Unlocking the Convert's Heart

Initially this seemed like an easy task, for the primary reason my Presbyterian heart was turned toward home was because the truthfulness of the Catholic Church was proved to me through the study of Scripture. Books upon books upon tapes upon CD s reiterate the sound biblical footing of our Catholic faith. Regardless, I encountered difficulties as I thought of my perceived audience.

First, I remembered that from which I came and the hoards of anti-Catholics who believe there is no biblical defense of Catholicism. They believe the Bible is their book and that if it defends anything, it defends their theological platforms. If this were true, my talk would have been very short and this article over.

But this isn’t true. The Bible is not their book. It exists today first because of the grace of God, but secondarily because of the Catholic bishops, priests, monks, and laity who preserved, protected, copied, and venerated the canon of inspired books we now call the Bible. The entire biblical canon from Genesis to Revelation is a defense of the Catholic Church. From this standpoint, one talk or brief article merely scratches the surface.

Second, I remembered the many people who have been so swayed by the opinions of biblical critics that any biblical defense of the faith is useless, for the Bible to them is at best a collection of myths and fables. Again, this makes for a short presentation.

Third, I remembered the many lifelong Catholics who believe a biblical defense of their faith is unnecessary. From birth and baptism they have believed it all, and though they greatly revere the Scriptures, they need no proof. Yet, I know from personal experience where this attitude leads: Thirty percent of my Protestant youth groups and churches were made up of ex-Catholics who could not defend their faith against our biblical onslaught. Eventually they not only became convinced that the Bible defended Protestantism, but that they had been saved from "the whore of Babylon." It is very important, especially in this day of high-tech Internet evangelization, that Catholics rediscover the biblical defense of their faith.

But there was a fourth difficulty. As in sports, there is no one simple defense against all attacks. For example, in football the defense changes with each play to address the changing offense. So with the defense of our faith, the challenges are as varied as Protestantism itself. The verses that might unlock a Presbyterian’s heart are radically different than those that might convince a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Pentecostal or Methodist or a Mormon. You get the idea.

So where does one begin? How does a Catholic use the Word of God to unlock the heart of a friend or family member outside the faith? My approach is what I call "The Verses I Never Saw." This is what sparked my own conversion, as well as those of hundreds of others we have worked with through the Coming Home Network International.

Not unlike any average Evangelical Protestant minister, I loved my Lord Jesus Christ, I was committed to proclaiming and following His truth with abandon, and I believed in sola scriptura — that the Bible was the one inspired, infallible "firm foundation" of my life and faith. I also believed that I knew the Bible very well, from cover to cover, and that it held no surprises that could shatter my Protestant faith.

Then a long-lost seminary classmate introduced me to the first "verse I never saw." Scott Hahn pulled the same trick on me that someone had once pulled on him. He asked me, "What is the pillar and bulwark of your faith?"

"But what does the Bible specifically say is ‘the pillar and bulwark of faith’?"

I was puzzled. I could not remember any place where this specific phrase was found in Scripture.

"Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3:14-15, then," he said. Now, I had studied and taught through 1 Timothy many times and expected no surprises, so I read aloud without hesitation, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

For a second, I wondered whether someone had somehow secretly inserted that never-before-noticed text into my Bible! The apostle Paul tells Timothy that the pillar and bulwark of the truth is somehow the Church. I had no mental file folder for this idea. As a Calvinist, I believed that the Church was an invisible fellowship of all true believers, not identifiable with any one institutional communion. How could this invisible, universal hodgepodge of opinions be the "pillar and bulwark" of anything? And could my Presbyterian denomination qualify as this trustworthy foundation for truth? Hardly — nor in my opinion could any other denomination I knew. So, what did Paul mean by "church"? This verse left me weak in the knees, not yet leaning toward Catholicism, but shaken in my confidence in sola scriptura.

Then I discovered another "verse I never saw": 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Oh, I had seen this verse before, but what I had not noticed before was that the traditions — or "teachings," as my Protestant Bible had translated this term — that Paul insisted the Thessalonian believers follow and adhere to were not merely the written documents that would one day make up the New Testament, but also oral traditions.

In fact, as I re-examined all of Paul’s letters, several things became very clear: First, Paul’s normal, preferred way of passing on the faith was through preaching and teaching; second, the only reason we have any letters at all was because he could not get to the people in person; and third, what he taught in his letters presumed upon the knowledge they had already received from him in person — much of which is never recorded in any New Testament document!

Then a third "verse I never saw" raised its ugly head: 2 Timothy 3:14-17, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

I was certainly quite aware of this text, for it was upon the second half of this text that I taught and defended sola scripura. Whenever I quoted this text, I would hold up the Bible as the presumed equivalent of what Paul meant by "all Scripture." What I had not previously considered, however (already a bit wobbly from the first two surprise verses), was whether this was an accurate representation of what Paul understood as "Scripture." When he wrote this letter, the New Testament was not even entirely written, let alone collected into a book. The canon of Scripture would not be finalized for another 300-plus years by gatherings of Catholic bishops at the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. This meant that Paul could only have been referring to the Old Testament! Did I believe that only the Old Testament was "inspired by God and profitable for teaching"? No, of course not. So this verse not only did not teach sola scriptura, but the first half again taught the importance of oral tradition.

A fourth "verse I never saw" was John 14:26, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Coupled with John 16:13 — "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" — this verse made me painfully aware of a contradiction in my life and ministry.

These verses emphasize how the Holy Spirit will teach the followers of Christ so that they know and remember all that Jesus taught to be true. So what happened? Why was there so much confusion and contradiction between those who love Jesus, who have received the Holy Spirit, and who diligently study His inspired, infallible Bible? What I had not seen in these very familiar verses is that Jesus was not implying that every Christian throughout all time would have this guaranteed knowledge of the truth: He was speaking primarily to His hand-chosen Apostles! They would be the ones to receive this special gift of the Holy Spirit to give them a special infused knowledge and wisdom so that they could initiate and lead the Church in truth. All Christians would receive the Holy Spirit (through Baptism) at differing levels according to the gifting of God (cf. Eph. 4:7, 11–14).

In time, a fifth "verse I never saw" crept up on me: John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

So where was this unity, especially among faithful Christians who accepted the Bible as the Word of God yet could not agree on what it said? In this prayer, Jesus was praying specifically for His Apostles, upon whom He would build His Church, and Scripture teaches that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). In other words, unity is something that therefore must already exist, but where and how?

The sixth "verse I never saw" startled me in a familiar spot. My favorite, most-preached-upon portion of Scripture was the familiar metaphor of the vine and the branches. I especially emphasized to my congregations the truth of John 15:4, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me."

For years I had given my interpretation of what it meant to "abide in" Jesus and how He abides in us, but as far as I knew, there was no place where He specifically defines what this meant . . . until a friend drew my attention back to John 6:56, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Whoa! Jesus abides in His followers and we abide in Him not just through our diligent obedience but through partaking of Him in the Eucharist! Again, as a Presbyterian, I had no mental file folder for this.

The seventh "verse I never saw" was another one that I preached on often and assumed I had an adequate response to for any Catholic apologist: Matthew 16:17–19, "And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’"

There’s much to discuss here, but in short I had always assumed that pointing to the original Greek undercut any Catholic proof for Petrine authority. The Greek word here for Peter is Petros, which can mean "pebble" whereas the word for rock is petra, which means "large boulder." Like so many other Protestant pastors, I explained that Jesus was obviously not building His Church on this "pebble" called Simon Peter but upon the faith he had been given from God the Father.

But then someone pointed out what was truly obvious: Jesus didn’t speak Greek; He spoke Aramaic, and in both cases He would have used the same word, Kepha: "Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." The differences in the Greek arose from the translators changing a feminine noun into a masculine name.

These are only seven of the many "verses I never saw" that opened this convert’s heart to the Catholic Church. Are these verses "silver bullets"? Are they the guaranteed keys to unlock the mind and heart of any non-Catholic friend or relative? No, I’m afraid not. I know many faithful non-Catholics who see these verses and others, who know all the Catholic answers to them, yet are far from ready to come home. Few conversions come about primarily through biblical proof texts and arguments, though these texts can be used by the Holy Spirit. All conversions come about by grace, and so the most important thing we can do to unlock the hearts of potential converts is to pray for them and love them.

So why learn these verses? For this we need to take some advice from the airlines. Whenever we fly, what does the flight attendant tell us to do in the event of a loss of air pressure? Are we to first put the air mask on our children or on ourselves? Ourselves. We cannot adequately help anyone unless we first take care of ourselves. We need to know our faith and why we believe what we do, and we especially need to know the wonderful truths of the Bible so we can pass them on to others. But in all cases, the first heart that always needs to be unlocked by the Bible is our own.

Marcus Grodi. "Unlocking the Convert's Heart: The Bible as a Key to Conversion." Lay Witness (July/August, 2007).

Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.

Diego has throughly hashed this out from a scriptural standpoint a number of times in this forum. Perhaps he still has a link to one of his posts?

Aw....let's just make a new one.....LOL! It's one of my favorite subjects.....and so misunderstood by the Main Stream Church....I can always make time for this!

NYer:"Can you still answer this question. "In various passages of Scripture, the Lord restates all of the Decalogue except for one commandment. Which commandment did he not restate?"

One of the first things I came to realize in my walk with God is that the New does not cancel the Old. Jesus did not walk around telling everyone He was not killing anybody. He did not call to anyone's attention He was not stealing anything. He did not have to remind folks He was not fooling around with someone else's wife......they could all see these things to be self evident. They could also see Him honoring the Sabbath weekly.

Our Lord was the spokesman of the Old Testament [John 1:1]. 3056. logos (log'-os)something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ): And [John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The Sabbaths commands are repeated numerous times in the Old Testament (Christ is the Spokesman)....never repealed in the New. The fact that Our Lord does not mention the Sabbath command in the New does not detract from the fact He continues to Observe it weekly. If His teaching had included a discontinuance of the Sabbath observance don't you think the women would have known about it here [Luke 24:56]? And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

NYer: The Gospels report that Jesus observed the Sabbath, there are even several incidents where he is accused of violating Sabbath law (Jn. 9:16, Jn 7:23, Mk. 3:4)

All of these instances were thought to be Sabbath breaking by the Pharisees. In fact....what they were was...breaking of "Talmudic" Jewish Law. Douglas pointed this out quite succinctly.

As I touched on briefly in post #83 was the misunderstanding of the Hebrew term "First of the Sabbaths." Let me go into it a little deeper here and folks may begin to understand why this cannot possibly be translated "first day of the week." The word for the seven weekly Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost [Leviticus 23:15-16] is Shabbaton (A Special Sabbath) which is a Hebrew word. The Greeks had no word for Sabbath....not surprising! Consequently they (New Testament Writers) used this spelling....in Greek to denote the specific Sabbath of the resurrection (Sabbatwn). Every time you see this spelling in the Greek it means the first Saturday after Passover. The first Saturday after Passover was indeed the first Saturday of the seven Saturday count to Pentecost and that is why the literal translation of the Greek is "First of the Sabbaths."

Young's Literal Translation: [Matthew 28:1] And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

[Luke 24:1] And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others] with them.

[John 20:1] 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.

To a first century Jew living in Judea this terminology meant......the first Sabbath (weekly) in the seven Sabbath count to Pentecost.

Look at this! [Luke 6:1] And it came to pass, on the second-first sabbath, as he is going through the corn fields, that his disciples were plucking the ears, and were eating, rubbing with the hands. Jesus here....is traveling on the second Sabbath (Same word "Sabbatwn") between Passover and Pentecost. Anytime there was a special Sabbath....this word was used.

When early heresies (Sunday resurrection) crept into the Church they embedded themselves because many converts were recently from Paganism and Sun Worship was the main theme of this form of idolatry. It was natural for folks to want to continue doing what they had been doing and the Church saw the advantage in allowing this to happen! More converts!

To follow Gods commandments or Caesars Hadrians. I hope that's not a difficult choice.

From a long distance, Bob, relaxing before the computer in your home in the year 2007, that is a painless comment to make. We were not alive then and can only begin to imagine the suffering of the Jews and first Christians. when that edict was issued. They did not cave, as we know from the testimonies of the first martyrs.

For Trajan, in the ninth year of his reign, being lifted up [with pride], after the victory he had gained over the Scythians and Dacians, and many other nations, and thinking that the religious body of the Christians were yet wanting to complete the subjugation of all things to himself, and [thereupon] threatening them with persecution unless they should agree to worship dæmons, as did all other nations, thus compelled all who were living godly lives either to sacrifice [to idols] or die. Wherefore the noble soldier of Christ [Ignatius], being in fear for the Church of the Antiochians, was, in accordance with his own desire, brought before Trajan, who was at that time staying at Antioch, but was in haste [to set forth] against Armenia and the Parthians. And when he was set before the Emperor Trajan, [that prince] said unto him, "Who are you, wicked wretch, who settest yourself to transgress our commands, and persuadest others to do the same, so that they should miserably perish?" Ignatius replied, "No one ought to call Theophorus wicked; for all evil spirits have departed from the servants of God. But if, because I am an enemy to these [spirits], you call me wicked in respect to them, I quite agree with you; for inasmuch as I have Christ the King of heaven [within me], I destroy all the devices of these [evil spirits]." Trajan answered, "And who is Theophorus?" Ignatius replied, "He who has Christ within his breast." Trajan said, "Do we not then seem to you to have the gods in our mind, whose assistance we enjoy in fighting against our enemies?" Ignatius answered, "You are in error when you call the dæmons of the nations gods. For there is but one God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whose kingdom may I enjoy." Trajan said, "Do you mean Him who was crucified under Pontius Pilate?" Ignatius replied, "I mean Him who crucified my sin, with him who was the inventor of it, and who has condemned [and cast down] all the deceit and malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry Him in their heart." Trajan said, "Do you then carry within you Him that was crucified?" Ignatius replied, "Truly so; for it is written, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them.' " 2 Corinthians 6:16 Then Trajan pronounced sentence as follows: "We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people." When the holy martyr heard this sentence, he cried out with joy, "I thank you, O Lord, that You have vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love towards You, and hast made me to be bound with iron chains, like Your Apostle Paul." Having spoken thus, he then, with delight, clasped the chains about him; and when he had first prayed for the Church, and commended it with tears to the Lord, he was hurried away by the savage cruelty of the soldiers, like a distinguished ram the leader of a goodly flock, that he might be carried to Rome, there to furnish food to the bloodthirsty beasts.

(Emphasis mine)

But Ignatius was gratified at this sentence and used the time needed to travel as a prisoner, from Antioch to Rome, to inspire the bishops of the Churches he passed along the way. After a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Being then brought to him, and having communicated to him some spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated of him to labour along with him for the fulfilment of his desire; earnestly indeed asking this of the whole Church (for the cities and Churches of Asia had welcomed the holy man through their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, all hastening to meet him, if by any means they might receive from him some spiritual gift), but above all, the holy Polycarp, that, by means of the wild beasts, he soon disappearing from this world, might be manifested before the face of Christ.

Having therefore, by means of this Epistle, settled, as he wished, those of the brethren at Rome who were unwilling [for his martyrdom]; and setting sail from Smyrna (for Christophorus was pressed by the soldiers to hasten to the public spectacles in the mighty [city] Rome, that, being given up to the wild beasts in the sight of the Roman people, he might attain to the crown for which he strove), he [next] landed at Troas. Then, going on from that place to Neapolis, he went [on foot] by Philippi through Macedonia, and on to that part of Epirus which is near Epidamnus; and finding a ship in one of the seaports, he sailed over the Adriatic Sea, and entering from it on the Tyrrhene, he passed by the various islands and cities, until, when Puteoli came in sight, he was eager there to disembark, having a desire to tread in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul. Acts 28:13-14 But a violent wind arising did not allow him to do so, the ship being driven rapidly forwards; and, simply expressing his delight over the love of the brethren in that place, he sailed by. Wherefore, continuing to enjoy fair winds, we were reluctantly hurried on in one day and a night, mourning [as we did] over the coming departure from us of this righteous man. But to him this happened just as he wished, since he was in haste as soon as possible to leave this world, that he might attain to the Lord whom he loved. Sailing then into the Roman harbour, and the unhallowed sports being just about to close, the soldiers began to be annoyed at our slowness, but the bishop rejoicingly yielded to their urgency. They pushed forth therefore from the place which is called Portus; and (the fame of all relating to the holy martyr being already spread abroad) we met the brethren full of fear and joy; rejoicing indeed because they were thought worthy to meet with Theophorus, but struck with fear because so eminent a man was being led to death. Now he enjoined some to keep silence who, in their fervent zeal, were saying that they would appease the people, so that they should not demand the destruction of this just one. He being immediately aware of this through the Spirit, and having saluted them all, and begged of them to show a true affection towards him, and having dwelt [on this point] at greater length than in his Epistle, and having persuaded them not to envy him hastening to the Lord, he then, after he had, with all the brethren kneeling [beside him], entreated the Son of God in behalf of the Churches, that a stop might be put to the persecution, and that mutual love might continue among the brethren, was led with all haste into the amphitheatre. Then, being immediately thrown in, according to the command of Cæsar given some time ago, the public spectacles being just about to close (for it was then a solemn day, as they deemed it, being that which is called the thirteenth in the Roman tongue, on which the people were wont to assemble in more than ordinary numbers), he was thus cast to the wild beasts close beside the temple, that so by them the desire of the holy martyr Ignatius should be fulfilled, according to that which is written, "The desire of the righteous is acceptable Proverbs 10:24 [to God]," to the effect that he might not be troublesome to any of the brethren by the gathering of his remains, even as he had in his Epistle expressed a wish beforehand that so his end might be. For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr.

The Martyrdom of Ignatius

Don't know about you, but I have spent many hours reflecting on the strength of faith of these first Christians who refused to buckle and deny Jesus. These were not disciples of the Lord but the first generation of pagan converts. They sought Truth in a world filled with decipt and lies. They heard the Word spoken by the Apostles and believed - with no pocket sized New Testament for reference. Like Ignatius, some were thrown to the lions at the Coliseum, for entertainment. Ironically, those gathered for "the games" were surprised to witness these Christians enter the Coliseum, singing celebratory hymns. These martyrs included entire families - husbands, wives and their children - fed to the beasts or covered with pitch and turned into living torches to illuminate the stadium.

Such strength of faith in a foreign-born God they never met and only knew through oral Tradition. I often wonder how many 'Christians' today, who have listened to their pastors and priests, would lay down their lives in such a manner.

Green seems to have misunderstood the Greek prōi (πρωΐ́) which shows it was early in the morning, or at dawn. (The Jewish Holy day ran from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown; so they would be talking about dawn on Sunday there.)

4404. proi (pro-ee')at dawn; by implication, the day-break watch, early (in the morning), (in the) morning. This is translated incorrectly because of theological error and tradition.

Here is the problem. The women come to the tomb late in the afternoon...at sundown...the end of the Sabbath. The fact that we begin our days at mid night leads to the confusion. The best place to see what the time was is in [Luke 23:54] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. The fact that the Sabbath was beginning indicates that the time of burial is late afternoon/early evening....at sundown. The word in the Greek for "drew on" is "Epiphosko". The meaning is clear. The Sabbath is about to begin and it is sundown. The only other place in scripture this word appears is [Matthew 28:1] where the modern English translations mostly all say: "as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week."

Well.....from my previous post we now all know this is error....tradition, but error. Epiphosko simply means: #2020. epiphosko (ep-ee-foce'-ko)begin to dawn, X draw on. For something to begin....something else has to end. In this case it is the Sabbath that is ending and the New day is about to begin....at sundown. [Matthew 28:6] verifies that He is already risen! The new day is dawning, not sunrise....but sunset. The Hebrews began their days at sunset. Everyone knows this....so Epiphosko in [Matthew 28:1] means the Dawning of the new day the same way it is used in [Luke 23:54].....and the only other place in scripture this word "Epiphosko" is used!

As I said before....the Church had an agenda to show a Sunday morning resurrection and for the last 1700+ years have attempted to do just that. It is not difficult to understand why.

For what it's worth, there's a relatively easy way to determine if "first of the sabbaths" meant literally a sabbath or just the first day of any old "week". Or whether the greek of the new testament was trying to convey "sabbaths" or "weeks".

There is a greek word for "week", but it's not "sabbaton". It's ἕβδομα. This can be easily verified by going to this link and seeing that yes indeed, that's the word.

It's ἕβδομα, not σαββατων.

Now you can verify that greeks surely did know the difference between a "week" and a "sabbath" and used the words differently.

Look at Exodus 34:22:

Exo 34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Note the word "weeks". In hebrew, it means literally "sevens".

Now look at Exodus 20:8:

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

"Sabbath" is literally "intermission", "rest" or THE sabbath in hebrew.

Now it gets interesting. Look at both these verses in the LXX, or Septuagint. The Septuagint is a old greek version of the old testament.

Exodus 34:22 in Septuagint

και εορτην εβδομαδων ποιησεις μοι αρχην θερισμου πυρων και εορτην συναγωγης μεσουντος του ενιαυτου

Note the word in red. It's a form of the greek word found in our translator for "week".

Look at Exodus 20:8 in the Septuagint:

8 μνησθητι την ημεραν των σαββατων αγιαζειν αυτην

Not the same word. But in fact the red word above is the word (or a form of) the word translated variously as "week" or "sabbaths" in the NT, depending on the translator.

Understand? There is clear evidence that there is a greek word for WEEK and SABBATH and they are different. They are used differently in the Septuagint to denote different things.

Yet in the new testament translators insist on translating it as "week" or even Sunday. The reason for this is clear to me. Bias. You of course will have to do the study and be convicted for yourself. I've given you all the links you need to prove it. You just have to put in the time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

I was recently asked to give a talk on the biblical defense of Catholicism.