (or worse) translation, of the passage in question, but it does, nonetheless, show that your own observation/preference may not be exactly 100% 'unbiased.'

Ed

 

Hogwash! I'd say Paul addressed this nearly 2000 years ago.

This is an 'open issue', of one's own persuasion, and comes under the "doubtful things" part of Law of Liberty, according to the Bible, just as does the eating of meat, etc.

Further:

I have no intention of letting another judge me over this, simply because Scripture says not to let his happen.

Ed

 

Grace and Peace GE,

All that I can say is the historical evidence is against your position as I see it. I personally don't have a real problem with your rhetoric or proof-texting but I'm not seeing this hermeneutic present in the early Christian community which gives to pause.

As St. Ignatius said so pointedly:

"If, therefore, they who were under the older dispensation came into a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord's day, on which day also our life rose through him and through his death,... how shall we be able to live apart from him, of whom even the prophets were disciples, and waited for him in the spirit as their teacher? (St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter IX, italics mine).

I don't see any room for your hermeneutic to affirm the opposite. They "no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord's day" is pretty clear to me.

There is other evidence which refutes the sabbatarian argument that this change from Sabbath worship to Sunday worship happened in the fourth century. Every step of the way I can't find any historical evidence to add weight to the sabbatarian position. I hear a lot of rhetoric and a lot of proof-texting but we see a lot of that kind of thing everywhere. Ultimately I try to 'test-everything' through the Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience). I can appreciate that, for you, the Scriptural argument adds up to Sabbath worship but I must take you to task when you begin to distort history for the sake of your argument. History is against you here as well as Reason and Experience. Personally, I don't hold any animosity toward sabbatarians but I don't believe their arguments hold up to scrutiny.

That said I would hope that Saturday worship would not be rejected by the Most High God if such was ultimately done out of innocent error but when one attempts to distort history and reason I wonder how innocent one is? You may say that you don't give a hack what sabbatarians say but you are being naive if you don't admit that it is these arguments which serve to filter your interpretation (hermeneutic) of the Biblical Testimony. I can see the classic sabbatarian apologetic running all through your posts.

We know, through St. Ignatius, that prior to the fourth century the Christian community held the Lord's day apart from the Jewish Sabbath that is simply a clear historical fact which completely refutes the sabbatarian argument proposed in 'The Great Controversy' by Ellen White. So, using the classic sabbatarian hermeneutic doesn't seem to hold much water in the debate. I understand you can turn your attention to attack the historic record to sow doubt as to their legitimacy but then we both stand in the realm of opposing hermeneutics with the vast weight of historical practice against you. Are we to then make this leap on nothing but our distrust of the Gentile Church? I would argue that such a leap is against reason... i.e. it doesn't seem rational. It seems desperate and even reactionary.

 

Gerhard Ebersoehn =

Equally, when you insist christians can only go to church on Saturnday, you are saying they need to observe one day over and above another, as you stated about those who go to church on Sunday, the Lord's day.
Pagan? Saturnday isn't pagan?

Christ was Jewish, we are not, we are christians. Completely different.
Lots of posts, not much worth commentng on. As a matter of fact, I've learned through expereince with posters threads, skipping the majority means wasting less time. I mean there are whole pages in this thread of only one poster.

Alive in Christ=

Joe=

Judaism and Christianity are not the samething.


Would someone please tell me why you think Christians going to church and worshipping God publically, and together is bad.

 

Ed Sutton:
"
n the later ende of the Sabboth day, whiche dawneth the first daye of the weke, (Bishop's - 1568)

Now in the end of the Sabbath, when the first day of ye weeke began to dawne, (Geneva - 1587)

The sabbath being over, and the first day of the week beginning to dawn, (MACE - 1729)

Now after the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (WES- 1755)

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week, (WEBSTER)

After the Sabbath, in the early dawn of the first day of the week, (WEY ~1900)

And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, (YLT- 1862)

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week, (DARBY)

And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (D/R)

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, (WEB)

Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, (NKJV)

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, (ESV)

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, (HSCB)

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (NASB)

After the close of the Sabbath, with the dawning of the first day of the week, (MLB)
I'd suggest that the translators of these 15 versions which cover a 450 year period, were just as "unadulterated" as is the translator of the version you are either quoting (or translating yourself), per se.

And the only two of these I cited that agree exactly are two separated by an ocean and a 65 year interval, at that.

The 15 versions, alone do not necessarily make a single one of them a better (or worse) translation, of the passage in question, but it does, nonetheless, show that your own observation/preference may not be exactly 100% 'unbiased.'"

GE:
I am biased; very much so. Does it prove me wrong? According to your judgment it does. And eventually it proved to be your only valid objection. Congrats!

"On the later ende of the Sabboth day, whiche dawneth the first daye of the weke, (Bishop's - 1568)"

According to ES, everybody, "on", "late/r", "of" = 'after', 'early', 'NOT belonging to'.

"Now in the end of the Sabbath, when the first day of ye weeke began to dawne, (Geneva - 1587)"

According to ES, everybody, "in", means 'off out'; when the approach of the Sunday began, means when the Sunday itself had begun; "of" is no Possesive; the time did not belong to the Sabbath - it was not 'of the Sabbath's, but of the Sunday's.

Ditto with regard to : "Now in the end of the Sabbath, when the first day of ye weeke began to dawne, (Geneva - 1587)

Ditto: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week, (WEBSTER)"

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week, (DARBY)"

It's getting monotonous; so many in perfect agreement as to "On the Sabbath".

"And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (D/R)"

"And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, (YLT- 1862)"


ALL of these, agree exactly.




"The sabbath being over, and the first day of the week beginning to dawn, (MACE - 1729)"
Ed Sutton is BLIND for the contradiction he REFUSES to see: "the first day of the week beginning to dawn" is while it was on the Sabbath. That period of time started, one second after noon on Saturday, about six hours BEFORE Sunday. MACE is a pitiable attempt at fraud.

"Now after the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (WES- 1755)"

Ditto. unsuccesful attempt at fraud.

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, (ESV)"

Ditto. unsuccesful attempt at fraud.

"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (NASB)"

Ditto. Contradictory and self-destroying nonsense.

"After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, (HSCB)"

Ditto. Besides, 'after' the Sabbath - as ES believes himself, is dusk after sunset; not early morning which in fact is half-way through the day.

"After the Sabbath, in the early dawn of the first day of the week, (WEY ~1900)"
This is better; at least a consistent and successful fraud.

"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, (WEB)"

"Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, (NKJV)"

"After the close of the Sabbath, with the dawning of the first day of the week, (MLB) "

This is so muddled, it's difficult to find its place between all the fraud.

ALL of these, agree exactly - they all pervert the Word of God

I'd suggest Ed Sutton just copied and pasted and read nothing.

But take only the KJV (The words of the man who said may his part in Christ be taken from him, translated he not to the best of his conscience. What he here stated, was, "Sabbath's-time's" equivalent.) and the NKJV and READ them, side by side. One is adulterated; the other is not. If both to you are pure and the translators of both could confess their part in Christ be taken from them were they to translate against their conscience, then, dear Ed Sutton, it's time you go read Hebrews 4 from verse 9 until you'll read of the sword of the Word.

 

GE:
Yes! Mt28:1 - unadulterated: "In the Sabbath's fullness of daylight, after noon ...." 'Opse sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian s.

Ed Sutton:
"Unadulterated????"

GE:
Two criteria only for knowing:
1) the meaning of words
2) the use of words.

1) "Opse", 'Late', WITHOUT EXCEPTION. IT IS NOT DEBATABLE.

"sabbatohn", 'of the Sabbath / Sabbath's', Genitive Possessive of time, nature and belonging.

"tehi", 'in the / with the /during'

"epi-", 'centre', 'in', 'over'; also 'tending', 'pointing to',

"-fohs-", 'light', 'day'.

"-ous(as)" - 'being' ('to be', 'is')

"-ousehi" - Dative, 'in / with / by / during'

"eis" - 'in the eye' 'with in view' in the context of time; translated here, "TOWARDS", like our present hope now WITH THE EYE on the Last day which is our hope BEFORE the last day.

"mian ('hehmeran' by ellipses)" Accusative demanding distance and approach over distance, not inside or part of: "Towards / before the First Day"

Now the adulterations switch everything about; the conscientious translations stick to simplest of word-meanings possible.