WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[Leaf473]

No It does not exist in and of itself as a word in the NT.


You do not have pc i would assume. Ok no problem.

Total LXX Occurrences: 243
νομοι (2)
Est 3:8, Jer 31:37
νομοις (2)
Est 8:11, Dan 9:10
νομον (93)
Exo 13:10, Exo 16:28, Exo 18:16, Exo 18:20, Exo 24:12, Lev 19:19, Lev 19:37, Num 5:30, Num 6:21, Num 9:3, Num 9:12, Num 9:14, Deu 1:5, Deu 4:8, Deu 17:11, Deu 24:8, Deu 27:8, Deu 31:11, Deu 33:4, Deu 33:10, Jos 8:32, Jos 22:5, Jos 24:25-26 (2), 2Kg 17:13, 2Kg 17:34, 2Kg 17:37, 2Kg 23:25, 1Ch 22:12, 2Ch 14:4, 2Ch 33:8, 2Ch 35:19, Ezr 7:10, Ezr 7:25-26 (3), Neh 8:2, Neh 8:7, Neh 9:14, Neh 9:26, Neh 9:29, Neh 9:34, Neh 10:28, Neh 13:3, Est 1:8, Est 1:13, Est 4:16, Psa 40:8, Psa 78:1, Psa 78:5, Psa 89:30, Psa 105:45, Psa 119:34, Psa 119:44, Psa 119:53, Psa 119:55, Psa 119:57, Psa 119:70, Psa 119:97, Psa 119:113, Psa 119:126, Psa 119:136, Psa 119:153, Psa 119:163, Psa 119:165, Pro 3:16, Pro 4:2, Pro 9:10, Pro 13:15, Pro 28:4 (2), Pro 28:7, Pro 29:18, Isa 1:10, Isa 5:24, Isa 8:16, Isa 8:20, Isa 19:2, Isa 24:5, Isa 24:16, Isa 30:9, Jer 6:19, Jer 9:13, Jer 16:11, Eze 22:26, Dan 7:25, Dan 9:11, Hos 4:6, Amo 2:4, Amo 4:5, Zep 3:4, Hag 2:11, Mal 2:7
νομος (55)
Exo 12:43, Exo 12:49, Exo 13:9, Lev 6:9, Lev 6:14, Lev 6:22, Lev 6:25, Lev 7:1, Lev 7:7, Lev 7:11, Lev 7:37, Lev 11:46, Lev 12:7, Lev 13:59, Lev 14:2, Lev 14:32, Lev 14:54, Lev 14:57, Lev 15:3, Lev 15:32, Lev 26:46, Num 5:29, Num 6:13, Num 6:21, Num 9:14, Num 15:15-16 (3), Num 15:29, Num 19:14, Deu 4:44, 2Sa 7:19, Ezr 10:3, Est 1:20, Psa 19:7, Psa 37:31, Psa 119:72, Psa 119:77, Psa 119:85, Psa 119:92, Psa 119:142, Psa 119:174, Pro 13:14, Isa 2:3, Isa 19:2, Isa 51:4, Isa 51:7, Jer 8:8, Jer 18:18, Jer 49:12, Lam 2:9, Eze 7:26, Mic 4:2, Hab 1:4, Mal 2:6
νομου (54)
Num 19:2, Num 31:21, Deu 27:3, Deu 27:26, Deu 28:58, Deu 28:61, Deu 29:20-21 (2), Deu 29:27, Deu 29:29, Deu 30:10, Deu 31:9, Deu 31:12, Deu 31:24, Deu 31:26, Deu 32:44, Deu 32:46, Jos 1:8, Jos 8:34, Jos 23:6, 2Kg 22:8, 2Kg 22:11, 2Kg 23:24, 2Ch 17:9, 2Ch 25:4, 2Ch 34:14-15 (2), 2Ch 34:19, 2Ch 35:19, Ezr 7:12, Ezr 7:21, Neh 8:1, Neh 8:3, Neh 8:8-9 (2), Neh 8:13, Neh 8:18, Neh 9:3, Job 34:27, Psa 94:12, Psa 119:18, Psa 119:51, Psa 119:61, Psa 119:109, Psa 119:150, Psa 130:5, Pro 6:23, Pro 28:9, Isa 42:24, Jer 2:8, Jer 23:27, Hos 8:1, Zec 7:12, Mal 4:4
νομους (5)
Neh 9:13, Est 1:15, Est 1:19, Pro 6:20, Jer 31:33
νομω (30)
Exo 16:4, Jos 8:31, Jos 8:34, 1Kg 2:3, 2Kg 10:31, 1Ch 16:40, 2Ch 6:16, 2Ch 15:3, 2Ch 23:18, 2Ch 31:3, 2Ch 31:21, 2Ch 35:26, Ezr 3:2, Ezr 7:6, Ezr 7:14, Neh 8:14, Neh 10:29, Neh 10:34, Neh 10:36, Psa 1:2 (2), Psa 78:10, Psa 119:1, Psa 119:29, Isa 33:6, Jer 44:23, Dan 9:11, Dan 9:13, Mal 2:8-9 (2)
νομων (2)
2Kg 14:6, Est 3:8

Thanks! First off, I agree that nomos usually means the law of Moses in both the LXX and the New Testament.

Esther 3:8 is a good example of how it can mean the law of Moses, and it can also mean something else.

3:8 καὶ ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην λέγων ὑπάρχει ἔθνος διεσπαρμένον ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου οἱ δὲ νόμοι αὐτῶν ἔξαλλοι παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῶν δὲ νόμων τοῦ βασιλέως παρακούουσιν καὶ οὐ συμφέρει τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐᾶσαι αὐτούς

The first occurrence in the verse, νόμοι, is referring to the laws of the Jews, so that would be the law of Moses.

The second occurrence, νόμων, refers to the law of the King of Persia, so definitely not the law of Moses in that case.

(It's the same root word, but if anyone is interested and why they're spelled differently, I'll be glad to explain )

 

[expos4ever]

"Sin IS transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4 as over a dozen Bible translations confirm.

Readers, you are repeatedly being told this, but it is a deceptive claim, intended to mislead.

I suspect most readers here are sufficiently Biblically literate to not fall for this ploy. However, lest any be led astray, allow me to point out what is not being said here: most translations of 1 John 3:4 do not establish a necessary connection between sin and the Law of Moses. And these translations include the highly regarded NASB and the Young's Literal Translation. The people who make claims like the one above know this but, of course, they remain conveniently tight-lipped about it.

Note that the clear intent here: we are supposed to say to ourselves "well, if more than a dozen translations have sin as transgression of the Law then that is good enough for me".

Well let me ask you this: If a majority of doctors recommend treatment A over treatment B, including arguably the most reputable doctor, would you reason thusly: "maybe, but look, more than a dozen doctors recommend treatment B so I will go with B". No reasonable person, in the absence of other considerations, would choose B.

But, of course, and returning to the 1 John 3:4 text, there are other considerations that would help us decide which translation makes sense in the broader Biblical context. Considerations like these:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by works of [h]the Law, or by hearing [i]with faith?

But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [t]make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace;

Now, of course, we have been, and no doubt will be, offered a range of explanations for each of these texts each, I suggest, more contrived and desperate than the next.

For example, we have been told that being released from the law (first text above from Romans 7) means being only set free from the consequence of breaking it, and that we are still as much "non-released" from actually doing what the law says as we were before. Think of it: Imagine a slave-owner telling a slave that he has been "released" but then expecting the slave to show up for work the next morning with the consolation that, while he is still obligated to do his slave duties, he will not be punished if he doesn't.

 

[Leaf473]

This is exactly how I've chosen to handle people in this forum as well. I love discussions and debate. However, when people obviously lie and and mock and distort and deny even the plain words of Scripture, that has gone too far. I give a couple of chances for them to see the error. But then, I will simply ignore everything they do going forward.
What I am surprised though is the number of banned subjects even on a Christian forum. A place where the Truth should be free to be proclaimed.

I agree it would be great if we could just discuss the truth, plain and simple.

And mocking and misrepresentation of either scripture or other people's views is a real bummer.

I expect that many people that I have exchanged posts with over the years probably think, "Well, I posted scriptures, plain and simple, and you didn't agree."

But when we apply logic - the basic structure of language - to those scriptures, they often don't end up saying what the posters want them to say.

Again, peace to everyone here

 

[expos4ever]

But it does give us an understanding of what sin is. John as Paul would not have known sin if it were not for the law. And willful sin is lawlessness in an individual as John wrote.

I suggest any and all texts that refer to the Law giving knowledge of sin are, when read in context, talking about what was the case before Jesus comes along.

 

[Leaf473]

I suggest any and all texts that refer to the Law giving knowledge of sin are, when read in context, talking about what was the case before Jesus comes along.

Very possibly that's the best way to look at it. Jesus, speaking of the Spirit, said,

Bible Gateway passage: John 16:8-11 - New American Standard Bible

And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment: regarding sin, because they do not believe in Me; and regarding righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you no longer are going to see Me; and regarding judgment, because the ruler of this...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[expos4ever]

The idea that the Holy Spirit wants us to ignore scripture or not to follow what His Word says - is not taught in either OT or NT.

Really? How about here:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

Please explain exactly how you reconcile the concept "that we no longer serve according to the letter".

And if you are going to redefine the word "serve", please defend such an odd move.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

"Sin IS transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4 as over a dozen Bible translations confirm.

Readers, you are repeatedly being told this, but it is a deceptive claim, intended to mislead.

I suspect most readers here are sufficiently Biblically literate to not fall for this ploy. However, lest any be led astray, allow me to point out what is not being said here: most translations of 1 John 3:4 do not establish a necessary connection between sin and the Law of Moses. And these translations include the highly regarded NASB and the Young's Literal Translation. The people who make claims like the one above know this but, of course, they remain conveniently tight-lipped about it.

Note that the clear intent here: we are supposed to say to ourselves "well, if more than a dozen translations have sin as transgression of the Law then that is good enough for me".

I don't think I John 3:4 is saying what you are suggesting. I will just address that verse and not the other verses which you use as evidence against the supposed mistranslations of I John 3:4. And that is not to say I disagree with your overall point. But I want to make sure there is an accurate understanding of I John 3:4 specifically.

If I understand correctly what you are suggesting about I John 3:4, you are saying that most English translations only include the word "law" when it should have "Law of Moses" in particular. But if you look at a Greek version, it uses "anomia" twice in the verse. It means a general sense of "without law and violation of law, iniquity and wickedness". It does not specifically say the Law of Moses.

G458 - anomia - Strong's Greek Lexicon (esv)

G458 - ἀνομία anomía, an-om-ee'-ah; from ; illegality, i.e. violation of law or (genitive case) wickedness:—iniquity, transgress(-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

www.blueletterbible.org

And going further, if you check the original language this was written in - Aramaic - it uses the word best translated as "crime, injustice". There is no ambiguity of "law" vs "Law of Moses". Word '(wl)'

If you check all the other places where this same word is used, there is no specific connection with "Law of Moses" but is the general sense of iniquity, wrongdoing.

Peshitta verses that contain lexeme 1:2273 &#1829y&#1816y&#1824y&#1808y

 

[expos4ever]

Hi Eclipse, I agree with your post and do not understand what you disagree with in mine. Most translations have "sin is lawlessness" or something similar. My point was that to trumpet the translations which have sin is "transgression of the law of Moses", without mentioning that the most translations do not have this, is somewhat misleading.

 

[expos4ever]

If I understand correctly what you are suggesting about I John 3:4, you are saying that most English translations only include the word "law" when it should have "Law of Moses" in particular.

Perish the thought! I am most certainly not saying this, and I hope my post did not give you this impression.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Hi Eclipse, I agree with your post and do not understand what you disagree with in mine. Most translations have "sin is lawlessness" or something similar. My point was that to trumpet the translations which have sin is "transgression of the law of Moses", without mentioning that the most translations do not have this, is somewhat misleading.

What was written was not very clear then as I did not get that. Which translations actually say "transgression of the law of Moses"? Blue letter Bible has a list of many translations and none of them say that.

 

[expos4ever]

What was written was not very clear then as I did not get that. Which translations actually say "transgression of the law of Moses"? Blue letter Bible has a list of many translations and none of them say that.

There is definitely significant confusion between us. I am not aware of any translations that say "transgression of the law of Moses". However, those translations that have "transgression of the law" entail, I believe, an implicit reference to the law of Moses. After all, what would the law be if not the law of Moses? So I am agreeing with my opponents that some translations of 1 John 3:4 specifically connect the definition of sin to the law of Moses. As I hope would have been clear, my overall point is that most translations do not have any specificity at all to the law of Moses, even if such specificity is expressed through the phrase "the law". Does this clarify things?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

There is definitely significant confusion between us. I am not aware of any translations that say "transgression of the law of Moses". However, those translations that have "transgression of the law" entail, I believe, an implicit reference to the law of Moses. After all, what would the law be if not the law of Moses? So I am agreeing with my opponents that some translations of 1 John 3:4 specifically connect the definition of sin to the law of Moses. As I hope would have been clear, my overall point is that most translations do not have any specificity at all to the law of Moses, even if such specificity is expressed through the phrase "the law". Does this clarify things?

Unfortunately, I don't think your intent came across very well in that post. And if I, who actually agrees with your intent am confused, someone who you are trying to debate with would probably not get it as well. It's more clear now.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes.

Where, exactly, is the conflict? While the law of Moses was in force, that law prescribed how we are to behave. Now that the Spirit is our moral compass, He/She tells us how to behave. If both the Law and the Spirit tell us it is wrong to covet, where is the conflict?

First, it is not clear that the reference to the "law of God" is a reference to the Law of Moses - God has issued commandments in the Old Testament that were prior to, and therefore not part of the Law of Moses. But even if it is a reference to the Law of Moses, I have already offered an argument that Romans 8:7 describes the situation of the nonbelieving Jew who is under the Law of Moses - not the believer. That argument is in post 833.

Readers need to be continually warned about the deception you and others perpetrate when you cherry-pick a translation that represents the minority view among translations with respect to 1 John 3:4. Most translations, including the highly respected NASB have "sin is lawlessness", or something similar, and make no specific reference to the Law of Moses.

You and others have to know this by now, but you persist in misleading readers.

As for John 14:15-18, Jesus says "If you love me, keep MY commandments" - Jesus's commandments are not the Law of Moses. And if you are going to argue that Jesus' commandments have to be consistent with the Law of Moses since Jesus = God = the author of the Law of Moses, you are repeatedly the oft-used, but clearly faulty, argument that merely assumes God can never change the way He works in the world.

Excuse me? When I see "you will see this is a concession....", I clearly meant that such an interpretation on your part would be a mistake. Let me be clear: I do not believe the commandment from the Law of Moses to not covet still applies - I believe that we have a new moral compass, the Holy Spirit. And the fact that the Spirit also lets us know that it is wrong to covet does not mean the Law still applies as I already clearly explained in my last post (the stuff about Law X and Law Y).

Are you calling the Ten Commandments the law of Moses and no longer in effect despite Jesus saying they are? Jesus references them as the commandments of God, just the way God identified them (MY commandments)…Exodus 20:6 and Jesus condemns those who do not keep the commandments of God quoting right from the Ten Commandments

Matthew 15: 3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying (direct quote from Exodus 20:12), ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

The Holy Spirit and God’s will (His law written in the heart) Psalms 40:8 Hebrews 8:10 are not in conflict, but those who walk in the flesh are (sin -breaking God’s law) Romans 8:7 Our righteousness means nothing, only His righteousness is what matters and all of God’s commandments are righteous Psalms 119:172 because God is our Creator and He wrote His eternal law because He knows what’s best for us. The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice or suggestions but we have free will to believe this or not….it all gets sorted out soon enough, but the Bible is very clear we are blessed when we keep the commandments Revelation 22:14 and Jesus tells us to teach each other the commandments quoting right from the Ten Matthew 5:19-30 and Jesus came to do the will of God John 6:38 and it is God’s will we obey Him, even the apostles agree Acts 5:29. Take care

 

[Leaf473]

For anyone who's interested, the law of Moses is also called the law of God (okay, technically the law of the Lord, but same thing, I assume).

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:22-24 - New American Standard Bible

And when the days for their purification according to the Law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord: “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[pasifika]

Indeed, and watch what the law supporters do with Romans 7:6:

They redefine concepts to suit their agenda - they take the phrase "But now we have been released from the Law" and take their editor's pen and make it read "But now we have been released from the consequence of not obeying the Law".

Golly, I wish I could do that - arbitrarily rewrite Holy Writ to suit my purposes.

Here is how Strong's concordance defines the word translated as "released":

to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Note the complete absence of anything like "to be relieved from the consequences of something"

Or take the concept of no longer serving according to the letter of the Law from the last half of Romans 7:6. This poses a severe challenge to those who are vigorously arguing that we do indeed still need to "serve" according to the Law. So what do they do? Once more, they take out their editorial pens and take "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law".

Yeah, right.

And the question is how can the consequences of not obeying the law being removed and the law is not?

 

[pasifika]

I definitely agree with the thrust of all three posts.

And I definitely don't want to be a divisive, contentious, or warped person I believe / hope that I am here because I am honestly concerned about the well-being of people who,
from my perspective,
have been taken in by cleverly designed books and teachings.

May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with everyone here.

Those words are strong words ie (divisive, warped) it just showed the seriousness of this theological understanding to Christian faith who have found freedom in Christ.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

On what basis do you make this claim? It certainly seems to me that you are imposing a significant restriction on the meaning of the concept "to be released".

Here is a definition from a dictionary selected at random:

1. let someone leave
2. stop holding something
3. let something into area around
4. move held equipment
5. get rid of feeling
6. make something available
7. let someone not do something

Where is there anything here about a restriction to just the consequences?

Let's look at the word translated as "released" as defined in Strongs:

from 2596 and 691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

The evidence is overwhelming - there is no warrant to restrict the meaning of "release" as you have.

What does any of that matter? What matter is the CONTEXT IN GREEK. We are delivered from it! Also, you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Maybe you have a different definition of sin or what it means biblically?? What are the wages of sin...death. That is the ultimate curse of the law. What was the first sin? What was its consequence? Yeshua became that curse for us. Otherwise what is the standard and what does Yeshua judge against those who did not repent and believe?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

And the question is how can the consequences of not obeying the law being removed and the law is not?

Maybe you have a different definition of sin or what it means biblically?? What are the wages of sin?...death. That is the ultimate curse of the law. What was the first sin? What was its consequence? Yeshua became that curse for us. Otherwise what is the standard and what does Yeshua judge against those who did not repent and believe? The law is broken and you are condemned. The law remains but now Yeshua stands in our place when we believe and accept. HE became the curse FOR US...we are delivered!

 

[pasifika]

Maybe you have a different definition of sin or what it means biblically?? What are the wages of sin?...death. That is the ultimate curse of the law. What was the first sin? What was its consequence? Yeshua became that curse for us. Otherwise what is the standard and what does Yeshua judge against those who did not repent and believe? The law is broken and you are condemned. The law remains but now Yeshua stands in our place when we believe and accept. HE became the curse FOR US...we are delivered!

You focus more on Sin and death...instead, focus more on Christ and eternal life. The Gospel message. (Keep our eyes on Jesus..)

what I mean, no one can escape sin and it's consequence of death but a few.

(This a short illustration, if someone is in prison awaiting death sentence and hear that there is a way to free himself from this situation, then his focus is not of why he is in prison and the death sentence that is coming, But how to free himself from prison and death to live a new life as a free man.)

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You focus more on Sin and death...instead, focus more on Christ and eternal life. The Gospel message. (Keep our eyes on Jesus..)

what I mean, no one can escape sin and it's consequence of death but a few.

(This a short illustration, if someone is in prison awaiting death sentence and hear that there is a way to free himself from this situation, then his focus is not of why he is in prison and the death sentence that is coming, But how to free himself from prison and death to live a new life as a free man.)

Well that is what we were discussing...