Larsguy47

Well, you can't say you weren't warned.

In the movie, "The Ten Commandments" it's rather illustrative how this works. Pharoah was mourning over his son and all Neferteri could talk about was Moses. So she finally says to Pharaoh: "Do you hear laughter, Ramses?" Rameses, sadly: "Laugher." Neferteri's serpent tongue: "Not the laughter of kings, but SLAVES ON THE DESERT!"

Then that gets him in the mood to KILL! But that was his personality. See he could have said, "No you biach! Get away from me you whore! You're always getting me into trouble! I like the Jews and I want them to have a good clean start. Why do you think I gave them all that gold? By the way, have you seen my son, Akhenaten?"

The Bible has always said he trips up the wise in their own cunning.

He plays the background against the foreground. The Bible will mention in two different references something and a third reference that seems like the same reference but is only slightly different. But it's hard to resist thinking the off reference is an error, when it is. The result is that those who want to believe the Bible has errors will have those errors in abundance. But those who know the Bible must be true, will work out to find the hidden truth.

LG47

3DJay

Yadda, yadda, yadda....still waiting for the citation.


Peace

Larsguy47

This is how it works, 3DJay. If you're not a scholar and you don't have a degree, you have to provide the proof text comparisons. Which I have. That is, if you're not an authority you have to quote one or present the direct evidence for your argument.

In this case, my claim was that John 19:14 has to be a reference to the day "before" preparation for passover since Jesus cannot still be on trial and be impaled at the same time. Period. Now it's either an "error" at this point or a mistranslation. I had already developed arguments for "de" being used for "not" in another passage and "not" would serve as "before" here quite easily (i.e. It is not yet 10). If "de" was being used here specifically to mean "not yet" preparation, meaning preparation was approaching, then for all references where it is clear it was during the actual day of preparation, one would not expect to find "de" as "yet" or "almost" in front of it. Sure enough, it's never used for when the precise day is in reference.

So this is NEW, something the SCHOOOO-LARS have missed. And so they just need to be updated, not consulted. If you identify a favorite Greek scholar, maybe one who specializes in New Testament Greek, we can present this to him and see if he will respond to us and see what he says.

What you want is like going to an old dictionary from the 50's and looking up "fly" to find out how it is being used in: "Wow, that was fly!"

Still, there is little they can do since this is a specialized reference, a Jewish cultural idiomatic expression and you may not be able to find another reference for that. Even though, it can be demonstrated as a Greek convention based upon my research. So I actually know where it came from and all that. But YOU need to take it from here. I've given you the PREMISE and the comparison texts. You have to discover a "contradiction" in my argument now. I've done my part.

Yes, the New World Translation is in error too, but no biggee, JWs likewise think Jesus could have died on Nisan 14th a Friday and rose on a Sunday and still been in the grave for "three nights". ???

What is troubling is that you don't trust yourself on this. I've given you the comparison texts that prove my point, but you don't see it. You need a scholar to tell you: "Yes! That would work." Then you'd smile and say, "well okay..." and you would have learned nothing.

LG47

3DJay

Bullshit. I've given you the comparison texts, that δε, as the second greek word, in numerous passages, is consistently translated as "and", especially in the literal translation.

I've also noted that, EVEN IF IT WAS TRANSLATED AS..."But, it was the preparation of the passover, and as it were the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews, 'Lo, your king!'"...IT WOULDN"T CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION.

You're blowing smoke up our asses, as usual.


Peace

Larsguy47

Which proves you don't know what I'm talking about. If I told you, "Hey, "can" means the restroom in the context of "Say, Sargeant, I'm going to go to the can." You wouldn't come back and say, "No, I have five 500 texts that says "can" is a verb meaning to be able to, or a metal food container, it doesn't mean restroom! What can I say?

Did I say de didn't mean "and" or "but"? No. I'm just saying it is used in this context to mean "almost" in English, or "just before." It has that meaning in addition to the others. Furthermore, it is not translated at John 19:14 most of the time except for maybe "now". It's not translated as "and" or "but", i.e. "It was and preparation" or "It was but preparation", though the latter "but" could be understood as "nearly". So we're dealing with a usage at John 19:14, that is not translated and where it is not used with "preparation" at all elsewhere, being ignored by the scholars, and the context pointing to the day before.

No. In this case the correct and best English subsitute has to be used and it could be "nearly", "almost", "yet" or "just before", any of those substitutes.

No. Again, you are ignoring the evidence. All I had to do was demonstrate that John 19:14 syntax was different than all the other references where the day was clearly preparation. Which I have. "But" carries a negative concept, it modifies to the negative, such as "nearly," "almost", "not quite" or even "not" in which case applied to the time of day since the value of the hour rounds up (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 vs 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) the negative would automatically mean before: "almost preparation", "nearly preparation."

Further, I've demonstrated the use of "δε" with epaurion (next day) for the same application.

You should just accept that this is just one of their conventions! Want another nice example you won't accept?

The watches of the day and night are

"Late" (evening") 6-9 p.m.
"Midnight" 9-Midnight
"Cockcrowing" - Midnight to 3:00 a.m.
"Early" (morning) - 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.
"Morning" - 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
"Day" (midday) 9:00 a.m. - Noon
"Early" (evening) Noon-3:00 p.m.
"Evening" (mid evening) 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Thus when Mark says Jesus rose "but early" (de proi) it didn't mean simply early in the night or early morning, but it mean just before the "early" watch, and thus just before 3:00 a.m.

When Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb while it was still dark she is said to have come when it was "early" but the "δε" is left off. That means it wasn't just before 3:00 a.m. but during the early watch (3-6a.m.)

Compare Mark 16:9 with John 19:20. Now you might not say this is conclusive in any way, but obviously Mary Magdalene must arrive at the tomb after Jesus had risen. Had "δε" been used with proi at John 19:20 then we'd have a problem.

John is specific in the times and using these watches with ""δε" to reference just before. For instance when Judas leaves the 12 at the Last Supper, John takes a whole sentence to tell us specifically the time:

Like at John 13:30 where after it says Judas went out. He says "It was [but] night." Now, of course, everybody would presume it was nighttime by this time anyway. So how does this help us? However, when "but night" is understood correctly as a specific reference to the midnight watch, here just called "night", then we understand this to mean Judas left before 9:00 p.m., that is before the night watch. The Jews would have known when the 9:00 watch was because in Jerusalem a trumpet would have been blown.

Likewise when Jesus comes before Pilate at John 18:28. Again you have a single sentence all by itself, indicating John is stopping to give us the specific time when he was taken before Pilate. "It was but early" is translated as "It was now early in the day" in the NWT. But it really means it was just before the early evening watch. That is, just before noon. This is the normal time that Pilate saw the public, consistently, just before noon. That means Jesus was at the Sanhedrine for about 5 hours from right after sunrise until now just before noon.

However, since "early" and "night" or so common, translators don't realize these are understood as specific times in relation to the different watches of the day, which had these common and shortened names. Once you realize this though, the whole scenario becomes far more reasonable. Pilate would hardly get up out of bed to meet the Jews so "early" would he? And Jesus has to be impaled at the "third hour" meaning 9 o'clock. If we have Jesus dying the same day he is arrested then that has to be 9 a.m. meaning they ran to Herod and disturbed him early in the morning about a crminal matter? Further, they had to get their false stories straight so that took place in just a few minutes rather than 4-5 hours?

So like I said, I found the source of this syntax in Greek texts, meaning it is a Greek, not Hebrew convention that is adapted by the Hebrews.

A good scholar can check all this out if he wants to. I've done it already.

Refuse to believe your own eyes..... that's the way to go!!

LG47

3DJay

Blowing smoke.

It's the sentence structure that's important, NOT what word it is used with.

You are trying to tell us that "and" is used differently, in these two sentences, simply because of word association...

"And, the kids brought out the strawberry jam."

"And, it was the day of crisp toast."

OH...OH...the second "and" must mean something different than the first "and", since it's not associated with "toast", in the following sentence...

"So, we spread the jam on the crisp toast."

WTF?!!!

You make no sense.


Peace

3DJay

What are you talking about left off?

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20:1 τη δε μια των σαββατων μαρια η μαγδαληνη ερχεται πρωι σκοτιας ετι ουσης εις το μνημειον και βλεπει τον λιθον ηρμενον εκ του μνημειου

YLT: And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,

NASB: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.

19:20? You're talking about Mary visiting the tomb...I'm assuming you mean John 20:1 and there is a δε with the same placement as John 19:14 and is translated the same... "and", "now", or dropped.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 13:30 λαβων ουν το ψωμιον εκεινος ευθεως εξηλθεν ην δε νυξ

YLT: having received, therefore, the morsel, that one immediately went forth, and it was night.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 18:28 αγουσιν ουν τον ιησουν απο του καιαφα εις το πραιτωριον ην δε πρωια και αυτοι ουκ εισηλθον εις το πραιτωριον ινα μη μιανθωσιν αλλ ινα φαγωσιν το πασχα

YLT: They led, therefore, Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium, and it was early, and they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover;


Peace

Larsguy47

TRY THIS IN ENGLISH. You're the boss. You have a strict rule about eating out of a can. You have to fire an employee who did. You can't fire him in the office, but you it is permissible in the rest room. Therefore:

"You can can Jim in the can for the can."

"Can" is used four different times, each with a different use, but it's quite understandable because of the context. You're trapped by trying to apply one definition to a very limited context, so that's why it's not working.

What we are interested in is whether my application is violated or nullified by any other references. It isn't. Instead, it is supported or verified.

LG47

3DJay

Yeah, and it's quite apparent that translators understand the context, quite well, and you're just making stuff up off the top of your head.
More bullshit.

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 27:62 τη δε επαυριον ητις εστιν μετα την παρασκευην συνηχθησαν οι αρχιερεις και οι φαρισαιοι προς πιλατον

YLT: And on the morrow that is after the preparation, were gathered together the chief priests, and the Pharisees, unto Pilate,
21CKJV: Now the next day, that following the Day of the Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
NASB: Now on the next day, the day after (A)the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
DT: Now on the morrow, which is after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate,
WNT: And on the tother day, that is after pask even [that is after pask evening], the princes of priests and [the] Pharisees came together to Pilate,

Your translation... "The next day, which was after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together before Pilate" ...and most other translations, simply drop the "δε". Do that for John 19:14 for all I care, still leaves you ON Preparation Day. NIV drops it...

NIV: It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.


All you've shown is that you don't know what you're talking about, AT ALL.


Peace

Larsguy47

No I'm not. Every linguist doesn't know details of ancient Jewish customs for this time. There are still lots of misunderstandings that can be demonstrated. Such as when the Jews actually began their day. There is a very common idea that every day of the week begins at sundown, when really only the sabbath begins at sundown. The PROVE this, there are plenty of referenes of how the Jews had to use different methods to try to determine when the "next day" began, such as a cloth that was half green and half blue; then you could no longer tell the color then it was the next day. Another way was when "everything turned to silhouette", which is essentially the same thing, etc. Obviously you don't need to be doing this at sunset. Another indicator is that the 12th hour, part of the previous day began at sundown. Plus you can check orthodox practice. The sabbath day begins at sundown, but it continues until nightfall when a candle is lit to signify the beginning of the next day. Each sabbath day begins and ends with an evening meal. Therefore, there was a distinct concept of when the weekday began at nightfall versus at sunset. Did YOU know that? Most people don't, including translators.

Translating slang or idioms can be tricky sometimes and if you don't know the customs well, some explanations that get by are accepted when really something more specific is meant.

That's the case with the WATCHES of the day. Because of the common names for the various watches, which were 3 hours each, and because they were in such common use, they don't stand out. For instance, the MIDNIGHT WATCH, was simply shortened to "night" in John who uses that watch to describe precisely the time Judas leaves the others. He uses "but night", meaning just before the night watch, which is just before 9:00 p.m. since the "midnight watch is from 9:00 p.m. to Midnight. But it usually is translated without the "de" being understood as before to simply "It was night." That works. We all know it was night. That's kind of redundant in fact. But was John telling us simply it was night when he went out? What was the significance of that, in particular? At least compared to saying "It was just before 9:00 p.m."

Same with when Jesus was brought before Pilate the first time. Usually it is translated "Now it was early in the day" because "early" is used. But the text uses "but early" (de proi), which if we presume when John stops and gives a separate sentence for the specific time of the day and "early" is one of the watches, then "but early" would be just before the "early watch." In this case, it would be just before the early evening watch, which begins at noon. Therefore, John is saying Jesus was taken to Pilate just before noon. That's more specific and more reasonable than "early in the day." Why? Because we see a consistent pattern where Pilate sees the people at a designated time during the day which is just before noon. Pilate wasn't going to be disturbed early in the morning and try to have a trial just because the high priest and pharisees wanted a quick trial.

But again, "early" is a common general time of the day, just as "night" is, and so it is not appreciated as a specific reference to a watch and just before that watch. (John 18:28 and John 13:30)

Even the fact that the Jews officially did not change the calendar date until Midnight is not appreciated, perhaps something they got from the Egyptians, and the same practice we have today.

Just because it's new to you and your favorite scholars haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's BS. I gave you the comparison texts, which is the only test in this case.


I know, and it's incorrect.

No it doesn't. If you substitute "nearly" or "before" for "de" at John 19:14 then it's the afternoon before preparation begins that night.


And you are making entirely no sense whatsoever, since it is my claim, founded or not that all the translators MISSED THIS. So simply quoting this error isn't getting us anywhere. We should hunt down a Greek scholar and present him with the comparison texts if you want.

It is REDUNANT to say "the next day" and also "which is after preparation." It is like saying, "I'll see you on Tuesday, which is the day after Monday."

In this case, the day after preparation would be the sabbath day.

On the other hand, in my scenario, Matthew is not being redundant when "de" becomes before, since "before the next day" would be before nightfall, and "after preparation" is after sunset. So it indicates it was before nightfall but after sunset. OR, it was still that pre-next day period, but after sunset.

If I claim the scholars themselves missed this, and you give me quotes of those scholars missing it, it doesn't mean a thing. It is the scholars that are on trial here; they can't speak in their own defense.

LG47