Lutheran doctrine contradicts Lutheran doctrine (i.e. Exodus 12 – Passover Instituted)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The time of day the Paschal lamb was slaughtered is not "doctrine" in our church. We just believe it was slaughtered sometime near or at sunset and leave it at that. It isn't a "doctrine" we MUST believe in order to be good Lutherans and certainly not to be saved.


Look it up for yourself since you are so fixated on the time of day and believe anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong. Me, I don't think it makes a particle of difference if the lamb was slaughtered right before, at, or after sunset. You are making a Mt. Everest out of an anthill--and for no reason.

You are the one making an issue out of a non-issue. But you have yet to answer my simple questions...why is that? They are in post no. 351 on this thread. Care finally to give us a direct answer to those three questions?
@davbeh2010

Bonnie, your post led me to do a little poking around in English translations and it demonstrated that the translation in Exodus 12:6 as, "between the evenings, is losing favor. Good, bad, or indifferent that is the impression I was left with.

The question which came to mind is why? This representative example from Scripture occurs in Exodus 16:12-13. It uses, "between the evenings," and, "evening, as equivalent expresións.

The recent electronic KJVs use "evening" rather than "twilight" in verse 12 as does my old hardcopy of a KJV edition. I have freely modified the pertinent words in verses 12 sand 13 to correspond with the old hardcopy.

“12. I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At twilight ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. 13. And it came to pass, that at evening the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.” (Exo 16:12-13, KJVA)

If Moses uses the terms in an equivalent manner then it would be to go beyond Scripture to claim that there is an impassible gulf between the meanings of the two words.
 
Thanks for this BJ. Once again, this hoopla over "twilight" vs. "sundown" or "evening" is much ado about nothing. I mean, who cares? Except for one specific person? It makes not a particle of difference in the new and BETTER covenant of grace in the ultimate Lamb of God, Who truly does take away the sin of the world. The old sacrificial system in the Law of Moses is null and void, fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ.

But do note I have never gotten answers to any of my questions.
 
Thanks for this BJ.
You're welcome, but I only followed the trail you pointed out. So a tip of the hat to you.
Once again, this hoopla over "twilight" vs. "sundown" or "evening" is much ado about nothing. I mean, who cares? Except for one specific person? It makes not a particle of difference in the new and BETTER covenant of grace in the ultimate Lamb of God, Who truly does take away the sin of the world. The old sacrificial system in the Law of Moses is null and void, fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ.
Yes. Anything which obscures or denies the person and work of Christ for all men is going to be an error.
But do note I have never gotten answers to any of my questions.
Yes, but answering your questions would have put the topic in perspective as an academic question and which may have brought the discussion to a quiet end.

Depending on further research I may post again in this thread. There may be something interesting going on regarding translation and general theories of interpretation.
 
You're welcome, but I only followed the trail you pointed out. So a tip of the hat to you.

Yes. Anything which obscures or denies the person and work of Christ for all men is going to be an error.

Yes, but answering your questions would have put the topic in perspective as an academic question and which may have brought the discussion to a quiet end.

Depending on further research I may post again in this thread. There may be something interesting going on regarding translation and general theories of interpretation.
Thanks, and let us know what you find out
 
@davbeh2010

Bonnie, your post led me to do a little poking around in English translations and it demonstrated that the translation in Exodus 12:6 as, "between the evenings, is losing favor. Good, bad, or indifferent that is the impression I was left with.

The question which came to mind is why? This representative example from Scripture occurs in Exodus 16:12-13. It uses, "between the evenings," and, "evening, as equivalent expresións.

The recent electronic KJVs use "evening" rather than "twilight" in verse 12 as does my old hardcopy of a KJV edition. I have freely modified the pertinent words in verses 12 sand 13 to correspond with the old hardcopy.

“12. I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At twilight ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. 13. And it came to pass, that at evening the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.” (Exo 16:12-13, KJVA)

If Moses uses the terms in an equivalent manner then it would be to go beyond Scripture to claim that there is an impassible gulf between the meanings of the two words.
In context, twilight and evening in (Exodus 16:12-13) are both correct and true. "And it came to pass", indicates a single point in time (evening) within that period, "between the evenings" (twilight), when the quails came up.

Every point of time within the period, "between the evenings" (twilight), is evening.
Every point of time within the period, "between the evenings" (twilight), is (twilight).


In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
@davbeh2010

Bonnie, your post led me to do a little poking around in English translations and it demonstrated that the translation in Exodus 12:6 as, "between the evenings, is losing favor. Good, bad, or indifferent that is the impression I was left with.

The question which came to mind is why? This representative example from Scripture occurs in Exodus 16:12-13. It uses, "between the evenings," and, "evening, as equivalent expresións.

The recent electronic KJVs use "evening" rather than "twilight" in verse 12 as does my old hardcopy of a KJV edition. I have freely modified the pertinent words in verses 12 sand 13 to correspond with the old hardcopy.

“12. I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At twilight ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. 13. And it came to pass, that at evening the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.” (Exo 16:12-13, KJVA)

If Moses uses the terms in an equivalent manner then it would be to go beyond Scripture to claim that there is an impassible gulf between the meanings of the two words.

According to the KJV English translations, if Moses uses the terms twilight and evening in an equivalent manner in (Exodus 16:12-13), then why would the Evangelical Heritage Version Biblical English translators (EHV @2019) choose to use the nonequivalent English term "sunset" in the first mention of "between the evenings" in (Exodus 12:6)?


In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
According to the KJV English translations, if Moses uses the terms twilight and evening in an equivalent manner in (Exodus 16:12-13), then why would the Evangelical Heritage Version Biblical English translators (EHV @2019) choose to use the nonequivalent English term "sunset" in the first mention of "between the evenings" in (Exodus 12:6)?


In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
You have yet to answer my simple questions...why is that? Are they that difficult? Here is the most important one: where does the Bible tell us that believing the correct time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered that Jesus ate with His disciples is necessary for salvation--especially now that the Law of Moses is null and void, since Jesus fulfilled all of it, especially the old animal sacrificial system with its rules and regulations?
 
In context, twilight and evening in (Exodus 16:12-13) are both correct and true. "And it came to pass", indicates a single point in time (evening) within that period, "between the evenings" (twilight), when the quails came up.

Every point of time within the period, "between the evenings" (twilight), is evening.
Every point of time within the period, "between the evenings" (twilight), is (twilight).
The question isn't whether the KJV English translation is correct and true, but rather whether it is the only correct and true translation English translation. Obviously, if Moses uses the terms interchangeably then anyone who says they can't be used that way is at odds with Moses and the Spirit who inspired him.
 
According to the KJV English translations, if Moses uses the terms twilight and evening in an equivalent manner in (Exodus 16:12-13), then why would the Evangelical Heritage Version Biblical English translators (EHV @2019) choose to use the nonequivalent English term "sunset" in the first mention of "between the evenings" in (Exodus 12:6)?
Why do you consider it to be a non-equivalent? Sunset doesn't occur in the morning so by the twofold definition of a day it belongs to the evening.

Translators make choices. You are citing passages with different allowable choices. See this post.

For grins and giggles, if not insight, consider what is being discussed in Ex 12:6 and Ex 16:12 and the role of the English word evening, or sunset, or twilight, or between the evenings, has in each passage.

Here's a hint: Both passages are referring to recurring events so how should that word which KJV translates as a preposition, between, be understood?
 
You have yet to answer my simple questions...why is that? Are they that difficult? Here is the most important one: where does the Bible tell us that believing the correct time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered that Jesus ate with His disciples is necessary for salvation--especially now that the Law of Moses is null and void, since Jesus fulfilled all of it, especially the old animal sacrificial system with its rules and regulations?
Ja, the gospel, the person and work of Christ for all men, is greater than the law, what God commands or demands of men which has a benefit or other consequence attached to it.

Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes the Lord's distinction between the law and the gospel and consequently they confuse and confound the law and the gospel so that the Lord's distinction is thereby effaced.
 
Ja, the gospel, the person and work of Christ for all men, is greater than the law, what God commands or demands of men which has a benefit or other consequence attached to it.

Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes the Lord's distinction between the law and the gospel and consequently they confuse and confound the law and the gospel so that the Lord's distinction is thereby effaced.
That is one thing our churches do a good job of--training our ministers to be able to distinguish between and preach both law and gospel. I think Luther once said that anyone who could rightfully distinguish between the two "deserves a doctor's hat."
 
The question isn't whether the KJV English translation is correct and true, but rather whether it is the only correct and true translation English translation. Obviously, if Moses uses the terms interchangeably then anyone who says they can't be used that way is at odds with Moses and the Spirit who inspired him.
For what it is worth, the LXX translates Ex 12:6 as toward evening in KJV English; cp. Luke 24:29.
 
In order to receive salvation, Jesus kept it pretty simple. Why does man have to complicate things.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


Paul also kept the gospel message simple

1 corinthians 1:17
For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; and even my preaching sounds poor, for I do not fill my sermons with profound words and high-sounding ideas, for fear of diluting the mighty power there is in the simple message of the cross of Christ.
 
In order to receive salvation, Jesus kept it pretty simple. Why does man have to complicate things.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


Paul also kept the gospel message simple

1 corinthians 1:17
For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; and even my preaching sounds poor, for I do not fill my sermons with profound words and high-sounding ideas, for fear of diluting the mighty power there is in the simple message of the cross of Christ.

Exactly, why does man have to complicate things? (i.e. Translators bearing false witness by adding to the word of God (i.e. Exodus 12:6 - "sunset" EHV 2019))

God sent Jesus, the Messiah. (i.e. Matthew 16:16) Does one truly believe in the "doctrine of Christ"? (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) I do!

I believe that God sent the Apostle Paul. Does one believe that Christ died "according to the Scriptures"? (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Does one believe that the Spirit should not be quenched, and that prophecies should not be despised? (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) The Apostle Paul did not preach with profound words and high sounding ideas. (i.e. test all things (prove))

Position (3) in the original post does not quench the Spirit. Position (3) in the original post does not despise the "doctrine of Christ". (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) All other positions in the original post do quench the Spirit, and all other positions in the original post do despise the "doctrine of Christ". (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31)

In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
Last edited:
Exactly, why does man have to complicate things? (i.e. Translators bearing false witness by adding to the word of God (i.e. Exodus 12:6 - "sunset" EHV 2019))

God sent Jesus, the Messiah. (i.e. Matthew 16:16) Does one truly believe in the "doctrine of Christ"? (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) I do!

I believe that God sent the Apostle Paul. Does one believe that Christ died "according to the Scriptures"? (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Does one believe that the Spirit should not be quenched, and that prophecies should not be despised? (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) The Apostle Paul did not preach with profound words and high sounding ideas. (i.e. test all things (prove))

Position (3) in the original post does not quench the Spirit. Position (3) in the original post does not despise the "doctrine of Christ". (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31) All other positions in the original post do quench the Spirit, and all other positions in the original post do despise the "doctrine of Christ". (i.e. Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31)

In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
You are the one complicating things, not us!

You have yet to tell us where Jesus or the apostles say knowing and believing the correct time of day the Paschal lamb was killed for Jesus and His disciples to eat at Passover is necessary for salvation...why is that? Please do so now.
 
You are the one complicating things, not us!

You have yet to tell us where Jesus or the apostles say knowing and believing the correct time of day the Paschal lamb was killed for Jesus and His disciples to eat at Passover is necessary for salvation...why is that? Please do so now.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see whatever point you are attempting to make relative to the original post. One should realize that there is "zero tolerance" for teaching and preaching "false" doctrine within the Christian faith, "on earth" as in heaven. (i.e. Ephesians 5:11-13)

Don't you know that all Lutherans are bound by Scriptural authority (Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21), and by the Lutheran Confessions’ authority - not to make public or declare for truth, anything that cannot be properly proved with sufficient clear evidence. (i.e. Reference: The Book of Concord - The Large Catechism - The Ten Commandments - The Eighth Commandment - 254] 271] 272]; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)) Or was one taught in Bible Study just to lie to one another?

In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see whatever point you are attempting to make relative to the original post. One should realize that there is "zero tolerance" for teaching and preaching "false" doctrine within the Christian faith, "on earth" as in heaven. (i.e. Ephesians 5:11-13)

Don't you know that all Lutherans are bound by Scriptural authority (Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21), and by the Lutheran Confessions’ authority - not to make public or declare for truth, anything that cannot be properly proved with sufficient clear evidence. (i.e. Reference: The Book of Concord - The Large Catechism - The Ten Commandments - The Eighth Commandment - 254] 271] 272]; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)) Or was one taught in Bible Study just to lie to one another?

In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
You've received the Scriptural response, but you don't accept it. Why not? Your primary reason in post #375 is the mistaken belief that the Spirit is being quenched.

If the Spirit was being quenched then we wouldn't be turning you to Christ. In contrast to that you have sought to turn us away from Christ, turn us to things that Scripture doesn't say. Otherwise, you could and would readily answer Bonnie's questions.

If you rightfully believe God sent Paul then how does Romans 6, 7, and 8 figure into your thought?
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see whatever point you are attempting to make relative to the original post. One should realize that there is "zero tolerance" for teaching and preaching "false" doctrine within the Christian faith, "on earth" as in heaven. (i.e. Ephesians 5:11-13)

This post is just a diversionary tactic to get out of answering my very simple question. The time of day the paschal lamb was slaughtered is NOT DOCTRINE in our church. Why should it be, in the new and BETTER covenant in Jesus' blood, and not in the blood of animals? The OLD covenant has disappeared; it is null and void, fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ's sacrifice of Himself on Calvary's cross.
Don't you know that all Lutherans are bound by Scriptural authority (Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21), and by the Lutheran Confessions’ authority - not to make public or declare for truth, anything that cannot be properly proved with sufficient clear evidence. (i.e. Reference: The Book of Concord - The Large Catechism - The Ten Commandments - The Eighth Commandment - 254] 271] 272]; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)) Or was one taught in Bible Study just to lie to one another?

Don't you know that the time of day the Paschal lamb was slaughtered for Jesus and His disciples to eat that Sabbath meal is totally irrelevant when it comes to salvation? Don't you know that the old sacrificial system of animals has been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and is now null and void? That we are in the new and better covenant of grace, in the blood of the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world?

Again, kindly show me from the Bible, especially the NT, where either Jesus or His apostles taught that believing in the correct time of day the paschal lamb was slaughtered is necessary for eternal life. SHOW ME, Dave.
 
Last edited:
You've received the Scriptural response, but you don't accept it. Why not? Your primary reason in post #375 is the mistaken belief that the Spirit is being quenched.

If the Spirit was being quenched then we wouldn't be turning you to Christ. In contrast to that you have sought to turn us away from Christ, turn us to things that Scripture doesn't say. Otherwise, you could and would readily answer Bonnie's questions.

If you rightfully believe God sent Paul then how does Romans 6, 7, and 8 figure into your thought?

You've been given the Scriptural facts in the original post, but you refuse to accept them. You have also refused to answer the questions in the original post. Why?

In Christ’s service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top