What Is The Scriptural Definition for Evening, Sundown, And

[eriqbenel]

Arnold... the time spoken of as "night" in that verse is specifically midnight. Not evening. I thought I had made that clear.

Midnight (ishyon) is never evening (ereb). And certainly twilight (nesheph) would preclude midnight (ishyon), too.

As I have said before, you can't make crucial decisions of doctrine and understanding based on a translation. Not even based on MY translations, which will generally be somewhat better than those in the KJV (mainly because the KJV uses archaic terminology, and was translated by people who had a misunderstanding of basic tenets of Law and Doctrine). Really, if you want to teach about the truth - or even debate about, as you try here - you need to know the language the stuff was written in. Otherwise, you're in way over your head.

The only thing Arnold has said is that "nesheph" is always referring to "dark". Midnight is dark, isn't it? In fact, it is dark way before midnight, isn't it?

You can divide "dark" up into as many little sub-categories as you want, at the end of the day, these words always describe "dark".


Arnold has stated that how a word is to be understood must be determined by the context, and not by the mindset of today. Today, we don't think of "twilight" or "evening" the same way KJV translator may have thought of it. It is Joey who is resting his interpretation on contemporary understandings of 16th century vernacular.

So far, your "superior" understanding of the Hebrew and Greek languages haven't improved your literary interpretive skills. When interpreting Scripture, it is the CONTEXT that primarily determines how a word is to be understood.

[BrotherArnold]

Something to consider:

Jhn 20:1 ¶ The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

And later in the writing in regards to the same day:

Jhn 20:19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.

RESPONSE: the above is more conclusive proof that the day ends and begins at evening because the only possible way that they could have been in the dark on the first day of the week and then again on the same first day of the week at evening, is if the day began at evening/dark.


Jhn 20:1 ¶ "The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark,

Notice that it is dark and they are on the first day of the week and in verse 20:19 says, "Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews,

Notice the same day at evening was the end of the first day of the week i.e. the first day of the week at evening is always the 2nd day of the week, just like the sixth day of the week at evening is always the seventh day of the week and the 14th day of the month at evening is always the 15th day of the month and the 9th day of the month at evening is the 10th day of the month. This is the way they described time and I challenged anyone to give one scripture to prove otherwise.

Remember the seven days of unleavened bread, which begins on the 15th but the seven days are described as from the 14th day at evening until the 21st day at evening. i.e. the 14th day at evening is the beginning of the 15th day. The first day of unleavened bread began on the 14th day at evening and the second day of the week begins on the first day of the week at evening. Therefore the same day at evening in the above was referring to the end of the first day of the week and the beginning of the 2nd day of the week. It was the end of the same day that they came to the grave at dark. And unless someone can show where they calculated their days differently then they were in the dark when they came on the first day of the week and it went all the way through the light of the same first day of the week until evening.

Having this scriptural understanding of how they described the beginning of days, I could say they ate the Last Supper at night, on the day that the lambs are to be killed/14th and on the same day at evening was scripturally the first day of unleavened bread/15th.

[eriqbenel]

Let me try and help make Arnold's point a little clearer.

Something to consider:

Jhn 20:1 ¶ The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Consider this also, if it was "YET dark" (in other words still dark) ON the first day, that means all the DARK period up to that point was also the "first day".

If the day began at dawn, then the 2nd day of the week would have started as soon as it was "light", but as our sister has pointed out, it was still the SAME day later...

And later in the writing in regards to the same day:

Jhn 20:19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.

The Greek is different than the Hebrew. That may be where the confusion is... Evening in this case IS the "same day".

The Greek language holds the key to accurate understanding. The word "evening" is "opsios" (SEC 3798), which is, "late in the day" "afternoon" or "nightfall".

Now if we understand how this Greek word is used in this context, we know that "evening" is "late in the day" or "afternoon".

So if the day began at dawn, why would "afternoon" be called "late" if there is still 12 plus hours to go? It wouldn't.

The reason "evening" here is "late", is because as soon as it got dark, a new day began.

[kathybyers2000]

Okay, so do you understand that evening is afternoon (the sun is still in the sky - aka DAY) or do you understand that evening is night (the sun is no longer in the sky - aka NIGHT?

And also are there two evenings to every day. The evening starts the day and then a second evening to end the day

evening 1
night 1
morning 1
day 1
evening 2 -- every 24 hour period?

And if this be so, then why not inform us in the beginning to assign two evenings to the dividing of time in order to properly count the days.

or do you believe that evening is NIGHT only and that any time with light in it is day?

And if this be so, then why do you understand that YHWH recorded different terms for these divisions of time? why not just leave it, day and night? Why add morning and evening?

I'm sorry for all the questions, but after the above response, I do not see what you all understand. It made absolutely no sense what you were stating in regards to the morning (still dark - yet not called night) of the first day PREceding the EVENING of the first day (still not called night).

Shalom,

Kathy

[BrotherArnold]

Shalom Sister Kathy,

Notice the following closely which proves that in Genesis the EVENING of the 24 hr day, came BEFORE the sunrise/morning.

1In the beginning YHWH created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth WAS without form, and void; and darkness WAS upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of YHWH moved upon the face of the waters.

Notice that when heaven and earth was created it BECAME three things, it became WITHOUT FORM and VOID with DARKNESS upon the face of the deep.

3And YHWH said, Let there be LIGHT: and there was light. 4And YHWH saw the light, that it was good: and YHWH divided THE LIGHT from THE DARKNESS.


Notice the DARKNESS that the light is divided FROM is the darkness that was here BEFORE the light, not some future darkness as some suggest. It is the only darkness that is mentioned up unto this point. This is an absolute.

5And YHWH CALLED the light DAY, and the DARKNESS he called Night. And the EVENING and the MORNING were the first day. (24hr period)

Notice that the darkness that he CALLED NIGHT is the "SAME" DARKNESS that was here "BEFORE" the light that he CALLED DAY and "That" darkness was called "NIGHT. Therefore it became night BEFORE it became light, in the day that YHWH created the heavens and earth and the process is repeated up unto this day in which we live. And when Moses is giving the account of creation and looking back and says it BECAME evening and it became morning day one, he is referring to the evening darkness that came before the light came, not some darkness that came after the light.
In order to get a sunrise to sunrise day, you must "Ignore" the DARKNESS that he called NIGHT and refuse to believe that it was here BEFORE the light because it is VITAL to the sunrise theory. They have to deny the darkness that was here before He said let there be light and say it WAS NOT part of the first day. But they are so many Scriptures that disprove the sunrise theory, as all the above.

You ask, "Why not just leave it, day and night? Why add morning and evening?

RESPONSE; after separating the light from the darkness He named the light day and named the darkness night, and these were two separate units of time of 12 hours each but when He says the evening and the morning were the first day, He combines them both into one unit of time of 24 hours. People recognize the 12 hour day but refuse to recognize the Broader definition of the day of 24 hours.

The sunrise proponents has TWO endings of the 24 hour day, one sun set/evening and another ending at sunrise/morning. We believe the 12 hour day and the 24 hour day both ended at evening/sundown and by default another 24 hour period begins. Evening always ends the day but sunrise or morning never ends the day. There's no scripture where a day ever ended at sunrise.

You ask about how many evenings. I believe originally there's only one scriptural evening and that is the one that ends the day and it still exists. As time went on and man wanted to be more specific for purposes of meetings etc., they came out which such terms as midday, midnight, twilight, noon, between the evenings before sunup (Exodus 16), between the evenings at the going down of the sun (Deuteronomy 16) etc. this way people would not have to wait on someone all day or all night because they could be more specific with their appointments, and by the time of the New Testament they were using hours that would fluctuate and now we have minutes and seconds. At least this is the way I see it for now.

Hope this helps

[kathybyers2000]

Shalom Bro. Arnold.

I understand somewhat, but am still wondering what you do regarding this statement:

Shalom Sister Kathy,

Notice the following closely which proves that in Genesis the EVENING of the 24 hr day, came BEFORE the sunrise/morning.

1In the beginning YHWH created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth WAS without form, and void; and darkness WAS upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of YHWH moved upon the face of the waters.

Notice that when heaven and earth was created it BECAME three things, it became WITHOUT FORM and VOID with DARKNESS upon the face of the deep.

So, it BECAME darkness. Doesn't this indicate that there was light before the darkness came to be?

Shalom,

Kathy

[JMSchattke]

Technically, I'm not a "sunrise to sunrise" proponent.
I propose a day is a day - the time from dawn to sundown.
Later, they came to reckon the day from the end of the previous day - that is, after sundown the night before the day. Mainly because people were starting o make appointments and such.

Originally, the Holy Days were just the day - the night wasn't even considered, and so the important night-time events were specified as from the previous evening - see the passage on the Day of Atonement.

[ErichMatthewJanzen]

Shalom, All,

I agree with Bro. Arnold that "twilight" in Proverbs 7:9 is in reference to darkness. Anyone who just reads the context of Proverbs 7:9 as well as the translation in Greek Septuagint should see this.

Here are a few other places where the Hebrew word nesheph (translated twilight) definitely means night:

1.) Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night (nesheph), till wine inflame them! [Isaiah 5:11]

2.) My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me: the night (nesheph) of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me. [Isaiah 21:4]

3.) We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night (nesheph); we are in desolate places as dead men. [Isaiah 59:10]

Notice in this third example that nesheph is likened to a blind man. Obviously a man with "no eyes" (blind) only sees darkness.

It does appear, however, that this Hebrew word has a secondary meaning in reference to early morning.

1.) When I lie down, I say, When shall I arise, and the night be gone? and I am full of tossings to and fro unto the dawning of the day (nesheph). [Job 7:4]

Here the words "dawning of the day" are taken from the same Hebrew word (nesheph) that is often translated as "twilight". Also take note that the word ereb here (translated night) is a reference to the entire night of sleeping.

2.) I prevented the dawning of the morning (nesheph), and cried: I hoped in thy word. [Psalm 119:147]

Here again the word usually translated "twilight" is translated as "dawning of the morning". It seems that the Hebrew word nesheph has two meanings, and the meaning of the word is dependent upon the context in which it is used.

Matthew Janzen

[Watchman555]

John 20:1:
And on the first day of the week Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

Mark 16:1-2:
And when the Sabbath was past, Miryam from Magdala, and Miryam the mother of Ya'aqob, and Shelomah bought spices, to go and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen

Under natural circumstances, if the sun had risen it could not still be dark. This is a contradiction. If we notice in John if you move the comma it says:

"...Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been removed."

Therefore, I can only conclude, in the time line Miryam from Magdala traveled while it was yet dark and by the time she got to the tomb, the sun had risen.

This is my current understanding.

Just a thought,

~Greg

[BrotherArnold]

John 20:1:
And on the first day of the week Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

Mark 16:1-2:
And when the Sabbath was past, Miryam from Magdala, and Miryam the mother of Ya'aqob, and Shelomah bought spices, to go and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen

Under natural circumstances, if the sun had risen it could not still be dark. This is a contradiction. If we notice in John if you move the comma it says:

"...Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been removed."

Therefore, I can only conclude, in the time line Miryam from Magdala traveled while it was yet dark and by the time she got to the tomb, the sun had risen.

This is my current understanding.

Just a thought,

~Greg

RESPONSE; If the Sabbath is not over until morning, how could they have bought the sweet spices on the first day of the week after the Sabbath had passed and have the sweet spices with them when they arrived very early in the morning, one places says while it was still dark, unless the Sabbath had passed at night, before morning? This embarrassment goes away with the evening to evening proponents. If the Sabbath did not pass until morning, according to the morning to morning proponents, they have serious problems.

How could they have bought sweet spices and had the sweet spices with them, along with the others spices that they had prepared before the Sabbath, unless the first day of the week had already began at evening, and that's when they bought the sweet spices?
There is no way they could have bought the sweet spices after the Sabbath had passed if the Sabbath did not pass until morning because when they got there with them early in the morning He had already risen ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE WEEK instead of the THIRD day according to the morning to morning proponents. Morning to morning and dawn to dawn and sunrise to sunrise proponents cannot possibly have a third day resurrection and one the signs that he was the true Messiah is that he would rise the THIRD DAY.

Brother Arnold

[eriqbenel]

John 20:1:
And on the first day of the week Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

Mark 16:1-2:
And when the Sabbath was past, Miryam from Magdala, and Miryam the mother of Ya'aqob, and Shelomah bought spices, to go and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen

Under natural circumstances, if the sun had risen it could not still be dark. This is a contradiction. If we notice in John if you move the comma it says:

"...Miryam from Magdala came early to the tomb while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been removed."

Therefore, I can only conclude, in the time line Miryam from Magdala traveled while it was yet dark and by the time she got to the tomb, the sun had risen.

This is my current understanding.

Just a thought,

~Greg

With all due respect my dear Brother,

Moving commas and changing around sentences is a very dangerous way to study Scripture. I can create any understanding I want by doing this.

20:1 The first day of the week cometh Miriam Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


How about this:

The first of the week came Miriam Magdalene unto the sepulcher early, and saw the stone when it was yet dark, taken away from the sepulcher.


By reading it this way, moving commas and rearranging the sentence, I can conclude that it was THE STONE that was dark!

But even if you are correct Brother Greg, it still wouldn't negate the fact that the "traveling" occurred ON the first day of the week, while it was DARK. And that verse 19 still says it was the SAME DAY, later on. So, either way, the darkness of the day came first.

[BrotherArnold]

Technically, I'm not a "sunrise to sunrise" proponent.
I propose a day is a day - the time from dawn to sundown.
Later, they came to reckon the day from the end of the previous day - that is, after sundown the night before the day. Mainly because people were starting o make appointments and such.

Originally, the Holy Days were just the day - the night wasn't even considered, and so the important night-time events were specified as from the previous evening - see the passage on the Day of Atonement.

How do you technically explain Matthew 28:1-6 where it says in the END of the Sabbath as it BEGAN to DAWN TOWARD the first day of the week, came mary Magdalene and the other mary to see the sepulchre...." and then the angel told them that He is not here, He is risen?

The evening to evening proponents would say that as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week is speaking of the day light part of the first day of the week, i.e. about to get light.

How would you explain the sweet spices that they had with them which they had bought after the Sabbath had passed, without creating another Sabbath?

According to 28:1 as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, your first day of the week has not arrived yet and you are in the end of the Sabbath which would be very tough to explain how they had bought the spices after the Sabbath was passed.

Brother Arnold

[JMSchattke]

Technically, I'm not a "sunrise to sunrise" proponent.
I propose a day is a day - the time from dawn to sundown.
Later, they came to reckon the day from the end of the previous day - that is, after sundown the night before the day. Mainly because people were starting o make appointments and such.

Originally, the Holy Days were just the day - the night wasn't even considered, and so the important night-time events were specified as from the previous evening - see the passage on the Day of Atonement.

How do you technically explain Matthew 28:1-6 where it says in the END of the Sabbath as it BEGAN to DAWN TOWARD the first day of the week, came mary Magdalene and the other mary to see the sepulchre...." and then the angel told them that He is not here, He is risen?

The evening to evening proponents would say that as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week is speaking of the day light part of the first day of the week, i.e. about to get light.

How would you explain the sweet spices that they had with them which they had bought after the Sabbath had passed, without creating another Sabbath?

According to 28:1 as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, your first day of the week has not arrived yet and you are in the end of the Sabbath which would be very tough to explain how they had bought the spices after the Sabbath was passed.

Because the KJV is badly translated.
The Scriptures: Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first day of the week, Miryam from Maḡdala and the other Miryam came to see the tomb.
Mat 28:1 ᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββαÌ?των, τῇ ἐπιφωσκουÌ?σῃ εἰς μιÌ?αν σαββαÌ?των, ἦλθε ΜαÏ?ὶα ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη ΜαÏ?ιÌ?α θεωÏ?ῆσαι τὸν ταÌ?φον.

᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββαÌ?των is literally "after the end of the Sabbath"
G3796
ὀψεÌ?
opse
op-seh\'
From the same as G3694 (through the idea of backwardness); (adverbially) late in the day; by extension after the close of the day: - (at) even, in the end.

τῇ ἐπιφωσκουÌ?σῃ εἰς μιÌ?αν σαββαÌ?των is literally "at the pre-dawn on first after sabbath"
G2020
ἐπιφωÌ?σκω
epiphōskō
ep-ee-foce\'-ko
A form of G2017; to begin to grow light: - begin to dawn, X draw on.

[eriqbenel]

Because the KJV is badly translated.
The Scriptures: Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first day of the week, Miryam from Maḡdala and the other Miryam came to see the tomb.
Mat 28:1 ᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββαÌ.....

This is not an answer to the question..

Why don't we all just throw out our Scriptures and wait for Jonathan's version to be published. Since we can't believe anything it says.


_________________

It is such a lame excuse to constantly blame the "translators" when one has no Scriptural defense for a belief.

Jonathan can say whatever he wants about the translation, but we have hundreds of Scriptures that conclusively prove the day cannot possibly begin at dawn. So either the ENTIRE KJV is "badly translated" or Jonathan is wrong.

Which seems more likely? Hmmmm.....


I'm starting to get Jonathan and Joey mixed up. These two are definitely cut from the same mold

[BrotherArnold]

Technically, I'm not a "sunrise to sunrise" proponent.
I propose a day is a day - the time from dawn to sundown.
Later, they came to reckon the day from the end of the previous day - that is, after sundown the night before the day. Mainly because people were starting o make appointments and such.

Originally, the Holy Days were just the day - the night wasn't even considered, and so the important night-time events were specified as from the previous evening - see the passage on the Day of Atonement.

How do you technically explain Matthew 28:1-6 where it says in the END of the Sabbath as it BEGAN to DAWN TOWARD the first day of the week, came mary Magdalene and the other mary to see the sepulchre...." and then the angel told them that He is not here, He is risen?

The evening to evening proponents would say that as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week is speaking of the day light part of the first day of the week, i.e. about to get light.

How would you explain the sweet spices that they had with them which they had bought after the Sabbath had passed, without creating another Sabbath?

According to 28:1 as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, your first day of the week has not arrived yet and you are in the end of the Sabbath which would be very tough to explain how they had bought the spices after the Sabbath was passed.

Because the KJV is badly translated.
The Scriptures: Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first day of the week, Miryam from Maḡdala and the other Miryam came to see the tomb.
Mat 28:1 ᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββαÌ?των, τῇ ἐπιφωσκουÌ?σῃ εἰς μιÌ?αν σαββαÌ?των, ἦλθε ΜαÏ?ὶα ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη ΜαÏ?ιÌ?α θεωÏ?ῆσαι τὸν ταÌ?φον.

᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββαÌ?των is literally "after the end of the Sabbath"
G3796
ὀψεÌ?
opse
op-seh\'
From the same as G3694 (through the idea of backwardness); (adverbially) late in the day; by extension after the close of the day: - (at) even, in the end.

τῇ ἐπιφωσκουÌ?σῃ εἰς μιÌ?αν σαββαÌ?των is literally "at the pre-dawn on first after sabbath"
G2020
ἐπιφωÌ?σκω
epiphōskō
ep-ee-foce\'-ko
A form of G2017; to begin to grow light: - begin to dawn, X draw on.[/quote:0569eeea17]


RESPONSE; I am a bit confused, at what time are you saying that the Sabbath was over and when did they buy the spices?


If τῇ ἐπιφωσκουÌ?σῃ εἰς μιÌ?αν σαββαÌ?των is literally "at the pre-dawn on first after sabbath", would not pre-dawn on first (Day) after sabbath prove that the first day began BEFORE dawn?

And if on the first day of the week was referring to A form of G2017; to begin to grow light: - begin to dawn, X draw on, would it not prove the same thing as above, i.e. on the first (Day) as it began to grow light or begin to dawn. Remember it was after the seventh day, some where on the first day, BEFORE light/dawn that it began to grow light.

This begs the question, when could they have bought spices if the Sabbath did not end until dawn?