Observing the Sabbath

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23829
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Josh »

John,
The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.
This is patently false. Neto didn't make a translation to sell Bibles. Neither did Wycliffe or Tyndale, who ended up martyred.

Ultimately, you seem to think you've got a better grasp of biblical languages and interpretation than everyone else. I suggest you become qualified to make your own translation, since the rest of us have it so wrong.

I regularly fellowship with people who meet on Saturdays. One of the people there is a legitimate Hebrew scholar, with published works. He has a strong personal bias towards a lot of your views.

However, he doesn't support any of the views you hold I've run by him. And he isn't motivated by money, either. (He and his family live a very thrifty lifestyle.)
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote:You can leave Luke 6:1 for another time, but I hold that this verse does fall on my side of the logical argument, as it notes a counting of days until Pentecost. And if you refer only to the most ancient texts (i.e. Hort and Westcott), than anyone can dismiss quite a few things.
I think you are making an argument based on deductive logic and theology, not deep knowledge of the language or any particular approach to deciding which texts are genuine.

And when it comes down to it, making an argument on the basis of a reading that most scholars question is building a house on sand - especially since there is also great disagreement about what it means if it is genuine, and no other uses of the word to compare it to. It would make a lot more sense to build on solid ground, readings that most people are sure are genuine. Even if this reading is genuine, there is no agreement about what it would mean. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and it does not contain this term. The best way to understand Greek equivalents to Hebrew concepts is often to find the way that Hebrew terms are translated into the Septuagint, but on a quick look, the Septuagint does not support the things you are saying about Greek in this thread.

I don't think the context of Luke does either. Here are the places where Luke refers to Sabbaths. I don't see him numbering Sabbaths the way that you suggest. And the introduction to Luke makes it quite clear that he is writing as a Greek historian, he carefully explains Jewish customs for the Greek reader throughout his Gospel, and it would be weird for him to expect a Gentile audience to understand such an obscure reference without some explanation.
JohnHurt wrote:But a knowledge of the Greek language does not always provide a way to see the context. Here are the questions that I don't think your position cannot answer:

1. We would need to prove that the phrase "the first day of the week" is something that happens every week.
And apparently the witness of the Greek lexicons, better commentaries, and translations is not enough to prove this to your satisfaction, nor the quotes I have provided so far.

But I don't think the standard of proof you require is the same for your own position:
JohnHurt wrote:I hold that this phrase denotes the yearly "Feast of First Fruits" when the wave offering is made (Leviticus 23:15).

First fruits fell on the "morrow after the sabbath" following Passover (Lev 23:5) and also after the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6). The Feast of First Fruits also comes before Pentecost, which is 50 days after its celebration. (Lev 23:16)

The Feast of First Fruits happens on "the morrow after the sabbath", just as Pentecost does (Lev 23:15-16), so we are both in agreement that this day occurs on Sunday. That is why I won't challenge that "first day of the week" is something that happened on a Sunday.

But my position is that the term "first day of the week" is not a weekly service, but yearly, and happens only after Passover and Unleavened Bread, and before Pentecost.
Then I would expect it might be used somewhere with that meaning in the Septuagint, or in some Greek translation of Hebrew literature. And it is not.

Lexicons have to look at all uses known in the language, including the early Fathers and papyri, reference what other lexicons and scholars have written, etc., and they cannot use theological criteria to justify their decisions. So far, you have not shown any examples where the phrase clearly has the meaning you suggest.
JohnHurt wrote:The example in Acts 20:7 perfectly follows this pattern, for the "first day of the week" follows the days of unleavened bread (Acts 20:6), yet occurs prior to Pentecost. (Acts 20:16)

Likewise, the term "first day of the week" in 1 Cor 16:2 occurs prior to Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8).
There is no doubt that some Sundays occur before Pentecost. That is not terribly compelling proof, though.
JohnHurt wrote:So, I think we will be unable to prove that the term "first day of the week" is something that was practiced more than just once a year.
Probably not to your satisfaction. And I'm not sure we have much agreement about how you go about proving this kind of thing. To me, any proof based primarily on theological concerns is suspect. I much prefer proof based on carefully looking at usage in the original language as close to the time and place as possible.

I'll attach a few useful pages from Plummer's commentary on this issue. They discuss, among other things, the specific manuscripts that support each reading, and some of the text-critical reasons to believe it may not be genuine, along with useful discussion of possible meanings if it were genuine.
Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 9.16.21 AM.png
Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 9.16.21 AM.png (245.51 KiB) Viewed 432 times
Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 9.16.36 AM.png
Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 9.16.36 AM.png (667.17 KiB) Viewed 432 times
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:
The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.
This is patently false. Neto didn't make a translation to sell Bibles. Neither did Wycliffe or Tyndale, who ended up martyred.

Ultimately, you seem to think you've got a better grasp of biblical languages and interpretation than everyone else.
If you don't know the original languages, translations are your best resource. Trying to read a language you don't understand using Strong's numbers and your English-based intuition is like reading tea leaves. It says a lot more about what you think than it says about the original text.

When I started reading Greek, it was largely because I wanted to understand "the real meaning" of the text. Over the decades, I have come to appreciate how well the translations bring out the real meaning, and how careful scholars have been to enhance our understanding of the language based on all available evidence.

And I agree that most translators have the right motivation. Also, if I have to question the motivation of the Bible translators, I should probably question John's motivation equally. I don't trust arguments based on the notion that the person speaking has the right motivation and everyone who disagrees with him has the wrong motivation. Most of us are better at seeing the speck in the other person's eye than the log in our own, and we may not realize how much that log affects our own biblical interpretation.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote:The article you listed did note that the "first day of the week" in Mark 16:9 was different, for here the word translated as "first" is not "mia", but "protos", meaning "foremost", and not just "one" or "first". So in this case, we have "foremost week". I would be interested in your interpretation of this verse.
I don't see any real difference between these two phrases based on the choice of words.

I think you're confused about the meaning of protos. Consider Hebrews 10, surely Jesus is foremost, superior to the Law, and his sacrifice on the cross is also foremost, but it came after the Law in time. The word protos is translated first here. Jesus is second - but not in rank, only in time.
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Here are some definitions, which might help clarify:
Mounce wrote:first in time, order, etc., Mt. 10:2; 26:17; first in dignity, importance, etc., chief, principal, most important, Mk. 6:21; Lk. 19:47; Acts 13:50; 16:12; as an equivalent to the compar. πρότερος (G4754), prior, Jn. 1:5, 30; 15:18; Mt. 27:64; adverbially, first, Jn. 1:42; 5:4; 8:7
Abbott-Smith wrote:πρότερος, and πρῶτος, compar. and superl. from πρό, opp. to ὕστερος, ὕστατος.

[NT: 11x] A. Compar., πρότερος, -α, -ον, [in LXX for רִאשׁוֹן ,לִפָנִים, etc. ;]

before, of time, place, rank, etc.; in NT always of Time, before, former: Eph 4:22. Adverbially, πρότερον, before, aforetime, formerly: Jo 7:50, II Co 1:15, He 4:6; opp. to ἔπειτα, He 7:27; τὸ π., Jo 6:62 9:8, Ga 4:13, I Ti 1:13; αἱ π. ἡμέραι, He 10:32; αἱ π. ἐπιθυμίαι, I Pe 1:14.†

[NT: 154x] B. Superl., πρῶτος, -η, -ον, [in LXX chiefly for רִאשׁוֹן, also for אֶחַד, etc. ;]

first,
1. of Time or Place;
(a) absol., as subst., ὁ π.., Lk 14:18, Jo 19:32, I Co 14:30; ὁ π. καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, Re 1:17 2:8 22:13; neut., τὸ π., opp. to τ. δεύτερον, He 10:9; τὰ π., opp. to τ. ἔσχατα, Mt 12:45, Lk 11:26, II Pe 2:20; anarth., Mt 10:2; pl., Mt 19:30, Mk 10:31, Lk 13:30; ἐν πρώτοις (EV, first of all), I Co 15:3;
(b) as adj.: πρώτῃ; (sc. ἡμέρᾳ) σαββάτου, Mk 16:[9]; φυλακή, opp. to δευτέρα, Ac 12:10; equiv. to adv. in English, Jo 8:[7] 20:4, 8 Ac 27:43, Ro 10:19, I Ti 1:16, I Jo 4:19; = πρότερος (v. infr.; cf. [p. 390] M, Pr., 79; Bl, §11, 5; Thackeray, Gr., 183f.): c. gen., π. μου ἦν (my chief: Abbott, Jg., 509ff.; but cf. M, Pr., 245), Jo 1:15, 30; c. art., Mk 14:12, Ac 1:1, al.; seq. ὁ δεύτερος, etc., Mt 22:25, Mk 12:20, al.
2. Of Rank or Dignity, chief, principal: Mt 20:27 22:38, Mk 9:35, Eph 6:2, al.; c. gen., Mk 12:28, 29 al.; πόλις (Field, Notes, 124), Ac 16:12; c. art., Lk 15:22 19:47, Ac 13:50, al.
3. Neut., πρῶτον, as adv., first, at the first;
(a) of Time: Mt 8:21, Mk 4:28, al.; τὸ π., Jo 10:40, al.;
(b) of Order: Ro 3:2, I Co 11:18, al.
As for the other text, the word 'μιᾷ' is the feminine dative for 'one', the dative is a "dative of time". In your English transliteration, you can't see that because you can't see the difference between μιᾷ and μία. The word for 'one' is declined in Greek, which is really confusing for English speakers. How do you say 'one'? Well, there are 12 possibilities ... all languages are weird, Greek is a language, you have to learn a language to understand it.

Which is why most of us should use translations.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Neto
Posts: 4580
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Neto »

Pg 7. Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:27 AM
JohnHurt wrote:….
3. The position relies on the authority of the most popular Bible Translations and other tools. Yet, these same translators could never translate "baptizo" as "immerse", as they would lose any customers that believed in sprinkling / infant baptism.
So, "baptizo" has always been transliterated and was never accurately translated, as a fully accurate translation is not the primary goal of a Bible translation. The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.

The Bible translators will never translate "emuwnah" in Habakkuk 2:4 as "faithfulness", or "by being faithful", which is something you do and is how this word is translated in all occurrences in the Old Testament, but they will translate this word "emuwnah" as "faith", which a state of mind, and not translate it as being faithful, in an effort to appease everyone from Paul to Martin Luther. Only Hebrews 10:37-38 will show us that Habakkuk 2:4 is an activity of being faithful, not a state of mind.

Only the Bible can accurately describe the Bible. Not a translator.
….
John
Pg 8 Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:41 AM
Josh wrote:John,
The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.
This is patently false. Neto didn't make a translation to sell Bibles. Neither did Wycliffe or Tyndale, who ended up martyred.
….
Since my name is mentioned in connection with this discussion, I will pipe in here. To a degree I agree with you, John, in regards to some of the challenges we face as Bible translators. But it is always our goal to render the text in the most accurate way possible. But languages differ vastly, especially when you cross major language families. The area of meaning of a word will vary, sometimes even for common objects. And words change meaning over time within any living language. (A recent example in English is the word “venue”, which is actually confined to a very exacting legal context, but currently has become much more broad in meaning, to the point that it now means roughly the same as ‘place’.) In the KJV the word ‘prevent’ is used to mean ‘precede’ – it meant that back 500 years ago, but not now.

Not all words still mean what their etymology would suggest. Josh brought up Wycliffe & Tyndale. I believe it was Tyndale who invented the word ‘atone’, composing it of the English words ‘at’ & ‘one’. So originally it meant something much closer to ‘reconcile’ than how most people understand it today (more like ‘make a payment for’). The GK word transliterated as ‘baptize’ is an example where there is a clear etymological meaning which may not reflect the way it was used & understood in the Koine Greek era. There are also different ways to understand the purpose of using any certain word, and this one is a good illustration of this. Translating it as ‘immerse’ focuses on the mechanical or technical side of what is happening, rather than on the meaning of the observance. That is why we translated it as closely to “ceremonially wash” as we could get. “Ekklasia” is another example. People often translate it as “Called Out Ones”, its etymological meaning, rather than according to the most likely meaning of that day – simply “assembly”. It is the Greek counterpart of the Hebrew commonly translated as ‘congregation’ in the OT, and I believe that would be a more accurate translation. For one, it allows the word to be translated in the same way in occurrences where it refers to the church as when it refers to a secular gathering, such as the riot in Ephesus (maintaining concordance).

As pertains to the purpose of making a Bible translation, we never charged anything for any of the Scripture books we distributed. (We personally paid all costs.) A coworker of ours in a related language has recently finished the translation of the NT. (Actually, I should clarify that one of their sons, who grew up there in the village, has been helping over the last 25 years or so.) The people will likely pay a small amount for the copies of the Scripture – it helps them to see value in it, because it cost them something to get it. That couple started work in that language in 1964. You don’t give your whole life to provide the Scripture for a tribe that numbers below 500 souls for the meager price you will get for the Bibles you sell when you are 80 years old.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote:Only the Bible can accurately describe the Bible. Not a translator.
If that's true, we're all in trouble unless we get really good at reading the original languages - few people will ever do that, I sure can't read Hebrew at that level. And we might also need to get our hands on the original manuscripts.

I don't believe that. I believe that translations are one of the ways that God provides for the Body of Christ in all times and places.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23829
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:
JohnHurt wrote:Only the Bible can accurately describe the Bible. Not a translator.
If that's true, we're all in trouble unless we get really good at reading the original languages - few people will ever do that, I sure can't read Hebrew at that level. And we might also need to get our hands on the original manuscripts.

I don't believe that. I believe that translations are one of the ways that God provides for the Body of Christ in all times and places.
And many of the books in the Old Testament are themselves translations from older books. Classical Hebrew didn't exist in the days of Moses or Abraham, so whatever they spoke would have been written down by someone speaking another language who in turn translated it into a newer language. The oldest texts of the Old Testament we have date to 200 B.C.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

For that matter, Jesus often quoted the Septuagint, which was a translation.

If you don't trust the translations, and don't speak the languages ... do you trust James Strong as the only source of truth? Do you trust numbers more than words? Do you ignore syntax?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Adam »

JohnHurt wrote:The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.
As a Bible translator myself, I would disagree with this statement. The primary goal of a translation is to make God's Word clear to people so that they can become citizens of the Kingdom. Yes, we would love to sell as many Bibles as possible, but not because we get any profit from it, but because it means that many people are interacting with God's Word in the language that they understand best. I would say that even most English translations were conceived of not as a way to make profits but as a way to make God's Word more clear to a certain target group.
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by ohio jones »

Adam wrote:
ohio jones wrote:The author of Hebrews uses the word "today" (quoting Psalm 95) at least four times in this context. From which I assume that he is talking about today, not eternity.

The Israelites did not enter the promised land because of unbelief. But what if they had believed? They would not have had to wait for death, but would have entered in immediately after the spies gave their report. That was God's original plan. The only person who entered the promised land after death was Joseph.

While there may be a second fulfillment, a more complete Rest, in the future, is it after death, or after resurrection?
Those are good observations and good questions. Assuming that the audience of the letter is Christians who already have faith in Christ, what would they need to do to enter that rest? It would seem to be something other than having faith since they already have that. It seems that the author is encouraging them to stay true to their faith to the end. I wonder if the use of the word Today is intended to refer to the fact that God speaks of another time for entering His rest, a time other than the Israelites missed opportunity in the desert. That time is now here because of Jesus's death and resurrection. Hebrews 4:3 says: "For we who have believed enter that rest." It doesn't say that we have entered but that we do enter. Hebrews 4:10 says that "whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his." I don't know that we rest from our works until we get to heaven. Is there another way to interpret that in which we can be viewed as resting from our works here in this life?
Caleb and Joshua had faith, though they were delayed in entering the promised land by the faithlessness of others. But that is a negative example; the way things were, not the way they should have been. We are intended to learn from this and not make the same mistakes. If the entire nation had entered the land by faith when God intended, how much work would they have had to do? Very little, I suspect (the hornet theory).

The words of Jesus certainly seem to imply that the rest is "today" and not in the far-off future:
Matt 11:28-29 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
The yoke makes it sounds like there is still some work involved, even though there is also rest. Perhaps the resolution of the paradox is that we cease from our labors and walk along with God as he works in and through us.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Post Reply