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

Ed Sutton
GE, “Mt28:1 - unadulterated: "In the Sabbath's fullness of daylight, after noon ....” Opse sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian s.”,
Unadulterated????
……
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
Yes! Mt28:1 – un-adulterated: "In the Sabbath's fullness of daylight, after noon ...." 'Opse sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian s.’ :—
I am biased; very much so. Does it prove me wrong? According to your judgment it does. And eventually it proved you to be your only accredited objector. Congrats!
I group these ‘Versions’:-
A 1) "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'.
A 2) "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.
A 3) Ditto with regard to : "Now in the end of the Sabbath, when the first day of ye weeke began to dawne, (Geneva - 1587)”
A 4) Ditto: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week, (WEBSTER)"
A 5) "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".
A 6) "And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (D/R)"
A 7) "And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, (YLT- 1862)"
ALL seven of these, ‘in / on / of the Sabbath’, agree exactly.

 

B 1) "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’ still; a case of the Ablative, misapplied. (There is no Passive here, to mention only one factor!) That period of time started, one second after noon on Saturday, about six hours BEFORE Sunday. Just like the ablator of a space-ship beginning to disintegrate at beginning to enter into atmosphere will remain part of the vehicle until it is part no more. “The end of the Sabbath”, beginning to disintegrate, eventually vanishes; it never becomes part of the First Day. MACE is a pitiable attempt at fraud.
B 2) "Now after the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (WES- 1755)"
Ditto; amateurish attempt at fraud, paid for by the ignorant, cheated laity. Wesley wasn’t only a cheat; he was an antinomian free-willer.
B 3) "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, (ESV)"
Ditto; amateurish attempt at fraud.
B 4) "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (NASB)"
Ditto. Contradictory and self-destroying nonsense.
B 5) "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.

 

C 1) "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. It recognises the Genitive “opse sabbatohn” for a Genitive; and the Accusative “eis mian sabbatohn” for an Accusative, and therefore falsifies the Genitive into an Accusative, and the Accusative into a Genitive.
C 2) "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, (WEB)"
Ditto.
C 3) "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, (NKJV)"
Ditto
C 3) "After the close of the Sabbath, with the dawning of the first day of the week, (MLB)"
Ditto. This is so muddled, it's difficult to find its place between all the fraud. Nevertheless, ALL of these, agree exactly - they all pervert the Word of God.
Look at the dates in the groups. Three out of seven in group A are sixteenth century; three are nineteenth century. I don’t know what DR stands for, so can’t say its date, but from its language it looks recent, “And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week”, so I guess it’s Douay-Rheims which is nineteenth century. To the ‘A-group’ can be added,
American Standard Version 1901; “Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week”;
Mile Coverdale 1535, Upon the euenynge of the Sabbath holy daye, which dawneth ye morow of the first daye of ye Sabbathes;
Wyccliffe 1395, But in the euentid of the sabat, that bigynneth to schyne in the firste dai of the woke;
425 Vulgate, Vespere autem sabbati quae lucescit in primam sabbati venit Maria Magdalene;
and this one I don’t have the identification of, “In the ende of the Sabbath, as it began to dawne towards the first day of the weeke, came Mary”
J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible, And, late in the week, when it was on the point of dawning into the first of the week, came
The Bible in Basic English, Now late on the Sabbath, when the dawn of the first day of the week was near
Jay P. Green’s Literal Tr., But late in the sabbaths, at the dawning into the first of the Sabbaths
Strong, In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week
English Revised Version, Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week.

 

There you have old and new Translations, and their most obvious common exhibit is their courage, honesty and brilliant English under girded by scholarly knowledge and mastery of the Greek. The rest are every one to a greater or lesser degree the victim of the ‘dynamic-equivalent’ approach to ‘Bible-translation’ --- two mutually exclusive concepts.


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 equivalent of "Sabbath's-time's". Then compare with this, the NKJV and READ the two, 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.

I’ll repeat:
There are two criteria only for knowing what words mean in context:
1) the meaning of words as such and
2) the meaning of words where used elsewhere in documents of the same kind or / and of different kind.
By both of these criteria,
"Opse", WITHOUT EXCEPTION, means, 'late'. IT IS NOT DEBATABLE.
And, "sabbatohn", means, and is, 'of the Sabbath / Sabbath's / in the Sabbath / on the Sabbath'— Genitive, Possessive, of time and kind.
"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 wantonly switch everything about; meanings and elementary laws of Grammar and Syntax; the conscientious and pure translations stick to simplest of word-meanings possible.

 

Bound
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.

 

GE
Bound, “All that I can say is the historical evidence is against your position as I see it.”
Maybe, ‘historical evidence’ of much later than the first two centuries. What I maintain rests solidly on the evidence of the first century, and partly on the historical evidence of the second century.
Bound, “your rhetoric or proof-texting ... I'm not seeing (its) hermeneutic present in the early Christian community”. But you say you “don't have a real problem with (my) rhetoric or proof-texting”?
From this no ‘real problem’ in one paragraph, my ‘rhetoric’ deteriorated to “this leap on nothing”, “a leap against reason”.
Bound, “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).”
Ignatius did not say this. There’s a big difference between this, and this: “If, therefore, they who were under the older dispensation came into a new hope, no longer Sabbatizing (venerating the Sabbath solely by reason of the Law), but according to the Lord’s Life living, kept The Lord's Day, on which day also our life (just like theirs “who under the old (Testament) dispensation came into a new hope”) through him and through his death arose, how shall we be able to live any longer (or keep the Sabbath any longer) apart from him, of whom even the prophets (“they who under the older dispensation came into a new hope”) were disciples (that is, Christians) and in the spirit (just like John on Patmos) waited for (or “in the spirit” ‘worshipped’) Him in the spirit as their teacher (on the Lord’s Day)?” Our life came forth from the dead on the same day the Lord’s Life came forth; that is why we “keep Sabbath not (legalistically) sabbathizing, but according to / because of the Lord’s Life” (or resurrection).
For no second did the First Day project or protrude; all that prompted Ignatius’ argumentation, was the Sabbath Day all along, and its keeping by the Old Testament Christian prophets as an example for us, Christian disciples of the only, Lord of all his only People.

 

Bound, “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.”
It’s not about “keeping the Sabbath”. Ignatius is against keeping the Sabbath ‘sabbatizing’; Ignatius is FOR “Keeping Sabbath according to / because of the Lord’s Life” or resurrection. I cannot put my understanding of Ignatius in this place, clearer. I’ll leave you with the decision you have made for yourself already whether this is “historical evidence” or “proof-texting rhetoric”. To me, it’s ‘evidence’ and, ‘proof’ — both ways.
If only you could let me, see into that secret little room the First Day hid itself in!

Bound, “There is other evidence which refutes the sabbatarian argument that this change from Sabbath worship to Sunday worship happened in the fourth century.”
I told you, ‘the sabbatarian argument’ does not interest me though I am a Sabbatharian myself. My own view is that Sunday-worshipping and Christian worship on Sunday were well established by the fourth century, and Sabbath-keeping perhaps only found with the Jews and Judaists neither of whom were Christians. The emperor’s reasons for Sunday-worship are obvious: Each and the lot had to do with the divining of the “venerable day of the sun”. It can only do “the sabbatarian position” harm; no good!

Bound, “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.”
Ja, it’s evident all over; not only with the SDAs, but with the Unitarians too; and, with the Sundaydarians not in the least less than with them. Look at yourself, with what you are busying yourself with, with “historical evidence to add weight” to, or to take away weight from the ONLY ‘Evidence’ or ‘Proof’, the Scriptures! Rather heed John’s – no, Jesus’ warning –, Rv22:18-19.

 

Bound, “Ultimately I try to 'test-everything' through the Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience).”
It sounds good; as long as neither is to the detriment of ‘Scripture’.

Bound, “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.”
And I appreciate your kindness; but why should I be taken to task for “distort history for the sake of (my) argument”? Where I ‘translated’, literally, Galatians 4 where Paul says the erstwhile heathen believers “return to your beggarly first-principle-not-gods, you superstitiously divine days, months, seasons, years”? Then so be it! It in any case happened long before the ‘history’ you have in mind!

Bound, “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?”

Now if there is something I don’t mind – that runs off me like water on a duck’s back (as we say in Afrikaans), it is to be falsely accused. It makes me feel good; because I know something I have said must have struck home.
What you mean with “Saturday worship”, Christian worship on the Sabbath, I assume, a priori according to you must be “rejected by the Most High God”, unless, “if such was ultimately done out of innocent error”. So you must perceive something of what I have said, that not exactly adulates Christian worship on Sunday. That’s promising!

Bound, “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.”
Well, then I must have failed miserably, because I have tried my utmost best not to fall for that sort of stuff. Nevertheless, could you be a bit more specific? What do the others in this discussion say about me being so stereo-type ‘sabbatarian’, “the classic sabbatarian apologetic can (be) seen running all through (my) posts”?
How about an example or two, if I may ask?

 

Some people have a queer way of reacting to stress. My wife told me last night of a pre-op patient who eyed her surroundings so, then started laughing so that everybody else eventually laughed with her. I was told I myself (in a post-op situation – it was a very painful and private –otomy), that time got the theatre coming down with laughter over my laughter. That is how I feel at this moment.
Anyway ...
Bound, “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.”
This is getting past the laughing stage. I don’t “use the classic sabbatarian hermeneutic”; I have never read “'The Great Controversy' by Ellen White”, just may so have happened I read some extracts. So I won’t be able to discern how her “sabbatarian argument” would be “refuted” by “clear historical fact”.
But as for your allegation, Bound, as for your PURE PRETEXT, claiming, “We know, through St. Ignatius, that prior to the fourth century the Christian community held the Lord's day (meaning Sunday) apart from the Jewish Sabbath (as far as you are concerned the only ‘Sabbath’)... is simply a clear historical fact which completely refutes the (meaning, any and all) sabbatarian argument”— as for this your allegation, Bound, you are giving me a pain that brings back memories.

Bound, “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.”
You must keep me out of this one; I meant it for you, Bound. Here: Yours, “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”, which I returned to you, “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.” With Complements.

 

GE
Yours is a marvelously mystical post! As for myself, I am anything but a mystic, though the mystery of Godliness is the Subject of my contemplation day and night. Just like David's was the Law wherein he could see Christ through Faith. So that is "for what I am standing before you today, because of the Resurrection from the dead ..." (Paul) and believe, "The Sabbath was made for man ..." (Jesus Christ).
Peace!

 

I don't know if I should take that as a complement or not. However, I was being facetious. It's what I get for reading Second Temple period literature. Your answer was appropiately "mystic" as well.

 

Grace and Peace GE,

I'm not sure I can parse your argument with that flood of jumbled posts. If you are willing could you just focus on one argument at a time instead of flooding? That way we can systematically evaluate one another's argument and evidence.

Thanks.

 

I find it ridiculous when one poster is constantly allowed to flood the board, and fill one whole page with no other posts on the page but their own. if you want to write a novel then write it, but don't post the entire thing.

 

GE
I did not fill pages with only my posts. I filled a few posts with a revision of more posters in debate. It - to me - is very difficult , actually impossible to say my say as I would like to - like I am now doing - post after another completely irrelevant post, this one going on where he left off pages back, that one with where he left off on another thread etc. I put a few remarks and reactions together, so that they can be overviewed more cohesively --- or something like that in the line of order.

Besides, everybody here or anywhere on a thread or forum like this, have equal opportunity to make the best of his turn. You have nothing to say, you loose out. Don't blame the one who does have something to say.

I must admit it often is apparent some posters just post to post, but have no clue what to really say. That's one of the reasons I felt it necessary to make my recap on certain points of importance as far as this thread is concerned.

They were only two points, to the point. If that is too much for you, get some physical exercise to wake you up.

Those two points were the 'Versions' through the centuries, and Bound's 'historic' audacities.
They are relevant, but could not be answered PROPERLY at once. So I quietly did my homework, and presented it to the forum.

Can you offer us something of substance please, other than your complaints about others' better use of their opportunities?

 

Originally Posted by donnA
I find it ridiculous when one poster is constantly allowed to flood the board,

GE
I DO NOT POST TO ENTERTAIN!

 

GE
That was my whole purpose. Don't now chicken out, now that it's more 'systematic'; or can't you even see that?

 

GE
Acts 23:6, 24:21. Quickly, before I go! Now is the time! "Today, if you hear My Voice"! I have NO TIME to waste! "The burden of the Word of the LORD!" "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"; "Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day!"
I will not write a word for another reason. The resurrection - which is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead - is my reason for being, and the reason for my writing, and my reason for my writing on the Sabbath Day of the LORD your God. Whatever I am, or say, or believe, or teach, or hold high or dear, I shall, for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If not my, 'Christianity', my, 'Faith', is this, resurrection-faith, With the help of God and in the Name of God, I will root it out. No, I will pray God to root it out for me, He only who holds power over BOTH death and LIFE.

 

Honestly, you're purpose here is simply to confuse your opponents with strings of jumbled commentary into an attempt to create intellectual submission? Are you serious? :laugh:

So let me understand your argument. You are refuting St. Justin as an apostate or are you saying that he agrees with Sabbatarian arguments?

As I supplied in an earlier post, St. Justin Martyr (100-165), defending the Christian Faith before the pagan emperor and philosophers of Rome, had this to say about the Christian day of worship:

Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which... Jesus Christ our Saviour... rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [Saturday]; and on the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things (St. Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXVII, italics mine).

Note that he wrote clearly "Sunday is the day... Jesus Christ our Saviour ... rose from the dead".

I encourage you to read his words in The First Apology and remember Justin lived (100-165 AD). This is not text from the fourth century but the second century.

Note also, St. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho:

AD 160: "There is no other thing for which you blame us, my friends [speaking to the Jews], is there than this? That we do not live according to the Law, nor... do we observe the Sabbath as you do."

Here Justin again is 'very' clear as to the Jewish objections to Christian Observances. "We do not live according to the Law, nor... do we observe the Sabbath as you do."

They didn't observe the Sabbath as the Jews did. As I pointed out in an earlier post the early Christians did observed the Sabbath but with a 'Great Vesper' service followed by the breaking of the bread on the Lord's day... Sunday!

"For we to would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you - namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts."

This is a clear refutation of any kind of regression of the Christian community back to a Pre-Messianic Jewish observance of the Sabbath, etc.

"But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented on the sins which they have committed, they shall received the inheritance... although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts." Again this is a clear refutation of any kind of regression into Jewish observances.

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters X, XVIII, and XXVI.

 

Page 11 only has your postings on it.

It is obvious isn't it. Like page 11.

that is also obvious, because no one is entertained.
You might try getting it right sometimes, might be more worth reading your novel.