There is no "Lords day" in scripture other than "the day of the Lord" which refers to the time of the Tribulation. The Sabbath was directed at the Israelites and not demanded for those during this "age of grace" as seen in Romans 14:5.
>>Do you think it's OK to translate the NT into other languages, other than the original Greek?<<
The Holy Spirit directed the New Testament be written in the Koine Greek which was the common language of the day and could be understood by the greatest majority of people at that time. The Koine Greek is not the "common language" today but must be consulted to make the most accurate translation as is possible.
>>Do you think it's OK for the Bible to be formatted into chapters and verses?<<
I understand the thought process but also see where it causes confusion. Once again I find consulting the original Greek best with the help of the Holy Spirit for understanding.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Now, that does not preclude those who have studied certain languages, subjects from being taken into consideration. It does however require that we ultimately rely on revelation as to the meaning of the words in scripture.
>>Do you think it's OK to be married in a church? Do you think it's OK for the bride and groom to exchange rings?<<
Immaterial to the subject as those are not part of the worship of God. Having studied the ancient Jewish wedding practices I find that today's wedding practices have their roots in them.
>>Do you think it's OK to translate the NT into other languages, other than the original Greek?<< - I take it you're saying "Yes."
>>Chapters and verses<< --- a "Yes, But..."
>>Marriages<< "Immaterial to the subject as those are not part of the worship of God. Having studied the ancient Jewish wedding practices I find that today's wedding practices have their roots in them."
OK, good.
Now I'm telling you these are all cultural accommodations which relate to, but do not necessarily equate to, the worship of God.
Let's take what's really the key example, #2, translation.
The Bible says (Exodus 3:13-15),
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, in Hebrew.) This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation".
That's as clear as i could possibly be.
Yet usually when the Bible is translated, the very word(s) for "God" are translated into whatever word that culture uses, or used, for their Supreme Deity. So you'll see "Shàngdì" in Chinese Bibles, French "Dieu", Spanish "Dios", Greek Theos, German "Gott", English "God", Assyrian "Eleah," Eastern Syriac "Alaha", Western Syriac "Aloho", Arabic "Allah", Chaldaic "Eilah", Malay "Alla", --
I'm not trying to wear you out with this pedantry, I'm just saying that most language groups use Bibles which translate God using with the word they used previously (as pre-Christians, pagans, if you want to put it that way) to identify their Supreme God. It was only further explication that helped them distinguish between the character of "Elohim" and that of "Aloho."
So the first and most decisive cultural accommodation is language. it always needs to be purified from its previous association with polytheism, or cannibalism, or astrology, or sacred oaks, or whatever, and it always needs to be further explained in the light of what we know by Divine Revelation.
All other cultural accommodations follow the same pattern.
Not only is there nothing wrong with this, it's both positive and inevitable. People do not listen to things that are culturally incomprehensible.
Your “incorporates pagan elements” charge is not well defined. If by “pagan elements” you mean “elements of human culture not Christian in origin,” a reasonable response would be “of course we incorporate pagan elements, those which are not contrary to the Gospel.” This means, non-Christian customs which,purified of error are rendered harmonious with faith in Jesus Christ.
Within the world of classical antiquity, Christian poets used the existing traditions of Greek and Latin poetry. For instance. Paul quotes the pagan poets Aratus and Epimenides in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’”
So St.Paul actually incorporated pagan poetry into the New Testament.
The hymnodist Venantius Fortunatus wrote poems that are still used in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Vexilla Regis (”The Royal Standard”) and Pange, lingua, gloriosi proelium certaminis (”Sing, O my tongue, of the glorious struggle”). These hymns are based on the rhythmic marching songs of Roman armies.
You can see that it’s not enough to say someone “incorporates pagan elements.” You have to examine the matter more closely, to see if the “element” is harmonious with the deposit of Faith which comes to us from the Apostles.
An example might be holding weddings in church. Do you think church weddings are objectionable? I don’t suppose you do. Yet this is a custom not described in the Bible -— not anywhere, not once! -— not described and not prescribed. But we do it because it is a custom which is congruent with the doctrines of the faith. A church wedding fits in well with the Sacrament of Matrimony.