THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SUNDAY!

[klutedavid]

Jesus said if you love Me, keep My commandment(s) John 14:15
Jesus came to do the will of His Father and God wrote personally wrote His will for us and we show love to our Creator when we keep His Sabbath day holy like He commanded us to.

I noticed that you underlined the 's' in commandments.

You must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That is the first and greatest commandment in the new covenant.

1 John 3:23-24
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

If you deny the commandment to believe in Jesus Christ, you are lost.

The second and greatest commandment in the new covenant.

1 John 3:23-24
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

If you do not love others as Christ loved us then you are unknown by God.

1 John 4:7-8
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Your mistake is in combining the old covenant laws with the new covenant commandments.

You are a new creation in Christ and your under a new covenant now.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

 

[klutedavid]

What is one of the devils greatest deceptions, getting people to believe there is no law for he is the lawless one.

Gentiles were never told by the apostles to obey the ten commandments, the law. Gentiles were never under the law. Sin is also transgression of the law but not for a Gentile.

To not be circumcised is a sin under the law, no question about that.

Gentiles must never be circumcised, therefore, Gentiles are not under the law.

It is so simple to understand, but alas, the devil has been very active.

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

 

[klutedavid]

New creation plus new covenant doesn't

[It's almost as if we have the same mind, and your right, they will call bad good and good bad, also satan never deceived anyone to obey God's commandments.] (Romans 6:16) Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Your reply was snipped.

 

[Hezekiah81]

Gentiles were never told by the apostles to obey the ten commandments, the law. Gentiles were never under the law. Sin is also transgression of the law but not for a Gentile.

To not be circumcised is a sin under the law, no question about that.

Gentiles must never be circumcised, therefore, Gentiles are not under the law.

It is so simple to understand, but alas, the devil has been very active.

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Your are not under the condemnation of the law because Christ paid your death penalty, but you still have to keep God's commandments. Christ didn't die so we can live in sin, he died to free us from it completely.

 

[Hezekiah81]

Your reply was snipped.

Doesn't equal no law.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Hello @swordsman1, this will probably be some of my last responses to you here as I see that this discussion with you is getting nowhere and is now simply become circular repetition which is off topic to the OP. As posted in the OP already we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP evaluate these claims to see if they are support by the scriptures or not supported in scripture.

Lets be honest here. There is no scripture anywhere in the bible that supports the teaching and tradition that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is "the Lords day" and if there is no scripture to support this teaching why not be honest here and simply just say so?

Instead of providing scripture to prove that the teaching and tradition of the early Church is supported by scripture all you have provided in this thread are questionable ambiguous references from the early Church from sources outside of the bible that is not scripture which are not definitive evidence showing that the scripture reference of "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is a reference to Sunday or the first day of the week.

Now the only way that definitive evidence can be provided to prove that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week is by proving that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week from the scriptures. As we are discussing the scriptural meaning of "the Lords day" from the scriptures. All you have continued to provided in external references from the early Church which is what some people thought the meaning the Lords day was. This is the opinions of men outside of scripture that do not supply any scripture for their interpretation that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week.

Now the objective of the OP as posted earlier is to show from scripture that "the Lords day" as viewed from some in the early Church as "Sunday" or the first day of the week is the scriptural meaning.

So for this reason I am going to ask you to stay on topic to the OP as I have indulged you with your claims in regards to the Didache which I personally believe is a questionable document written by men outside of the bible that is not scripture that mysteriously appeared in the 1800's that is widely dated from 100 to 400 AD and you have been shown that nowhere in the Greek does Didache 14.1 even mention "the Lords day" and that it was a supplied word that is not supported by any evidence or reference point to time to allow it's inclusion into an English translation. So at best all you have is a questionable document outside of the scriptures with no date or author that is not indisputable evidence as it is a document that has been widely disputed.

I will post on a few more of your claims here in this post then would like to ask that you respect this OP and stop seeking to take it off topic and that we return back to the OP which is asking for scriptural evidence that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day". If you would like to continue the discussion please start up your own thread on the Didache and send me a link and I will be happy to continue the discussion with you there.

Once again, there is no disagreement as what some of the teachings and traditions of some in the early Church where and that some believed that "the Lords day" in Revelation 1:10 was a reference to Sunday or the first day of the week. The purpose of this OP however is to show from the scriptures that "the Lords day" as taught by the teachings and traditions of the early Church is Sunday or the first day of the week. This OP is to see if these claims and teachings are supported by scripture or not.

I'm afraid you are wrong. As I've already explained to you there is no scholarly criticism of the translations of Did 1:14 in that Wikipedia page.

Nope I am afraid you are wrong here as shown in the post you are quoting from wiki under the section of Ambiguous references in the section of Didache 14:1 posts that according to the Greek translation; "The term "Lord's" appears in The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or Didache, a document dated between 70 and 120. Didache 14:1a is translated by Roberts as, "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving"; another translation begins, "On the Lord's own day". The first clause in Greek, "κατά κυριακήν δέ κυρίου", literally means "On the Lord's of the Lord", a unique and unexplained double possessive, and translators supply the elided noun, e.g., "day" (ἡμέρα hemera), "commandment" (from the immediately prior verse 13:7), or "doctrine".[16][17] This is one of two early extrabiblical Christian uses of "κυριακήν" where it does not clearly refer to Sunday because textual readings have given rise to questions of proper translation. Breaking bread (daily or weekly) may refer to Christian fellowship, agape feasts, or Eucharist (cf. Acts 2:42, 20:7)."

As posted earlier various scholars have argued the above for years now. The above is simply a summary of published textual criticism of the translation of Didache 14.1 being "the Lords day" which is not in the original Greek because it has no reference point to time. You were provided evidence of the above argument verbatim in post # 447 linked from.....

1. The Sabbath in Scripture and History by Professor Kenneth Strand
2. The Lord's day of Revelation 1:10 the current debate by Professor Ranko Stefanovic
3. From Sabbath to Sunday ... by Dr Samuele Bacchiocci
4. La Liturgie Romaine, 1924, pp. 33-34 by Jean Baptiste Thibaut
5. An Analysis of “the Lord’s day” in the Didache... by Greg Howell from Professor Michael Simmons

These are only a few of many more references of Scholars pointing out that "the Lords day" is not in the original Greek in Didache 14.1 and there is no evidence for it's addition or reference point to time therefore arguing a mistranslation.

You obviosuly haven't read his piece. Even though he is sda, Strand does not say the Didache translations are inaccurate. Quite the opposite. He supports adding the word 'day'!

Well that is not true. I posted what strand says verbatim in the next post in post # 447 linked...

The Sabbath in Scripture and History by Professor Kenneth Strand

"The Didache, a sort of baptismal, organizational, or instructional manual, has been dated anywhere from the late first century to the late second century, but the statement in chapter 14 of interest here reads as follows: Kata kuriakin de kuriou sunaxtlumles klasale arton kai mxaristisate-''On the Lord's of the Lord or "According to the Lord's of the Lord" assemble, break bread, and bold Eucharist." The word "day" (Greek himeran, in the accusative case) does not actually appear in the text, but most translators have added it in their English translation, making the text read as follows: "On the Lord's day. . . ." Some students of the text would, however, suggest the rendition "According to the Lord's commandment . . ."-also a possible translation of the original Greek. Samuele Bacchiocchi, following a rendition of John Baptiste Thibaut and supponing it with a rather impressive line of evidence, gives a similar translation : ""'According to the sovereign doctrine of the Lord.""'

As you would expect from an sda, he objects to adding the word 'day' in Did 1:14, but the only reason he gives is because the word does not appear in the Greek. Doh! He is obviously unaware of the Greek day naming customs. He certainly makes no mention of 'reference points'.

Goodness, so your in agreement now but arguing because he is an SDA it cannot be true? Professor Stefanovic is arguing the same point as the Ambiguous references section on the use of "the Lords day" from Didache 14.1 not being a correct translation of the Greek as all the other scholars that I listed were arguing. It seems you may not be aware of the day naming system in the Hebrew and Jewish culture and biblical texts of the bible. As posted earlier if "day" is not in the original Greek text the reference point used by the translators in adding the English word day needs to be some reference point to time. There is no reference point in the Greek text of Didache 14:1. That is why some scholars have critiqued it as a mistranslation not based on evidence because there is no reference point to time and "Lords day" is not in the original Greek (e.g. John 20:19 see Greek context to week here). Now note; Revelation 1:10 in the Koine Greek is τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" with ἡμέρᾳ (day) not being a supplied word of the translators but the original Greek text that is not supplied. That is why other scholars have critiqued the Greek translation of Didache 14.1 as Strand and other scholars have noted there is no reference point to time to add in the word [day] there needs to be a reference to time (e.g first day of the week)

That peice was not written by Professor Michael Simmons. it was an essay written by an unqualified student of his called Greg Howell. It has not been peer-reviewed or published by any respected theological journal or book publisher. But even so, he does not claim the word 'day' is a mistranslation of Did 1:14. If you skip to the conclusion you will see he accepts it. And wisely so considering ALL Koine Greek scholars agree that is the correct translation.

Agreed the paper is from the student of Professor Michael Simmons reviewed by the same. This is irrelevant however because as this paper is only a review of scholarly referenced argument showing that "the Lords day" from Didache 14.1 is a mistranslation. Once again your claims here in regards to the conclusions does not agree with what is written as posted below and no all scholars do not agree that "the Lords day" is a correct translation that is false..

Conclusions
"In examining the situation from the position of both the primary sources as well as the views found within the interpretations of the secondary sources, there seems to be one generally held consensus; no one is 100% positive how the “Didachist” intended his phrase,“the Lord’s day” to be understood. But a few additional observations seem to rise to the surface as well. First, the existence of the phrase, “the Lord’s day” shows a level of familiarity within both the writers and the readers of second century Christianity. Whether or not this is evidence that it was universally attributable to only a single interpretation, I doubt this a great deal.

Considering the malleability of language and the slow progress of theological formulation I believe that any universal interpretation of the Didache’s phrase was somewhere along its own evolutionary timeline, not at its end.Secondly, the fact that writers such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius and others were already making polemical statements regarding the rejection of the Jewish Sabbath at least opens the door to mitigate the eventual adoption of this phrase as primarily referring to Sunday observance.

It clearly was not a watershed moment, as evidence of Sabbath observance persists even up to the fifth century, but it was definitely in play during the same general time frame attributed to the editorial life of the Didache. For the purposes of the Didache, this leaves me to conclude that “the Lord’s day” may have been part of the evolutionary process of its editors.

If the editors hailed from a place where Roman sentiments were the norm, it could very well be interpreted as a reference to Sunday. If it was compiled by editors who had a more Eastern view of things, it could refer to the Jewish Sabbath or some combination of the two. Regardless, it is evident that the day of Christian worship was becoming a larger and larger issue on the stage of Christian theology. For our purposes today, it remains a valid point to discuss and ponder. When and how do we worship? To whom and by whose authority do we direct our worship? These questions remain vital and alive, despite their connection to the Didache’s ancient origins."

.....................

Once again your claims here in regards to the conclusions stating that the writer accepts the translation of "the Lords day" is not true and does not agree with what is written as posted and no, all scholars do not agree that "the Lords day" is a correct translation that is simply not true..

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Bacchiocci is another sda, so of course he has an agenda, otherwise he would lose his job at the SDA university. Like Stefanovic he ignores the Koine Greek custom of omitting the word 'day' from days of the week. Instead he suggests adding a different word which is also absent in the Greek, the Lord's 'life', with no real justifiable reason for doing so. He then concedes that other uses of the word κυριακή in Koine Greek documents do indeed refer to "the Lord's day" even though these too omit the word day. This smacks of SDA duplicity.

Amazing, your arguing again because he is an SDA scholar it cannot be true without proving anything from his paper being not true? The paper says no such thing did you read it? It is arguing that "the Lords day" in Didache 14.1 is a mistranslation showing other published scholars that are also in agreement with him that already thought the same thing and provided evidence for a correct translation as well as showing what other scholars put forward as a possible translation of Didache 14.1. He did not ignore anything in this paper and as posted earlier the day naming system in the Hebrew and Jewish culture and biblical texts of the bible. As posted earlier if "day" is not in the original Greek text the reference point used by the translators in adding the English word day needs to be some reference point to time. There is no reference point in the Greek text of Didache 14:1. That is why some scholars have critiqued it as a mistranslation not based on evidence because there is no reference point to time and "Lords day" is not in the original Greek (e.g. John 20:19 see Greek context to week here). Now note; Revelation 1:10 in the Koine Greek is τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" with ἡμέρᾳ (day) not being a supplied word of the translators but the original Greek text that is not supplied. That is why other scholars have critiqued the Greek translation of Didache 14.1 as Strand and other scholars have noted there is no reference point to time to add in the word [day] there needs to be a reference to time (e.g first day of the week)

I have already given you proof that κυριακή "the Lord's" on it's own means "the Lord's day" as shown by the BDAG lexicon, the most respected in the world, where it lists numerous examples (D 14:1, Kephal. I 194, 9; 195, 6; Did., Gen. 190, 2, GPt 9:35; 12:50. AcPl Ha 3, 9. and IMg 9:1, Jer 52:12). It is common knowledge among Greek scholars that the word 'day' is usually omitted, just as it is in modern Greek today. That is why every Greek translator adds the word 'day', not only in Didache 1:14 but in all the other Koine Greek documents that use the word κυριακή on its own. If they didn't the translations would be jibberish, just like your translation of Did 1:14 which would read "But on the Lord's of the Lord gather yourselves together and break bread...". The context alone shows the author is referring to the day on which they meet together.

I am sorry but this is not true at all and I respectfully disagree with your claims here. The reason why I say this as has been posted many times to you now is that, κυριακή meaning "the Lords" on it's own does not mean day. It is the Greek context that determines what "the Lord owns and in Revelation 1:10 the context is to ημέρα meaning day. In the Didache 14.1 there is no context to day or reference point to time therefore as shown in the earlier papers there is no evidence to supply [day] which is not in the original Greek. As posted earlier your wrong here. You are yet to show and logical evidence that shows why [day] is added to Didache 14.1 which is not in the Greek but is added in as mistranslation not based on evidence for it's inclusion.

I'm afraid BDAG disagees with you, as do all the Greek translators of Did 1:14 and every other manuscript containing the word κυριακή. Dispite me asking several times you haven't provided a single scholarly reference that supports your theory. Show me a single Greek scholar that says the translations of Did 1:14 are wrong because of 'reference points', or even that reference points are needed before the word 'day' can be added by a translator. Admit it, you don't have any do you?

I see so what exactly does BDAG disagree with me on? Was it that the Greek word for [day] is actually included in Didache 14.1? Or are they disagreeing with me when I say there is no scripture that supports the man-made teaching and tradition of the early Church that Sunday is "the Lords day" when there is no scripture that supports these claims? As posted earlier whenever day is inferred or added in by the translators when it is not in the biblical text it is added because there is a reference point to time (e.g first of the week). You were provided scripture examples and the Greek earlier from John 20:19 see original Greek context to week here. The Didache 14.1 original Greek has no reference point to time and no reason to add the word "day" which is not in the original Greek. This is the textual criticism shown earlier that demonstrates a mistranslation of Didache 14.1. Also you may want to consider that in Revelation 1:10 in the Koine Greek is τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" the Greek word for "day" (ἡμέρᾳ) is in the original Greek and is not supplied by the translator.

You haven't read Strands piece properly. He goes on to tell us which translation of Did 1:14 he prefers.....
"Lawrence T . Geraty has followed up on this possible meaning for the Didache statement, commenting as follows: “Undoubtedly one of the earliest [hints that the Pascha was celebrated as an annual Lord’s day festival] is the phrase ‘Lord's Day' in the Didache, an ancient baptismal or organizational manual. Although this rendition from Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες has been disputed, it is nevertheless the preferred translation"
As I previously pointed out to you, there is not a single scholarly citation in that Wikipedia page that says Did 1:14 has been mistranslated.

Nothing personal but it is you that have not read Strands article properly but let me show why. Strand is not saying that the preferred translation to "Lords of Lord" is Sunday or the "Lords day" at all. Your pulling the reference from it's context which is as literature review on what others who disputed the translation of Didache 14.1 to "Lord's day" that is not in the Greek which is provided below...

"Some years ago a noted British scholar, C. W. Dugmore, set forth arguments that the Didache terminology, which he refers to as "Lord's day," really meant an annual Easter Sunday. In fact, Dugmore also noted the paucity of reference to a weekly Christian Sunday in New Testament and subapostolic literature and felt it strange that if this day were indeed the most important day of the week for Christians there would not have been more mention of it until Justin Martyr at the middle of the second century! [17]

[Note: Context is to the claim of C.W. Dugmore's view that Didache 14.1 could mean the Lord's supper or annual Easter Sunday. The quote continues below...]

Lawrence T. Geraty has followed up on this possible meaning for the Didache statement,
commenting as follows: "Undoubtedly one of the earliest [hints that the Pascha was celebrated as an annual Lord's day festival] is the phrase 'Lord's Day' in the Didache, an ancient baptismal or organizational manual. Although this rendition from Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες ; has been disputed , it is nevertheless the preferred translation. If so, the context would indicate that this could be an annual day for baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist." [18]

[Note: Context is to the claims of Lawrence T. Geraty's view that Didache 14.1 following the claims of C.W. Dugmore's view that Didache 14.1 could mean the Lord's supper or annual Easter Sunday not Strands view as you claim here (see reference provided in 18). The quote continues below...]

Geraty has further called attention to the fact that "a recognition of this possibility existed in the nineteenth century when J. Rendel Harris tried to show from the tenor of the Didache and its context, that it must have had reference to some great annual festival, perhaps similar to the day of atonement."Geraty goes on to point out with reference to Dugmore's work that this scholar, "after an analysis of similar passages in the Didache and Apostolic Constitutions. has argued convincingly for Easter Day thus seems to be reasonably attested. Its use as a normal description of the first day of every week would only have been possible after Sunday Had become a regular day of worship among Christians and had to be thought of as a weekly commemoration of the Resurrection .'" [19]

....................

As shown above Strand is providing a literature review on the disagreements to the interpretation of Didache 14.1 and the various views held by different Scholars over the years on the possibility of what the true meaning might be. All of the above is only supportive what what has been shared with you already and that is. There is no Greek word for "Lords day" in Didache 14.1. There is no evidence to supply [day] into the English translation that literally means "Lords of the Lord". Other scholars over the years have disputed the English translation to include the supplied word [day] in Didache 14.1 and there is not consensus as you claim that the added word to Didache 14.1 should mean "Lords day" which is not in the original Greek.

.......................

So from here we will agree to disagree. Let's get back to the OP please. We all agree that the teachings and tradition of some of the early Church from sources outside of the bible was that "the Lord's day" from Revelation 1:10 was a reference to Sunday of the first day of the week. The challenge of this OP is to prove these claims through scripture. Do you have scripture to support your teachings that "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10 means Sunday or the first day of the week? This question is important as only scripture here is definitive undisputed evidence in making claims that Sunday is the meaning of Revelation 1:10.

Take Care

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It is evident that you have not read my post LGW or you would not have asked me again to provide evidence for "keeping" Sunday. I am sick of your "sorry Bob" stuff and all your denial of the truths we present.

Yes I understood your post Bob, and gave you a detailed scripture response showing why I did not believe you in post # 455 linked showing why I believe from the bible your teachings are not biblical which you did not respond to. I drew a line at the end of my last post to you separating what I wrote above saying back to the OP... saying Do you have any scripture that shows that the man-made teaching and tradition of the early Church that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10? This is what this OP is about.

Take Care Bob.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The question settled in Acts 15 is that Gentiles are not subject to Judaic law.
Regarding the Lord's Day, the fact that the Early Church celebrates the Lord's Day as Sunday, and that it was well established in Scripture, and that the applied day was Sunday from the beginning of Christianity settles it. If you consider it man-made teaching, that's your opinion, but Jesus told the apostles that He would sent the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth. We see this applied in the very decision made at the Council of Jerusalem, at the appointment of Mathias to replace Judas, and in the writings of Paul to Timothy and Titus. So if you see on the surface, yeah, it's men deciding how to apply Christ's teaching, but so is the entire Christian faith, including yours. How do we know this? By asking the question "Who is your authority?? Our Church was founded by Christ. There is no human, but God Himself who established the Church. Yours was founded by Ellen White. Enough said. So your doctrines are hers. Even your interpretation of Scripture is through her eyes. I'll believe the apostles who listened to Christ Himself.

According to the scriptures, in Acts of the Apostles 15 gentile believers are not subject to the ceremonial shadow laws of Moses that point to a new heart by faith in the new covenant. In this case "circumcision" of the flesh is not a requirement for salvation for new gentile believers *Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2; 19-21. The physical sign of circumcision was a shadow law pointing to a new heart by faith through the Spirit in God's new covenant promise of His law written on the heart and life in all those who believe and follow Gods' Word (see Deuteronomy 4:4; Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24-27; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 2:28-29. The question in Acts of the Apostles 15 was over "is circumcision of the law of Moses a requirement for the salvation of new covenant believers (see Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). It was never over the question are Gods' 10 commandments still the standard of Christian living in the new covenant. That view is a contradiction to what the new covenant is as shown in Hebrews 8:10-12 and also a contradiction to what Paul says some time latter to the Corinthian believers when he says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God" - 1 Corinthians 7:19. What is it from the scriptures that has been shared with you here Jesse that you do not believe is true?

...................

Can we get back to the OP now. Do you have any scriptures that support the man-made teaching and tradition from the early Church that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10? Let's be honest here. There is none is there? This thread has been going for sometime already and not a single scripture has been posted and this is the reasons most people here are seeking to take the thread off topic to talk about anything other than the OP which is to provide scripture proving that Sunday is the Lords day of Revelation 1:10. According to the scriptures alone, "the Lords day" is the Sabbath day *Matthew 12:8.

Take Care

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The 'scholars' who go against the consensus are all SDA, so that is hardly surprising. I've already critiqued their arguments in a previous post. The other one is not a peer reviewed paper by Professor Michael Simmons, it by an essay by an unqualified student of his .

Misquoting what papers say is not a critique. As shown earlier there are many scholarly papers and debates on the claims of the Didache 14.1 use of "the Lords day" being a mistranslation already shown from Strand, Bacchiocci, Dugnmore, Geraty, Thibaut, Stefanovic and others showing that Didache 14.1 is not a correct translation of the Greek and that "the Lord's day" is not in the Greek. This is a discussion that has been taking place for many years now. So sorry I do not believe you. The only definitive source of the true meaning of Revelation 1:10 that "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week can only be shown in scripture and you have provided none to support your teachings accept ambiguous references from sources outside of scripture that are not scripture.

Your OP is bad exegesis. As I've already explained.

Perhaps go look up the meaning of biblical exegesis. Biblical exegesis is letting the scriptures speak for themselves and not reading into the scriptures what they do not say and do not teach. Eisegesis on the other hand is reading into the scriptures what the scripture does not say and does not teach. Like "the Lords day of Revelation 1:10 being Sunday or the first day of the week. This is why this OP is asking the hard questions. Where is the scripture that says Sunday is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. Let's be honest here. If you have no scripture to support your teachings that Sunday is "the Lords day" than all you have is eisegesis which is reading Sunday into the meaning of "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. On the other hand the scriptures provided in the OP speak for themselves showing Gods' authority and His claim in His own words to ownership of the Sabbath day which is the scriptural and Greek meaning "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10. Let's talk more when you have scripture that proves your teachings that "the Lord's day" of Revelation 1:10 which is the topic of this OP.

Take Care.

 

[klutedavid]

Your are not under the condemnation of the law because Christ paid your death penalty, but you still have to keep God's commandments. Christ didn't die so we can live in sin, he died to free us from it completely.

That's my line.

We are under grace now and that is not a license to sin.

The ten words are the law and we Gentiles are not under the law. If you want to obey the ten commandments, then you are under the law.

Since sin is also transgression of the law. Therefore, the onus is upon you to obey the whole law. You must be circumcised. That is what the law states. That's not my opinion, that is what is written.

Unless you believe that God was playing a game with Israel at Mt Sinai.

Love is the opposite of sin.

God is love!

Honestly Hezekiah, do you believe God poured love into our hearts or a set of laws?

 

[klutedavid]

Doesn't equal no law.

Law or commandment. They can be very different creatures.

If someone says, 'law', by default, they always mean the 615 laws of Mt Sinai.

If someone says, 'commandment', then they could be referring to a number of sets of commandments.

When Jesus said that we should not love the world or riches, for example, for me that is a commandment.

To believe in Jesus is a commandment.

Abraham received a commandment to be circumcised.

Noah received a number of commandments.

It can be very confusing at times.

 

[Hezekiah81]

That's my line.

We are under grace now and that is not a license to sin.

The ten words are the law and we Gentiles are not under the law. If you want to obey the ten commandments, then you are under the law.

Since sin is also transgression of the law. Therefore, the onus is upon you to obey the whole law. You must be circumcised. That is what the law states. That's not my opinion, that is what is written.

Unless you believe that God was playing a game with Israel at Mt Sinai.

Love is the opposite of sin.

God is love!

Honestly Hezekiah, do you believe God poured love into our hearts or a set of laws?

[God who strengthens me law has always been a law of love, and yes I believe rituals laws are done away with, they're talking about trying to keep the law without belief in messiah, that puts you back right where this started under the condemnation of it, when you receive the set-apart spirit you have the power and the will to obey. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them. [Sounds like new covenant to me.]

 

[Bob S]

[God who strengthens me law has always been a law of love, and yes I believe rituals laws are done away with, they're talking about trying to keep the law without belief in messiah, that puts you back right where this started under the condemnation of it, when you receive the set-apart spirit you have the power and the will to obey. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them. [Sounds like new covenant to me.]

To whom was God referring? To whom was the laws of the Sinai covenant given? Are you able to name even one of all those laws of the covenant that could offer salvation? I cannot and it is so very plain that the covenant was not about eternal life, Ex 19:5-6. Man's salvation has never changed. Israelites were saved the same way Abraham the gentile was saved. All of the laws given to Israel were to make the Israelites "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Ex 19:6

It is so evident God never gave the laws dealing with rituals to any other nation. The fourth commandment given only to Israel was indeed a ritual commandment as were the other Holy days God Asked Israel to keep. They were, along with the laws dealing with morality, were the words of the covenant given to only one people on Earth. God never imposed any of those rituals on you or me. Both of us were born under the new covenant which no place demands that we observe the ritual commands given to only one nation. I suppose that for the Jews the rituals might hold a place in their hearts but for gentiles they have no meaning.

You are free to do what you please, and you tell us ritual laws have been done away. Well, you don't believe the ritual weekly Sabbath ended with the ending of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Somehow, according to SDAs and others, the Sabbath escaped and now it imposed upon all people on Earth. The SDA church is so adamant that the prophet wrote the following: But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4} (Ellen White)

That woman has judged me to Hell for violating a commandment that was never meant for gentiles and ended along with all of the commands of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Do you realize that your church believes such a thing? Do you believe her? Do you believe that all of the remainder of Christianity is controlled by Satan because we do not keep a day that was never imposed upon us except by a few that do not understand what Jesus did for all mankind at Calvary? Oy!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

To whom was God referring? To whom was the laws of the Sinai covenant given? Are you able to name even one of all those laws of the covenant that could offer salvation? I cannot and it is so very plain that the covenant was not about eternal life, Ex 19:5-6. Man's salvation has never changed. Israelites were saved the same way Abraham the gentile was saved. All of the laws given to Israel were to make the Israelites "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Ex 19:6

It is so evident God never gave the laws dealing with rituals to any other nation. The fourth commandment given only to Israel was indeed a ritual commandment as were the other Holy days God Asked Israel to keep. They were, along with the laws dealing with morality, were the words of the covenant given to only one people on Earth. God never imposed any of those rituals on you or me. Both of us were born under the new covenant which no place demands that we observe the ritual commands given to only one nation. I suppose that for the Jews the rituals might hold a place in their hearts but for gentiles they have no meaning.

You are free to do what you please, and you tell us ritual laws have been done away. Well, you don't believe the ritual weekly Sabbath ended with the ending of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Somehow, according to SDAs and others, the Sabbath escaped and now it imposed upon all people on Earth. The SDA church is so adamant that the prophet wrote the following: But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4} (Ellen White)

That woman has judged me to Hell for violating a commandment that was never meant for gentiles and ended along with all of the commands of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Do you realize that your church believes such a thing? Do you believe her? Do you believe that all of the remainder of Christianity is controlled by Satan because we do not keep a day that was never imposed upon us except by a few that do not understand what Jesus did for all mankind at Calvary? Oy!

Do you really believe that Gentiles should worship God on another day that is not the holy day of the Lord?

God claimed only one day that is holy to Him (not Jews)

The Bible says: “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day” (Isaiah 58:13 NKJV).

“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day” (Matthew 12:8).

“But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God” (Exodus 20:10).


You're kidding yourself if you really believe that Gentiles are free to vain God's name, worship other idols, bow to graven images and break the holy day of the Lord thy God.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man Mark 2:27 so that should easily clear up any confusion if the Sabbath was made for you.

Breaking any of God's laws is considered a sin which includes the 4th commandment so unless we repent of our sins and turn away from sin we are lost. Once you know the truth and continue in sin there remains no more sacrifice for our sins. Hebrews 10:26

The good news is there is still time to obey God in Truth and Spirit and submit to God's will which includes God's Ten Commandments that He personally wrote now written in our hearts and minds and we fulfill God's laws when we obey and that's how God knows us Matthew 7:23 and how we show our love to God. John 14:15, 1 John 15:10, 1 John 5:3

 

[Bob S]

Do you really believe that Gentiles should worship God on another day that is not the holy day of the Lord?

God claimed only one day that is holy to Him (not Jews)

The Bible says: “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day” (Isaiah 58:13 NKJV).

“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day” (Matthew 12:8).

“But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God” (Exodus 20:10).


You're kidding yourself if you really believe that Gentiles are free to vain God's name, worship other idols, bow to graven images and break the holy day of the Lord thy God.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man Mark 2:27 so that should easily clear up any confusion if the Sabbath was made for you.

Breaking any of God's laws is considered a sin which includes the 4th commandment so unless we repent of our sins and turn away from sin we are lost. Once you know the truth and continue in sin there remains no more sacrifice for our sins. Hebrews 10:26

The good news is there is still time to obey God in Truth and Spirit and submit to God's will which includes God's Ten Commandments that He personally wrote now written in our hearts and minds and we fulfill God's laws when we obey and that's how God knows us Matthew 7:23 and how we show our love to God. John 14:15, 1 John 15:10, 1 John 5:3

Answer the questions GB. I am tired of rhetoric, I want answers.

All mankind are able to worship when we please. We are not under the laws that governed Israel. Breaking a commandment that was never meant for me is not breaking a commandment. Putting a gilt trip on me with false claims is a very dangerous thing to do. You are doing nothing but telling a lie when you accuse me of being free to vain God's name, worship other idols, bow to graven images and break the holy day of the Lord thy God. Every one of those commands are part of the Law of Love with the exception of the ritual Sabbath that was given to only one nation, Israel.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Answer the questions GB. I am tired of rhetoric, I want answers.

All mankind are able to worship when we please. We are not under the laws that governed Israel. Breaking a commandment that was never meant for me is not breaking a commandment. Putting a gilt trip on me with false claims is a very dangerous thing to do. You are doing nothing but telling a lie when you accuse me of being free to vain God's name, worship other idols, bow to graven images and break the holy day of the Lord thy God. Every one of those commands are part of the Law of Love with the exception of the ritual Sabbath that was given to only one nation, Israel.

So all the God's commandments stand according to you with the exception of the one commandment that God said to "remember" that is the one commandment we should "forget"? You are free to believe what you want but doesn't seem wise to disobey our Creator and dismiss the day God deemed holy for Him and for us. Exodus 20:8-11, Isaiah 58:13 Genesis 2:1-3

 

[Freth]

I saw someone mention love earlier. These verses tell us how to love God and love others. Commandment keeping.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
​

This is straight-forward testimony from scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

As posted in the OP already we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP evaluate these claims to see if they are support by the scriptures or not supported in scripture.

Yes, we do indeed know that early church writings referred to "the Lord's day" as Sunday, the day of which they met. And those writings date right back to the 1st Century when John wrote Revelation.

Lets be honest here. There is no scripture anywhere in the bible that supports the teaching and tradition that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is "the Lords day" and if there is no scripture to support this teaching why not be honest here and simply just say so?

And let's be honest, there is no scripture that says the term "The Lord's Day" refers to the sabbath is there?

Do you seriously think that John was playing games with his audience, and thinking to himself, "I know I received this revelation of the sabbath, but instead of using the word I always use for the sabbath, I'm going to use the term "the Lord's day" and let them try to figure out which day that was via an exegetical puzzle using other scriptures"?

Instead of providing scripture to prove that the teaching and tradition of the early Church is supported by scripture all you have provided in this thread are questionable ambiguous references from the early Church from sources outside of the bible that is not scripture which are not definitive evidence showing that the scripture reference of "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is a reference to Sunday or the first day of the week.

Now the only way that definitive evidence can be provided to prove that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week is by proving that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week from the scriptures. As we are discussing the scriptural meaning of "the Lords day" from the scriptures. All you have continued to provided in external references from the early Church which is what some people thought the meaning the Lords day was. This is the opinions of men outside of scripture that do not supply any scripture for their interpretation that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week.

No, what I have done is to use the established principles of hermeneutics, which allows historical evidence to be considered. As the term 'the Lord's day" was commonly used by Christians in the first century it is obvious that John was using the same term to tell them which day he received his revelation.

The historic evidence does not contradict scripture. It contradicts your theory that 'the Lord's day' in Rev 1:10 is the sabbath, an idea that NO respected commentary on Revelation agrees with (I have provided 26 so far).

So for this reason I am going to ask you to stay on topic to the OP

I AM staying on topic. In your OP you gave us a flawed exposition of Rev 1:10. It is that which I am responding to. And I am fully entitled to do so.

I have indulged you with your claims in regards to the Didache which I personally believe is a questionable document written by men outside of the bible that is not scripture that mysteriously appeared in the 1800's that is widely dated from 100 to 400 AD

Ah, I'm glad you have finally added the word 'personally' because there are no reputable scholarly that agrees with you. They all accept the Didache is genuine. The overwhelming consensus agree it is 1st century. And, SDA sources aside, all agree that Did 1:14 is referring to "the Lord's day", Sunday.

you have been shown that nowhere in the Greek does Didache 14.1 even mention "the Lords day" and that it was a supplied word that is not supported by any evidence or reference point to time to allow it's inclusion into an English translation. So at best all you have is a questionable document outside of the scriptures with no date or author that is not indisputable evidence as it is a document that has been widely disputed.

I have already refuted that arguement by showing you numerous commentaries, BDAG, and ALL translators, all agreeing that Did 1:14 should be translated "the Lord's day"

I will post on a few more of your claims here in this post then would like to ask that you respect this OP and stop seeking to take it off topic and that we return back to the OP which is asking for scriptural evidence that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day". If you would like to continue the discussion please start up your own thread on the Didache and send me a link and I will be happy to continue the discussion with you there.

Discussing the Didache is not off-topic. As it one piece of evidence (there are many more) that refutes your exposition of Rev 1:10 in the OP.

In fact we will soon be discussing the other 1st century manuscripts which also demonstrate that "the Lord's day" is Sunday.

Nope I am afraid you are wrong here as shown in the post you are quoting from wiki under the section of Ambiguous references in the section of Didache 14:1 posts that according to the Greek translation; "The term "Lord's" appears in The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or Didache, a document dated between 70 and 120. Didache 14:1a is translated by Roberts as, "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving"; another translation begins, "On the Lord's own day". The first clause in Greek, "κατά κυριακήν δέ κυρίου", literally means "On the Lord's of the Lord", a unique and unexplained double possessive, and translators supply the elided noun, e.g., "day" (ἡμέρα hemera), "commandment" (from the immediately prior verse 13:7), or "doctrine".[16][17] This is one of two early extrabiblical Christian uses of "κυριακήν" where it does not clearly refer to Sunday because textual readings have given rise to questions of proper translation. Breaking bread (daily or weekly) may refer to Christian fellowship, agape feasts, or Eucharist (cf. Acts 2:42, 20:7)."

No, I am not wrong. I have already proved to you that the Wikipedia article does not contains any evidence of mistranslation. And you repeating the article for the 10th time will not alter that fact. That one sentence claiming mistranslation was just an anonymous user editing the page to make an unwarranted assertion with no cited reference to prove it (it wasn't you was it?). The only cited references in that section say the translation is correct!

You were provided evidence of the above argument verbatim in post # 447 linked from.....

1. The Sabbath in Scripture and History by Professor Kenneth Strand
2. The Lord's day of Revelation 1:10 the current debate by Professor Ranko Stefanovic
3. From Sabbath to Sunday ... by Dr Samuele Bacchiocci
4. La Liturgie Romaine, 1924, pp. 33-34 by Jean Baptiste Thibaut
5. An Analysis of “the Lord’s day” in the Didache... by Greg Howell from Professor Michael Simmons

The first 3 are SDA 'scholars' which I've already commented on.

The fourth, Jean Baptiste Thibaut , is a new one so I tried to find out if he was a Greek scholar.
The only information I could find is a biography on a French Catholic website which I translated with Google. It seems he was a little known Catholic priest, born in 1872, whose speciality was liturgy and music (hence the title of the book you cited). There is no indication he was a Greek scholar, or that he even formally studied Greek. So I think we can safely dismiss this source.

The fifth source, as I've already explained to you, was an unpublished essay by an unqualified student. So I don't know why you keep including this one.

It seems you may not be aware of the day naming system in the Hebrew and Jewish culture and biblical texts of the bible. As posted earlier if "day" is not in the original Greek text the reference point used by the translators in adding the English word day needs to be some reference point to time. There is no reference point in the Greek text of Didache 14:1. That is why some scholars have critiqued it as a mistranslation not based on evidence because there is no reference point to time and "Lords day" is not in the original Greek (e.g. John 20:19 see Greek context to week here). Now note; Revelation 1:10 in the Koine Greek is τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" with ἡμέρᾳ (day) not being a supplied word of the translators but the original Greek text that is not supplied. That is why other scholars have critiqued the Greek translation of Didache 14.1 as Strand and other scholars have noted there is no reference point to time to add in the word [day] there needs to be a reference to time (e.g first day of the week)

You have just repeated your theory about 'reference points' for about the 10th time. And for the 10th time I've asked you to provide some scholarly references to back it up. Admit it, you don't have any do you?

Agreed the paper is from the student of Professor Michael Simmons reviewed by the same. This is irrelevant however because as this paper is only a review of scholarly referenced argument showing that "the Lords day" from Didache 14.1 is a mistranslation. Once again your claims here in regards to the conclusions does not agree with what is written as posted below and no all scholars do not agree that "the Lords day" is a correct translation that is false..

Conclusions
"In examining the situation from the position of both the primary sources as well as the views found within the interpretations of the secondary sources, there seems to be one generally held consensus; no one is 100% positive how the “Didachist” intended his phrase,“the Lord’s day” to be understood. But a few additional observations seem to rise to the surface as well. First, the existence of the phrase, “the Lord’s day” shows a level of familiarity within both the writers and the readers of second century Christianity. Whether or not this is evidence that it was universally attributable to only a single interpretation, I doubt this a great deal.

Considering the malleability of language and the slow progress of theological formulation I believe that any universal interpretation of the Didache’s phrase was somewhere along its own evolutionary timeline, not at its end.Secondly, the fact that writers such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius and others were already making polemical statements regarding the rejection of the Jewish Sabbath at least opens the door to mitigate the eventual adoption of this phrase as primarily referring to Sunday observance.

It clearly was not a watershed moment, as evidence of Sabbath observance persists even up to the fifth century, but it was definitely in play during the same general time frame attributed to the editorial life of the Didache. For the purposes of the Didache, this leaves me to conclude that “the Lord’s day” may have been part of the evolutionary process of its editors.

If the editors hailed from a place where Roman sentiments were the norm, it could very well be interpreted as a reference to Sunday. If it was compiled by editors who had a more Eastern view of things, it could refer to the Jewish Sabbath or some combination of the two. Regardless, it is evident that the day of Christian worship was becoming a larger and larger issue on the stage of Christian theology. For our purposes today, it remains a valid point to discuss and ponder. When and how do we worship? To whom and by whose authority do we direct our worship? These questions remain vital and alive, despite their connection to the Didache’s ancient origins."

You are completely wrong again. Did you not read the student's conclusions that you have just quoted? He does not say that 'the Lord's day' is the wrong translation. He accepts it is correct! And wisely so considering ALL Koine Greek scholars agree that is the correct translation.

"no one is 100% positive how the “Didachist” intended his phrase,“the Lord’s day” to be understood. "

"First, the existence of the phrase, “the Lord’s day” shows a level of familiarity within both the writers and the readers of second century Christianity."

"For the purposes of the Didache, this leaves me to conclude that “the Lord’s day” may have been part of the evolutionary process of its editors."​

 

[swordsman1]

Amazing, your arguing again because he is an SDA scholar it cannot be true without proving anything from his people being not true?

I never said that. Please don't put words into my mouth. I said that as a card carrying SDA he will have an agenda, which is to uphold SDA dogma. And that he would lose his job if he dared say anything different. I never said that because he is SDA it must be false.

The paper says no such thing did you read it? It is arguing that "the Lords day" in Didache 14.1 is a mistranslation showing other published scholars that are also in agreement with him that already thought the same thing and provided evidence for a correct translation as well as showing what other scholars put forward as a possible translation of Didache 14.1. He did not ignore anything in this paper and as posted earlier the day naming system in the Hebrew and Jewish culture and biblical texts of the bible. As posted earlier if "day" is not in the original Greek text the reference point used by the translators in adding the English word day needs to be some reference point to time. There is no reference point in the Greek text of Didache 14:1. That is why some scholars have critiqued it as a mistranslation not based on evidence because there is no reference point to time and "Lords day" is not in the original Greek (e.g. John 20:19 see Greek context to week here). Now note; Revelation 1:10 in the Koine Greek is τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" with ἡμέρᾳ (day) not being a supplied word of the translators but the original Greek text that is not supplied. That is why other scholars have critiqued the Greek translation of Didache 14.1 as Strand and other scholars have noted there is no reference point to time to add in the word [day] there needs to be a reference to time (e.g first day of the week)

Yes I did read it. Did you? The only person Bacchiocci cites as agreeing with his view that κυριακῇ in Did 1:14 should be translated 'the Lord's doctrine' is the 19th century Catholic priest Thibaut who it seems was no Greek scholar (see my previous post).

Bacchiocci rejects the idea of adding 'day' which all Greek scholars agree should be added to κυριακῇ following the Koine dating convention. Instead he wants to add his own word 'doctrine', which is also not in the text. He does exactly the same thing he accuses the Didache translators of! But he fails to give any satisfactory reason why the authors of the Didache would omit this word 'doctrine', whereas there is a very good reason why they would omit 'day'.

He then readily concedes the phrase κυριακῇ on its own can be translated "the Lord's day" - but only in 2nd century texts: "There are, however, beginning with the latter part of the second century, irrefutable examples where the expression “Lord’s day” or simply “Lord’s” is used as a current designation for Sunday. 75"

Sorry but this reeks of SDA duplicity - accusing the translators of adding words, then doing the same himself - and then accepting an argument is true when he is happy to, but then rejecting the same argument when it goes against SDA dogma.

I am sorry but this is not true at all and I respectfully disagree with your claims here. The reason why I say this as has been posted many times to you now is that, κυριακή meaning "the Lords" on it's own does not mean day. It is the Greek context that determines what "the Lord owns and in Revelation 1:10 the context is to ημέρα meaning day. In the Didache 14.1 there is no context to day or reference point to time therefore as shown in the earlier papers there is no evidence to supply [day] which is not in the original Greek. As posted earlier your wrong here. You are yet to show and logical evidence that shows why [day] is added to Didache 14.1 which is not in the Greek but is added in as mistranslation not based on evidence for it's inclusion.

Yes, it is true. And I have provided the proof from BDAG, where it lists examples where κυριακῇ should be translated "the Lord's day" (D 14:1, Kephal. I 194, 9; 195, 6; Did., Gen. 190, 2, GPt 9:35; 12:50. AcPl Ha 3, 9. IMg 9:1).

And all the translators of the Didache, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul, Magnesians, LXX etc all agree.

And here is another Koine Greek scholar (who is himself Greek) who also agrees....

Chronological systems in Roman-Byzantine Palestine and Arabia: The evidence of the dated Greek inscriptions by YIANNIS E. MEIMARIS (National Hellenic Research Foundation)
Christians and Muslims who adopted the seven-day week from the Jews kept the numerical style of appellation with minor alterations. For Christians the day preceding that of "σάββατον" was styled "παρασκευή" (preparation) and the day following "σάββατον", called "πρώτη", was renamed into "Κυριακή" (day of the Lord), since it was the first day of creation and that of resurrection (second cent. AD).8 Due to its sanctity "Κυριακή" was pronounced repose day (Cod. Theod. VIII 8, 1 in AD 368-373). Thus, according to the Greek texts the seven week days are: "πρώτη σαββάτου" / "Κυριακή" (Sunday), "δευτέρα σαββάτου" (Monday), "τρίτη σαββάτου" (Tuesday), "τετάρτη/τετράς σαββάτου" (Wednesday), "πέμπτη σαββάτου" (Thursday), "παρασκευή" (Friday), "σάββατον" (Saturday). An alternative system to denote the week days was to number them by the Greek numerals α'-ζ' (as in Hippolytos' Easter Tablets).9


And another.....

The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering.
Valeriy A. Alikin, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Leiden University,
The author of the book of Revelation says he received his revelation on “the Lord’s day.”111 This phrase has been interpreted in various ways but the most plausible interpretation remains that it refers to the Sunday.112 If so, the Sunday received a special Christian name because of the communal gatherings that were held on that day. The designation of the Sunday as the Lord’s day (κυριακή) continued to be used by Christian authors in the second century. (Did. 14.1; Ign., Magn. 9.1; Ep. ap. 18; Gos. Peter 35; 50; Dionysius of Corinth, Ep. ad Rom. apud Euseb., HE 4.23.9; Clem. Al., Ex. ex Th eod. 63.1; Str. 5.106.2; Euseb., HE 3.27.) It became the usual name of the Sunday in Greek until the present day.

Pliny says that Christians came together for their common meal on a fi xed weekday (stato die), but he does not say on which day.114 Ignatius, however, who wrote his letters in the same period and broadly speaking in the same region as Pliny,115 says, “those who had lived in antiquated practices [i.e., the Jews] came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day.”116 Barnabas mentions that Christians met on the “eighth day,” that is, on Sunday.117 The author of the Didache tells us that Christians gathered to break bread and give thanks on “the Lord’s day.”118 The author of the Gospel of Peter replaces the phrase “on the fi rst day of the week” in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection by τῇ κυριακῆ. He apparently does so because in his time κυριακή is already the generally accepted Christian term for Sunday.119 In the middle of the second century Justin states that the weekly Christian gathering takes place on Sunday.120 In the second half of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, writes to Soter of Rome: “Today being the Lord’s Day, we kept it as a holy day.”121 According to Eusebius, second-century Ebionites celebrated certain rites in memory of the Saviour’s resurrection “on the Lord’s day.”122