So now we are back to the Sabbath...

By the way, Bobryan, you have yet to post the "irrefutable evidence."

No evidence is "irrefutable," so I'll take that challenge. Just keep in mind that I believe in the continuing authority of the 10 Commandments, including the 4th. However, one cannot adequately support one's point of view until they have argued the opposite.

The "irrefutable" point is as follows

1. The majority of eve pro-sunday scholarship argue that the Ten Commandments are the moral law of God - written on the heart under the New Covenant and applicable to all saints to this very day. So this point is not unique to 7th day Sabbath keeping Christians.

2. The Law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and so the term "Law of God" must be understood in context of the author and his contemporary readers.

3. The quote of Jer 31:31-33 by Paul in Heb 8 affirms the same point and is affirmed by the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship.

4. D.L. Moody's statement, C.H. Spurgeon's statement and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" statement are good representative statements for the way this pro-Ten-Commandments POV was being presented in the 1800's at the time that Adventists fully accepted the 4th commandment unedited.

5. There are a number of texts both OT and NT that help explain why it is that even pro-Sunday scholarship admits to the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God - binding on all mankind (even saints) from Eden to this very day.

But you are arguing with people who have already made up their mind regardless of scripture. Just like some people insist that Peter seeing the sheet of unclean animals is talking about food.

So you are trying to use a favorite version to convince people against their already made up mind. It won't make a difference!

Whether Gentiles came into the church on Sabbath or on another day is not relevant. They came to hear the Word of God, not because it was held on a specific day. It was because they recognized the truth, they recognized Life!


As APL pointed out, we aren't against the KJV. We are against those promoting KJV and only KJV as the direct word from God. Not saying you are quite like that, but like I say, you are starting to sound like Green.

If your whole religion is based upon what one text in your favorite version says, your religion is based upon nothing.

That may be true on forums where it seems everyone comes with their "minds made up", but in real life it's a different situation.

And no it's not just a "favorite version" it's looking at the actual words in the original.
If you notice -- I posted several different versions that had the correct translation.

Yes, the Gentiles that heard Paul the first Sabbath asked for Him to preach it again, because they recognized truth, yet the response of Paul does show something important.

If the Gentile proselytes wanted to invite their Gentile friends and neighbors to hear Paul preach the same message, this would have been an excellent point in time for Paul to say -- Sunday is the new day for special worship, especially for Gentile believers, we can all meet tomorrow and celebrate Christ's resurrection "Lord's day" and I'll tell you more about Jesus.

But no -- we see it happened on the NEXT Sabbath that almost all the Gentiles in the city came to hear Paul.

Look at how much space in the Bible is devoted to dealing with the circumcision question. Can you imagine how much space it would have taken if the Sabbath had been changed to Sunday? The absence of discussion is one more proof it never happened.

Indeed very often the loudest complaints from pro-sunday groups are against the first 6 points listed - the very ones affirmed by the "Westminster Confession of Faith" C.H. Spurgeon's the "Baptist Confession of Faith" the Catholic Catechism, D.L. Moody, R.C. Sproul, Andy Stanley (on his better days), Matthew Henry and many others.

Their own pro-sunday scholars -- oppose them.



True - but very often it is a problem where those that complain the most - actually agree with us.




But it was not doubted for a moment by those in the list I just gave - except now for the RCC .. they have backed away from point #1 in favor of evolutionism - and most of the others are behind blind faith evolutionism as well. So they may all be dwindling down to 5 pointers.



yep!



In the end the view that it was "edited" instead of abolished .. will win. That is probably how the sunday laws will come back.



Precisely.



NASB calls it "certificate of debt" the written code .. the speeding ticket - not the law that says that 70 is the limit.

Whether in a forum on in person, an invalid argument is still an invalid argument.

Suppose your pastor was invited to a Sunday church to give a talk about a particular subject. Suppose all the attendees wanted to know more and invited him back the next Sunday.

Does that mean your pastor is indicating to them that the Sabbath is not important or that Sunday is the preferred day to keep? It answers nothing for nor against which day is the Sabbath. In fact, with Paul, it could very well be a Wednesday night prayer meeting he came back to!

In summary, the argument is invalid, you are supporting their invalid argument, and you are trying to cause a distraction where none is warranted. There may be issues where one Bible version is wrong or right. But this isn't one of them.

Why do you think it's invalid?
The Greek makes a clear distinction between the two groups of people.
It's the Gentiles (not the Jews) that begged Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath.

Why do you seek to deny that point?

13:42 And when the Jews "loudaios" were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles "ethnos" besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.


Aren't you interested in seeing the many evidences that Sabbath is also for the Gentiles not just for the Jews?


After all that's what this topic is about --
It's not about demanding that just because the KJV translation is correct in this verse therefore we must not refer to that argument for it must be invalid????? That doesn't make sense.


Here are other translations that have Acts 13:42 correct.

Hebrew Names Bible (HNV)

"So when the Yehudim went out of the synagogue, the Goyim begged that these words might be preached to them the next Shabbat".

Or the 1599 Geneva Bible

And when they were come out of the Synagogue of the Jews, the Gentiles besought, that they would preach these words to them the next Sabbath day

Or the Jubilee Bible 2000

And when they were gone out of the synagogue of the Jews, the Gentiles besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.

Or the Modern English Version MEV

When Paul and Barnabas went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles asked that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Or the World English Version WEB

So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Bobryan wrote: "In the end the view that it was "edited" instead of abolished .. will win. That is probably how the sunday laws will come back."


I believe you are right.
Sunday is the child of the papacy.
Sunday is the papal sign that the pope has supposed authority above the law of God.

In May of 1998, Pope John Paul II presented his Encyclical on Sunday observance, Dies Domini, in which he makes a passionate plea for a revival of Sunday observance, and he appeals to the moral imperative of the Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue.

By appealing to the Sabbath commandment, Pope John Paul II challenges Christians to respect Sunday, not merely as a day for a one hour worship service, but as a divine command to honor it as God's Sabbath. Furthermore, by referring to the Sabbath commandment, John Paul II sought to root Sunday keeping in the Sabbath commandment, thus giving the strongest moral reasons to urge Christians to "ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."

And the present pope's popularity as the spiritual leader in the world is steadily growing!!

I thought I was clear why the argument was invalid. The text does not indicate nor is the purpose of the passage to indicate which day is the Sabbath.

If you're talking about the verse, different English words have been used for "loudaios". Are you suggesting that quantative use denies all other uses and therefore other uses are wrong and should be corrected?

Ac 26:3-5 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own Gentiles at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

I'm not denying whether it is Gentiles or Jews begging Paul. I'm denying your assertion that the KJV is "correct" over others on this point.

I don't see how that is in any way relevant to the issue.
(See my first comment here)

You're so right. It doesn't make sense. At least when you substitute what I said for something else. Please restate what you think I am saying is "invalid".

Not what you came across as. By saying the KJV is correct, especially with Green's past problems, it comes across as KJV and KJV only.


Maybe you can state again why you think some versions are incorrect making sure you are not addressing "English" words as Green does.