ALL EMAILS REGARDING DAY HAVE BEEN ARCHIVED (ADD NEW EMAILS AFTER 7/20/08) New (7/20/08) Thanks for your interest. I appreciate your kind words regarding the research involved. Sorry for the delay. It seems that I am always paddling upstream trying to keep up with emails. As I am sure you know many Biblical scholars and have various interpretations of Genesis chapter one. That being the case, my website encourages people to look at this subject as a whole before arriving at a conclusion. The information that I provide hopefully indicates to them that there is much more to look at than they might have first imagined. Regarding correct names. Thanks so much for sharing the websites below. I have looked at this subject many times over the years. I personally use "Yeshua" as well as "Jesus". I choose to use "Jesus" on my website because my goal is to reach out to a wide range of people by using the language that I and many people understand and are most comfortable with (Acts 2:6-11). If I believed this was wrong, I would not do it. While I choose to use "Jesus" on my website, you will note that many sources and emails received that I post on my site do use Hebrew names. While I personally have no problem with "Yeshua" or "Yahshua" for example, people will argue that only one of those forms is the one and only correct form. And on and on and on it goes. I prefer "Yeshua" because my studies indicate that the “Yahshua” form was invented by sacred names groups in the 1930’s. Therefore I believe that “Jesus” is more correct than “Yahshua” because you can work your way back to “Yeshua” using the "Jesus" form. Hebrew scholar Dr. David Bivin states: “I do not know of a single individual that knows Hebrew well enough to actually read it and understand it and converse in it who uses the Yahshua form.” Keep in mind that I make no claim to speaking or understanding Hebrew. I must rely on people like Dr. Bivin who writes books such as “Fluent Biblical Hebrew”. So when I say “more correct” that does not mean that I am saying the one and only correct way. I will try to look at the websites that you sent me at some point in time as I always try to revisit what I have looked at even if I have looked at it many times before. So I always say, “This is my current understanding” regarding a particular topic, because I am always learning and I know that I see things now that I did not see before. This is another reason why my website was created. I would like to offer you two short articles: http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm The article below is a follow up to the one above: http://www.seedofabraham.net/jesusyeshua.html New (7/9/08) First of all if you do not accept my understanding, that's fine. You may never accept it. On the other hand as time goes passes a light may go on as it has with other people and my understanding may become crystal clear to you. I do believe God has to open our minds on any subject. Here is a quick rundown as to some of the reasons why I cannot accept your idea: (1) God calls the light day. You call light and darkness day. (2) God calls the darkness night. You call darkness day. (3) God says there is 12 hours in a day. You say there is 24 hours in day. (4) God says the greater light rules the day. You say the greater and lessor lights rule the day. (5) God says the lessor light rules the night. You say the lessor light rules the day. (6) God divides the light from the darkness (Gen 1:4) and calls them by their separate names (day and night) at least 100 times in the scriptures. You follow day with day indicating that night is not the opposite of day. (7) God says day and night are two different seasons. You see them as one. (8) God calls evening and morning day (light). There is no hint of "morning unto morning" as we see for example in Lev. 23:32 where God clearly says the annual Sabbath is from "even unto even". This is not between you and I. This is between God and us. If you see no more than you see, God knows it. We can rightly observe days if God knows we seek his ways with all of our heart. If however He knows we see there is more, He does expect us to follow His instructions. I know that I do not understand everything, so I pray that God will move me a little closer to His will each day. I would suggest as I have previously suggested that you go back and address all of my points and scriptures which you have not begun to do. And that's OK. Take your time and search all of the books. You need not do it for me, but you may want to do it for yourself before you put all of your eggs in one basket and keep them as a part of your belief system. New (7/8/08) What you saw came from the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible". They give an evolution of how the meaning of the word "day" changed over time. They write: "The ORIGINAL meaning of the word "DAY" is the PERIOD OF DAYLIGHT, FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET, AS DISTINCT FROM THE NIGHT, THE PERIOD OF DARKNESS ...in this sense the "DAY" is said to "decline" (Jer.6:4) or to "be far spent" (Lk. 24:29 in the late afternoon, and is FOLLOWED by NIGHT. Hence the EARLIER sequence, "DAY and NIGHT..." (P. 497))." As time went on man started to move away from the original meaning of "day" as simply the period of light and a second conception was developed. They continue: "The flesh of the thanksgiving sacrifice shall be eaten on the day it is offered; none of it may be kept till the next day" (Lev. 7:15), the NIGHTTIME is CONSIDERED as belonging to the preceding period of Daylight. From this there developed the meaning of "day" in the sense of the cycle made up of one period of daylight and one period of darkness, or according to OUR MODERN RECKONING, TWENTY-FOUR HOURS...FROM the NATURAL viewpoint the twenty-four hour day begins at SUNRISE." Note, this was not the original meaning of the word "day" and it was developed later using Lev. 7:15 as an example. And later still sunset to sunset came into being. They write: "However, beside this conception there AROSE ANOTHER idea of the twenty-four hour day, according to which this daily period began at SUNSET. It was no doubt the lunar calendar of the Jews which gave rise to this viewpoint...Although the EARLIER COMPUTATION did NOT die out completely, the CUSTOM of CONSIDERING the Day as beginning at SUNSET BECAME general in LATER JEWISH TIMES..." (p. 497). So while "day" as simply the period of light was the original meaning, men started to take scriptures out of context to make it (1) 24 hours long and after that (2) Run the day from sunset to sunset. So if we put all the scriptures together on this subject Lev. 7:15 means just what it says. They were to eat it in the day that it was given. We know by putting all scriptures together on this subject, that "day" is not followed by "day" as pointed out in the original meaning above. In other words day is distinct from night. Day is followed by night. Also note that "TWENTY-FOUR HOURS" is "OUR MODERN RECKONING". The ancient reckoning was simply the period of "daylight" as stated above and as we saw in both Testaments in my last email. Making night part of the day was something that was developed after the original meaning was defined according to this encyclopedia. So the true "EARLIER sequence "DAY and NIGHT" began in Genesis and continues to this time. New (7/6/08) Yes, my points distinguish the difference between day and night. The reason is because that is the pattern found from Genesis 1:4 to the end of the Bible. You state, "When the Messiah mentions 12 hours in the day, of course he's talking about the daylight..." My point exactly. You have unknowingly answered your own question. A day is "daylight" and it consists of 12 hours. That is what I have said from the beginning. You then say that, "We agree that Day = Light..." Once again, day = light or "daylight". You have answered your own question from both Testaments. You state, “Even you (meaning me) agree that normally morning is mentioned before evening in the order of things.” You need to continue reading what I said. I go on to give a number of examples indicating how taking words in the exact order given can give you a false understanding. In the case of Genesis 1:5, God calls both evening and morning “day” (light, not night). And you agreed that “light” equals day (except you have not listened to your own agreement as yet). Darkness is not mentioned because God did not say, “from morning unto morning is a day” Only then would night be included. Although you agreed that “darkness” equals “night”, you have not allowed yourself to accept your agreement because you then say that night really equals a day. If you agree and then turn right around and disagree with what you just agreed with, you are going around in circles (Job 17:10-12). We need to search all 66 books of the Bible before we come to a conclusion on any topic. I notice that you basically bounce back and forth between Genesis 1:5 and the Passover scenario which I have addressed in context and in the light of many other scriptures. I hope this is not how you normally search the scriptures to arrive at a particular belief on other topics. If so, you will be off on many doctrines. As I mentioned in earlier emails, Genesis 1:5 and the Passover scenario are two of the most hotly debated topics by Christians and scholars alike. Our goal should be to search the scriptures daily whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). Not to seek debated scriptures to support what we wish to believe or what we have been taught. You have asked several times how is your reasoning wrong? Because you say things that God does not say. For example, You speak of a “cycle of light” as though we can open the Bible read, “And God called the cycle of light which forms the day morning unto morning” I Know you wish that this is what God said, but wishful thinking and picking and choosing does not equal truth. Jesus said “are there not twelve hours in a day?” You say, “God talks about both a 12 hour Day and a 24 hour cycle of that Day in Genesis 1:5, but you refuse to see it. You won't even admit to even the "idea" of a 24 hour cycle of Day”. What can I say, Jesus does not see what you see. He never says “with the exception of Genesis which includes a 24 hour cycle of day, there is 12 hours in a day”. God is not the author of confusion. If you wish to hang on to your interpretation, you must come to terms with the fact that you believe that there is twice as many hours in a day than Jesus does. Disagreeing with God is how man made doctrines are formed. You stand alone vs. scripture. Not even the enemies of Jesus said there is 24 hours in a day. Michael, please list for me as many scriptures as you can think of that mention any hours between 13 through 24. Thankfully, God gave us more than the scriptures to look at. He gave us an awesome creation. Just go outside of your house at 10 AM and 10 PM. Do you see a difference between day and night? If so, the Sabbath is the seventh day. New (6/14/08) Since we agree that light = day and darkness = night, it seems to me that we should be in agreement. Its really that simple. Jacob rose up in the night (darkness) (Gen. 32:22). He wrestled until the "breaking of the day"(V:24), or until "day breaketh" (V:26). In other words until the first gleam of sunlight breaks through the darkness of night at dawn. That is when the "greater light" (Sun) begins to "rule the day". The sun "rules by day" (Psalm 136:8). The moon and the stars "rule by night(lesser light)(V:9). In Neh: 4:21 the people worked from the "rising of the morning" (dawn) until the "stars appeared"(lesser light-Night-darkness). When the greater light of day ends (at dark), the night begins. Verse 22 tells us that they were on guard "in the night" and they did their "labour by day". In other words a full day begins at dawn and it ends with the dark (night). This is the pattern that I see throughout the scriptures. Day (greater light) followed by night (darkness) followed by a new day beginning at dawn. New (6/14/08) done: Here is my completed Email (if you open this email first you can disregard my two previous emails of the same date): Sorry I took so long to reply. As I mentioned, I am trying to catch up on emails. There are many aspects to the Sabbath. Let me explain the reason for my website and its main focus: As you know the vast majority of people who believe in Sabbath observance think that evening to evening is the carved in stone command from God. I believe that this tradition is so powerful that it may keep some people from ever questioning other long held man made traditions that they may carry in their belief system. This includes me. As much as we may have learned, one thing we never know is just how much of mans tradition still dwells within us. My hope is to move a little closer to God each day and pray that He continues to weed out these traditions. The focus of my website is the timing of the Biblical day in general and the Sabbath day in particular. It is my hope that if a person comes to understand that they have been wrong for maybe 30 or 40 years or more in this area, maybe something will click (God doing the clicking) and they will come to understand that they may need to take a look at some other long held doctrines. Not that all of their long held beliefs will be wrong, but this may help them to take a fresh look at some of the things that they believe. I base this belief on my own situation and the fact that this is a very emotional subject with those who believe in evening to evening. So while the timing of the Sabbath is the topic, I believe this knowledge will help some people to better search the scriptures in all areas (as they thought they were doing) rather than to seek a scripture to support what they wish to believe. Yes, I believe that every 7th day is holy time. This seems to be the pattern throughout the scriptures (Exodus 16:26). Six days of work and the seventh day is the Sabbath on whatever numbered day that might fall on. I believe that the other six days are good as God said, but not holy. He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. So long after creation when people worked on the seventh day God was angry (timing is important to God - Exodus 16:27-30). He was not angry when they worked the six good days prior to the Sabbath. In the New Testament the followers of Christ "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." They "rested" (past tense) as every major translation indicates. They rested on whatever numbered day of the month the seventh day fell on. They continued to come together for pubic worship from one Sabbath to the "next" Sabbath (Acts 13:42,44). While the Sabbath is mentioned over 60 times in the New Testament, I see no instruction that everyday is a Sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue said there are six days to work but not on the Sabbath (7th) (Luke 13:14). Jesus did not take issue with the fact that there are six days to work and then the Sabbath. He only took issue with the idea that it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath. I never hear him say that "one day you will understand that everyday is the Sabbath." When Jesus was accused of working on the Sabbath (by healing), I do hear Him say, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work (John 5:17)." God does not expect our Sabbath rest to be one of idleness. The Father and His Son have continued their works of love and mercy everyday and they expect us to do good works not only six days a week, but on the Seventh day Sabbath as well. You mention the tradition to remember the Sabbath day and is it holy? Well this is a good tradition to my understanding. Long after creation we are told to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy (Exodus 20:8). Again, six days of work and seventh day is the Sabbath, just as God “rested” on the seventh day (verse 11). Note, that Israel was not given an eternal weekend, but they went back to work again until the next Sabbath. Yes, I do believe there is a beginning and an end to each weekly Sabbath day. In Genesis 2:2 every major translation tells us the God “rested” (past tense) not that He is still resting on the seventh day. While I do not claim to be an expert in language, I have read that the word “shabat” as used in Genesis 2:3 is in the perfect form meaning action finished in the past. My understanding is that the weekly Sabbath day has an evening and a morning just like the six days before it. We are told that He “rested” the seventh “day” (Yom). God called the “light Yom”. A day of light includes the evening and the morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5. A day starts with light ends at dark. The question should be asked, how many times does God need to define a day? Does He need to define it in every sentence in which "day" is used?. Not if we believe the very words of God Himself: "And God called the light day", pure and simple. Therefore each day mentioned thereafter (days 2 - 7) in Genesis is the period of light which includes evening and morning as indicated in Genesis 1:5 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother (Luke 18:20)." Obviously, Jesus does not list every commandment here. Why? Because He said "Thou knowest the commandments" and all of them have been listed earlier in the scriptures. Just as there is no need to list all the commandments every time He speaks of them, there is no need to define a day every time it is mentioned because God already defined a day earlier in the scriptures. Moses removed his sandals as he stood on holy ground because God made that particular ground holy. That does not make all ground holy. Israel was not required to remove their shoes as they walked uncountable miles. Why? Because God did not make all ground holy. While God can be resting from His works of creation (He still works as seen above) and while we certainly have spiritual rest in Christ we are still laboring, yoked with him to do His work. Hebrews never says that the seventh day of creation week is continuing to the present. Even the scripture that you quote in Hebrews 4:4 in your email says that “God did rest the seventh day” This agrees with every major translation. That he “did rest” or that He “rested” (past tense). As I am sure that you know, there are many different interpretations of Hebrews 4. It sometimes is very controversial. This is my current understanding. All that being said, I do not claim to have a perfect understanding Gods word. In fact the older I get the more I understand that there is still so much to learn. I hope this gives you a little better idea as to the purpose of my website and my understanding. New (6/2/08) The Passover does begin on the 14th day at evening and continues into the night and is over by morning. Right off the bat we know God is not talking about a full day here because as you mention the Passover does not begin at dawn, but at evening on the 14th. And as we understand, just because it begins in the evening, this does not mean a day begins in the evening as many believe. God is simply telling us at what time of the day it begins. Since a whole day is not being talked about here, God continues to give additional instructions. While the Passover begins in the day (light) we are then told that it proceeds from evening into the "night". The reason "night" is mentioned is because day is now over. As you point out "night" is mentioned again in verse 12. Why? because it is "night". And in verse 29 we read about "midnight". God does not say that it was late in the day or that it was the 18th hour of the day. He said it was the middle of the night ("midnight"). The pattern is the same. Day (14th) followed by night, followed by a new day beginning at dawn (15th)(Numbers 11:32). In Judges 19:9 we read: "And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home." Luke 24:29 states, "But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them." Here in the two scriptures mentioned above, in the evening the day "groweth to an end" in the Old Testament and it is "far spent" or almost over in the New Testament. Again, this is a perfect fit for a dawn to dark day and it nullifies a "morning to morning" day which would not be coming to an end in he evening. Older Testament, New Testament, scripture after scripture points to a simple meaning. "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day..." New (5/11/08) One of the reasons that I put my website together was the fact that there are many different interpretations of Genesis 1:5 by many outstanding scholars as I am sure know. You certainly are in good company with your understanding and you clearly see days beginning in the morning. As I assume you know, I believe in a dawn to dark day not only in Genesis 1:5, but throughout the scriptures. Here are just few reasons why I believe this: 1) God separates light from darkness and only calls the light day. Darkness is a completely different season called "night". It is as different as summer is to winter (Gen. 8:22). In Gen. 1:5 God classifies evening and morning as day (light). He does not classify them as night (darkness). Note: this does not say "from evening unto morning" or "from evening unto evening" or "from morning unto morning". It says "And there was evening and there was morning" This is not a from and to situation. This is additional information that God gives us after He calls the light day. He says "and" or in addition to what He just said, He also tells us that He considers Evening and morning part of the day (light)and of course they border the rest of the light that He calls "day". The annual Sabbath of Leviticus 23:32 is from "even unto even". This is a from and to situation. The weekly Sabbath is from dawn to dark. 2) Gen. 1:16 tells us that God appointed only the "greater light" (sun) to "rule the day". The "lesser light" (moon) rules the night. Therefore when God says the seventh day (light) is the Sabbath, He is saying that the seventh "greater light" (not the night) is the Sabbath day. The "lesser light" in not included. 3) Jesus agrees with this in John 11:9-10 when He states that there is only 12 hours in a day and points out the difference between day and night. Nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus or anyone else (including his enemies)say that there is 24 hours in a day. An hour of course was not 60 minutes, but 1/12 of the period of day or night. That is why we do not find any hours between 13 to 24 mentioned in the Bible. I could not continue to believe that there is twice as many hours in a day than what Jesus stated. 4) With some study I found that the middle of the day in the scriptures is the same in both Testaments. It is when the sun mounts its highest or about noon. Therefore if a day was 24 hours long and it began at sunset, midday would have to be about 6:00 AM in the morning. If a day began at sunrise (morning) and was 24 hours long, midday would be about 6:00 PM in the evening. Neither scenario fits the scriptures. A dawn to dark day fits perfectly with midday at noon. Please see my short article, "Midday in the Bible: Was God confused?" at: http://www.geocities.com/star_sraw/midday.html I hope this gives you some idea of my understanding. I hope you get a chance to read the whole website. New (3/15/08 As you say Biblical things can bug you until you think you have them straight. Just like I mentioned in my last email I am still amazed at the number of things I have overlooked in the word and all of a sudden my eyes are opened to them somewhere way down the scriptural road. Looking at some scriptures again, I pretty much still believe what I did believe. That being, when Jesus returns with His saints He and they will rule the earth inhabited with flesh and blood humans. Just as He spent time with humans on earth after His resurrection, I believe the same will be true in the Kingdom (Zec. 14:3,4,16) Some believe the New Jerusalem begins at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, I think it is at the end at the time of the great white throne judgment when the Father comes. As you stated the "increase of his government there shall be no end". Here are some basics that I looked at: 1) Jesus is to Govern and Judge nations on the Earth (Ps. 67:4) 2)He will be given the uttermost parts of the earth along with the heathen and He will still need to rule with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:8-9). And the saints who overcome will have power over the nations (Rev. 2:26-27). 3) He is to have dominion from sea to sea (Ps. 72:8). In Revelation when John saw the new heaven and new earth (Rev.21:1), there was "No more sea". It appears that the new earth in not under consideration at the time Jesus has dominion from sea to sea. 4) This will be a reign of peace as long as the "moon endureth" (Ps. 72:7). There will be no need for the moon and its light in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2,23) 5) Christ is to rule in the midst of His enemies (Ps. 110:2)and until all enemies are put under His feet (1 Cor. 15:24:26). This does not sound like New Jerusalem to me. 6) He is to reign in Mount Zion and Jerusalem (Isa. 24:23). Note the sun and moon will still be there. Also note that at the time of His glorious reign, Jerusalem is simply called "Jerusalem" and not the "New Jerusalem". 7) Palestine, the land into which the Lord led the Israelites, is the place which He made for Himself to dwell in. (Exo. 15:14-17). 8) The Lord will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem (Zec. 8:3-6). Note once again. It is simply "Zion" and "Jerusalem" and Jerusalem shall be called "a city of truth". Not the New Jerusalem. within these verses we see "old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem". And "the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing..." As far as people still hanging around after the day of the Lord and all of the shaking of the earth, I always think of Isaiah chapter 24 (read the whole chapter). I believe verses one and maybe three are the verses that the Adventists use to show that no humans are left on earth. Yet all throughout this devastation, we still find people left on the earth. In verse one for example, God makes the "earth empty" and makes it "waste" and turns it "upside down". And yet in the same verse there are still "inhabitants" on it. And so it goes throughout this chapter. (As a side note I like to use verse 5 for people who tell me God's laws are done away with. I explain to them that this verse is obviously at the very end of the age or somewhere past our present time. Therefore His laws are not done away with. I then will use Rev. 9:20-21). Regarding the increasing or decreasing of heat and light from the sun and moon, we know God can protect anyone that He desires to protect (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego). I also am sure the He could increase or decrease the lights in the heavens drastically without changing the temperature on earth if He wanted to. He could burn one person on the earth without getting smoke on the person standing right next to the one that was burned. Looking at Isaiah 30:26 many commentators take this to be figurative language or they believe there are some errors are in the text. Keil & Delitzsch's Old Testament commentary (which you can find on Esword) seem to think otherwise. I enjoy their commentaries as they are quite detailed. Here is what they say: Isa 30:26 - The promise now rises higher and higher, and passes from earth to heaven. “And the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be multiplied sevenfold, like the light of seven days, in the day that Jehovah bindeth the hurt of His people, and healeth the crushing of His stroke.” Modern commentators from Lowth downwards for the most part pronounce ????????? ???????? ??????? a gloss; and there is one external evidence in favour of this, which is wanting in the case of the other supposed glosses in Isaiah, namely, that the words are omitted by the lxx (though not by the Targum, the Syriac, or Jerome). Even Luther (although he notices these words in his exposition and sermons) merely renders them, der Sonnen schein wird siebenmal heller sein denn jtzt (the sunlight will be seven times as bright as it is now). But the internal evidence does not favour their spuriousness even in the case before us; for the fact that the regularity of the verse, as consisting of four members, is thereby disturbed, is no evidence at all, since the v. could be warranted in a pentastic quite as well as in a tetrastic form. We therefore decide in this instance also in favour of the conclusion that the prophet composed the gloss himself. But we cannot maintain, with Umbreit, that the addition was necessary, in order to guard against the idea that there would be seven suns shining in the sky; for the prophet does not predict a multiplication of the sun by seven, but simply the multiplication of its light. The seven days are the length of an ordinary week. Drechsler gives it correctly: “The radiated light, which is sufficient to produce the daylight for a whole week according to the existing order of things, will then be concentrated into a single day.” Luther renders it in this way, als wenn sieben tag ynn eynander geschlossen weren (as if seven days were enclosed in one another). This also is not meant figuratively, any more than Paul means is figuratively, when he says, that with the manifestation of the “glory” of the children of God, the “corruption” of universal nature will come to an end. Nevertheless, it is not of the new heaven that the prophet is speaking, but of the glorification of nature, which is promised by both the Old Testament prophecy and by that of the New at the closing period of the world's history, and which will be the closing typical self-annunciation of that eternal glory in which everything will be swallowed up. The brightest, sunniest days then alternate, as the prophet foretells, with the most brilliant moonlight nights. No other miracles will be needed for this than that wonder-working power of God, which even now produces those changes of weather, the laws of which no researches of natural science have enabled us to calculate, and which will then give the greatest brilliancy and most unchangeable duration to what is now comparatively rare - namely, a perfectly unclouded sky, with sun or moon shining in all its brilliancy, yet without any scorching from the one, or injurious effects from the other. Heaven and earth will then put on their sabbath dress; for it will be the Sabbath of the world's history, the seventh day in the world's week. The light of the seven days of the world's week will be all concentrated in the seventh. For the beginning of creation was light, and its close will be light as well. The darkness all comes between, simply that it may be overcome. At last will come a bo¯qer (morning), after which it will no more be said, “And evening was, and morning was.” The prophet is speaking of the last type of this morning. What he predicts here precedes what he predicted in Isa_24:23, just as the date of its composition precedes that of chapters 24-27; for there the imperial city was Babylon, whereas here the glory of the latter day is still placed immediately after the fall of Assyria. Please let me know your take which is always helpful to me and if anything I said makes sense. New (3/15/08) I tend to believe that the earths surface and all of the bad things on it will be burnt up or disolved. The O.T. says of the earth that it shall wax old like a garment. A garment is more like a covering rather than the whole earth. I think the old ragged garment can be replaced with a new garment so the earth (with the curse of sin) will be cleansed and renewed without making a brand new earth from scratch. In Revelation 21:1 John sees a new (kainos) earth. The word "kainos" means "new" in quality - superior to the old. When the Bible speaks of "new wine" (neos), it means new in time, recent, just appearing, young. The "new" (kainos) covenant is qualitatively better than the old covenant (Heb. 8:8). A believer in Christ is a "new" (kainos) creation 2 Cor. 5:17), and is qualitatively superior to what he was before Christ lived in him. I know that I am not new in time. My body tells me that every day. That is my current understanding on the new earth. Does this make any sense? I am still looking at the other things that you wrote and I will give you my thoughts on them shortly. You gave me a lot to think about. One thing I came across recently that I never noticed before was Nehemiah 9:3. The New Testament speaks of 12 hours in a day. I new the people in the older testament understood the beginning, middle and end of the day, but they also could break down the day into 4 quarters: "And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the LORD their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the LORD their God". I have Neh. 8:3 on my website which shows the beginning of a day to midday, but I had not seen this before. You may have seen this one, but it is still amazing to me how I can look at something time and again and not see it. In the parable of Matthew Chapter 20, Jesus similarly breaks down part of the day. He mentions the third, sixth and ninth hours (verses 3 & 5). New (3/3/08) Your suggestion to suspend this discussion is fine with me. You mention that no further arguments can change your mind. First, know that I never had any intention of changing your mind. I can’t change minds. As you recall you wrote to me, I did not write to you. I assume your goal was to change my mind. I have already changed my mind several times on this subject. If you had valid reasons to consider, I would have considered them. The goal of my website is to plant a seed with people who have never heard this information before and pray that God opens their eyes and changes their minds regarding this simple truth which is has been cluttered with the traditions of man. You gave me your final remarks. You can consider this my final remarks on this subject. Your views on this topic are not valid for a number of reasons: When God first defined a "day" did He really say, "And God called the light day and the only exception among the seven days of a week is the first day of the week (sun-day) because the first day of creation week began in darkness. Therefore the first day of our weeks should also begin in the night".? Clearly not! Can we find a pattern of days beginning maybe before dawn in the darkness of night or maybe after the sun has risen except for the first day of the week. Clearly not! We find a clear pattern of days beginning at "dawn" throughout the scriptures. Our goal should not be to seek a scripture to support what we wish to believe, but to search the scriptures daily whether these things are so. It has become evident to me from one email to the next, that you are just not sure when a day begins. And that’s fine. If I am not sure of something, “I just say I am not sure and I will do further study“. This brings me to my next point regarding “dawn” and “daybreak“. You seem to have a fear to put your theory up against the multitude of good scholarship over several centuries that says “dawn” is the beginning of a new day or "daybreak". It appears that you are not willing do this because you know your theory will fall far short of the truth. So the only thing you can do is to say negative things about good scholarship and ignore it. By doing this you will always be in danger of coming up with your own doctrines that are foreign to the Bible. I have no fear in this matter. My study and conclusions regarding “dawn” (which came before my study of many scholars) are backed up hundreds of times by scholarship. I respect the fact that you do deep studies and have a zeal for languages. That is great, but you cannot hang out there by yourself thinking that your studies and conclusions are the end of the matter. That being said, the question should be asked, is all scholarship the truth? Of course not. For example most scholars either do not accept Yeshua as the Messiah (Jewish) or do not believe that the Biblical Sabbath is still required for Christians (Evangelical Scholars). Therefore we know they (like we) can be influenced by the traditions of men in some fashion and do not always give the correct interpretation of scripture. This is not to say that we cannot learn anything from them. There are tremendous things that can be learned from scholars with hundreds of years of Hebrew and Greek in their profiles. Even though most Evangelical scholars do not see the Sabbath as a requirement for example, many if not most of them admit that they know that it is taught in the scriptures and they indicate this understanding often in their writings. Knowledge and obedience are two different things. On the one hand I applaud those who do not grasp at every wind of doctrine that comes their way. On the other hand when a "storm" of Biblical evidence and scholarship blows in our direction (as it does with dawn/daybreak), we should not close our eyes and pretend that it does not exist. If we do, we might be ignoring the possibility that we may have already accepted an non-biblical wind of doctrine and made it a part of our belief system. Regarding Ruth, please carefully read what I said again. I did not say that "boker" referred to "morning watch" in the scripture regarding Ruth. You misunderstood. I said that “boker” in this instance (concerning Ruth) is used in the primary sense which is “dawn” or “daybreak” and I gave several translations that support this understanding. As you know not all translations are word for word renderings, but try to express the meaning of the words in a way which can be easily understood. Not all renderings are good, therefore we must go to the Greek and Hebrew to see if the translation measures up to the word. This is no different than when you and I discussing the scriptures and we will use many words trying to explain a few words found in a particular text. So why did the translators say Ruth was up before there was enough light to see? Because they understand that “boker” (dawn/daybreak) is the period of time when there is a faint gleam of morning light breaking through the darkness in the east. Certainly light, but not enough light to see clearly. Therefore this understanding measures up to the word. Regarding "shakh'-ar", here is one of many examples of its meaning. Isaiah 8:20: (KJV) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no "light" (shakh'-ar) in them. (LITV) To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no "dawn" (shakh'-ar) to them! (Darby) To the law and the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, for them there is no "daybreak" (shakh'-ar). Light, dawn, daybreak. This pattern is beautifully laid out in the scriptures. Scholarship is consistent on shakh'-ar. Easton's Bible Dictionary states that "Dayspring" "is the dawn of morning; daybreak". Again, I could go on and on with shakh'-ar. Lets look at some quick comparisons: God calls the light day. You call light day and some darkness day. I agree with God. God calls the darkness night. You call the darkness night and some of it the day. I agree with God. God says there is a difference between the “greater light” and the “lesser light“. You do not. I agree with God. God says the “greater light” rules the day and therefore the seventh “greater light” is the Sabbath. You say the “greater light and some of the lesser light” rules the day. I agree with God. If you are observing any of the “lesser light” as the Sabbath, you may want to revisit your study. Finally, you ask about my views on the “New Moon”. I am doing a continual study on this matter and some of my findings may be surprising. However I still have a long way to go and therefore I will not speak on something that may turn out to be speculation. I want to make sure I can back up what I am saying. Right now I am not at that point. If and when I get to that point, I will be happy to exchange points with you. New (2/21/08) I do think that sometimes people can over analyze various scriptures that are meant to be very simple. While it should be our goal to get it right, It seems to me that with regard to the “day” many people have over analyzed this definition. I do not think that God is not trying to trick us. I believe that He intended for this to be simple. “And God called the light day”. He appointed only the “greater light” (sun) to “rule the day”. I believe that when there is no longer a sun or moon, we will walk in the light from God “by day” for there shall be “no night” there (Rev. 21:25). I believe that this indicates that the original intent of “day” was meant to be light only with no darkness. Just as stated in Genesis 1:5. I think it is instructive to step back in time and see what God did not say as well as what He did say when He first defined “day“. He did not say: “And God called the light day, with the following exceptions…” He simply called the light “day“. And he called the darkness “night”. The fact that night hours were calculated gives more credence to my conclusion that a day can be calculated from dawn to dark. As you recall you originally thought that hours could only be calculated from sunrise. A day can always be 12 hours long if an hour is 1/12 the period of the “greater light“. Even if you figure 12 hours with a sun dial from sunrise the length of period of light from that point will vary with the season, but you still come up with the same number of hours no matter the season. Of course God did not call the “day” “the period of light from sunrise to sunset“. He called the “light day” And the “greater light” begins to shine at “dawn”. You mention light from the sun and reflected light from the moon etc. The problem here is that God did make a difference between the lights in the heavens. He did not appoint the “lesser light” to rule the day. This light rules the night season. He only appointed the “greater light” to rule the day. So once again the “lesser light” cannot be part of something that God did not make it a part of. To the best of my understanding there are only two lights that define "day". One is the "sun" (greater light) and the other is the light that comes from God Himself, in whom there is "no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). Before I go on, I just want to say that I have great respect for you , your studies and your knowledge of a number of languages. I am going to take a moment share with you how I arrived at my conclusions. First of all I approached my study with prayer. Secondly, I did a study of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to verify my belief (at that time) that sunset to sunset was correct and that days beginning at dawn was an incorrect concept . I was wrong. I concluded that days do begin at dawn. Third, I did not want to lean on my own understanding. I wanted to know if any scholars agreed with my prayerful conclusions. In fact, numerous scholars do. I researched (and still do) hundreds of Biblical dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, commentaries, and numerous Bible translations to verify my conclusions. My initial study was over a period of several years before I made a change in my belief system. I did not take lightly my move from sunset to sunset to dawn to dark. Regarding your conclusions on "daybreak" etc. There are hundreds of sources and scholars with hundreds years of Hebrew and Greek in their profiles when added together that translate "dawn" into English as "daybreak", "break of day", etc. This indicates the translators understanding that dawn is the breaking of a new day. Regardless of what word we use to translate the meaning of dawn, the fact is (based on my current understanding) that the crack of dawn is the beginning of a new day. In "The Five Books of Moses" by Everett Fox, Genesis 1:5 is translated as, "God called the Light: Day! and the Darkness he called Night! There was SETTING, there was DAWNING: one Day." (p.13). Commenting in his notes on this verse, the author states, "SETTING.....DAWNING: The Heb. terms erev and boker are rather more specific than the usual "evening" and morning". Elsewhere I have used "SUNSET" and "DAYBREAK". (p.13). Note "Boker" is translated as "dawning" and "daybreak". Notice what even the 'Jewish Encyclopedia' admits about the definition of "yom" in Genesis 1:5 and the Bible in general, ""DAY" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the SEASON OF LIGHT (Gen. 1:5), LASTING "FROM DAWN (LIT. "THE RISING OF THE MORNING") TO THE COMING FORTH OF THE STARS" . As you can see, even though Genesis 1:5 is used as an example, this definition indicates their understanding that a DAY IN THE BIBLE BEGINS AT DAWN AND ENDS AT DARK (forgive my caps, I copied this from my website). Even in the Chaldee "dawn" is understood as the break of day. In Daniel 6:19 the king arose "very early in the morning". The meaning of this is period of time is "dawn". Gensenius says, "the morning light, dawn, daybreak". Various translations will translate this as "early in the morning", "dawn" , "daybreak" etc. Bishops, an old translation (1568) renders it as, "breake of the day" A new translation (English Standard Version) shows, "break of day". Or in other words "dawn". An example in the New Testament is David Stern’s "Complete Jewish Bible" where he translates the KJV’s "early in the morning" of Luke 24:1 as, "but the next day, while it was still very early..." --- This same version translates "early in the morning" as "dawn" in Acts 5:21 and "daybreak" in John 8:2. Thayer's definition of the word "orthros" (found in Luke 24:1, John 8:2 & Acts 5:21) is: "1) daybreak, dawn -- 2) at early dawn, at daybreak, early in the morning" ( p. 453.). Please see my previous emails where Albert Barnes speaks of Luke 24:1 and the other Gospel writers understanding of a day breaking at dawn before the sunrise. And so it goes. Lets look at Ruth 3:13-14. While the word "boker" can be used during the night, the Older Testament understanding is not that a new day has begun at night, but that this period of time is considered the "morning" or "daybreak" (boker) "watch". In other words, the "morning watch" is the last watch of the night looking forward to the actual break of day (dawn -boker). However, in the case of Ruth, my understanding is that "boker" is being used in it’s primary sense, which is "dawn" or "daybreak". Remember, as Albert Barnes points out that with the crack of dawn, there is still much appearance of night. Most of the translations simply say Ruth got up in the "morning" (boker - dawn). Some versions will render verse 14 as, "till the morning: and she got up before it was light enough for one to see another" or "but she got up before it was light enough for her to be seen" or "Ruth slept at his feet until dawn, but she got up while it was still dark". The understanding of course is that this period of time was the very beginning of morning light at early dawn, but not enough light to be noticed. I conclude based on the primary meaning of “boker” and other translations that this was very early "dawn" (boker). I could go on and on with a word such as "dayspring" (KJV) which also means "dawn" or "break of day" as many sources indicate. As you know Paul said we are children of the “light” and of the “day” and we are not of the “night” nor of “darkness“. He also wrote: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." (Rom. 13:12). When Yeshua said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mat. 4:4), He was speaking of the only scriptures available at that time. The older Testament. What did proceed out of the mouth of God in these scriptures? "And God called the light day" (Gen. 1:5). Yeshua obviously agrees with the only scriptures extant at that time when He said this and when He spoke of Jonah and Himself and the three days and three nights. He obviously meant that they shared the exact same period of time. There was not two different definitions of a day (and night) from the time of Jonah to the time Yeshua walked the earth. “Yom” and “Hemera” begins at dawn before the sun has risen because God calls the “light day”. Yeshua also said: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." (John 9:4). New (2/17/08 I find it interesting that you claim that I am wasting your time and yet this is your second email to me. There are thousands of websites on the net that I would not waste a keystroke responding to. Yet you respond to me because you know that what I am saying rings true. You are angry and so you vent your feelings toward me when you know you should be blaming yourself for not taking the time to search the scriptures and the history on this subject (see #91 under quotes on my site as one of many examples). Notice what even the 'Jewish Encyclopedia' admits about the definition of “yowm” in Genesis 1:5 and the Bible in general, “"DAY" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the SEASON OF LIGHT (Gen. 1:5), LASTING "FROM DAWN (LIT. "THE RISING OF THE MORNING") TO THE COMING FORTH OF THE STARS" . As you can see, even though Genesis 1:5 is used as an example, this definition shows that a DAY IN THE BIBLE BEGINS AT DAWN AND ENDS AT DARK (forgive the caps as this comes straight from my site). Now, you can continue to ignore all of the scholarship on Genesis 1:5 or you can study it and compare the conclusions to the rest of scripture as I have done. You can see many other examples on my site. You can continue to ignore the words from the mouth of God in first part of Genesis 1:5, which you must do in order to hang on to your belief. Hang as you will, the words are there: “And God called the light day”. You will find the hot or warm hours during the light of day. If you are not sure of this, try getting outside more often. “and the darkness he called night” God calls only the “light” day. If you want to call the “light” and “darkness” day, well, people disagree with God all the time. Now God says “light” = “day” and “darkness” = “night” in the first half of Gen. 1:5. Simple. In the second half of this verse He is not going to contradict what He just said in the first half of the verse. So He continues by saying “and” (or in addition to what He just said in the first half of the verse) “the evening and the morning were the first day”. Both “evening” and “morning” are classified as “day” (light), not "night" (darkness). This does not say “from evening to morning” or “from evening to evening”. This is not a from and to situation, but simply a statement indicating two additional terms that are considered part of the day (light). Only “darkness” is classified as “night” and that is why it is not mentioned with “evening“ and “morning“. Morning and evening border the rest of the “light” that God calls “day” in the first part of the verse. In "The Five Books of Moses" by Everett Fox, Genesis 1:5 is translated as, "God called the Light: Day! and the Darkness he called Night! There was SETTING, there was DAWNING: one Day." (p.13). Commenting in his notes on this verse, the author states, "SETTING.....DAWNING: The Heb. terms erev and boker are rather more specific than the usual "evening" and morning". Elsewhere I have used "SUNSET" and "DAYBREAK". (p.13). Note “morning” is translated “dawning” and “daybreak”. Evening is translated “setting” and “sunset”. Evening is not translated as daybreak, break of day, new day, dawning of the day, etc. Nowhere in the scriptures is “day” ever defined as “from evening to evening” which is what some people wish it would say in Genesis 1:5, but it simply does not. Gen 1:14 tells us that the lights in the heaven “divide” (or separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.): - (make, put) difference) between “day” and “night”. That’s why Genesis 1:16 informs us that only the “greater light” (sun) rules the day. Simple. Jer. 33:20 - Night and day are each a separate season as I have been saying. They are as different as summer and winter (Gen. 8:22). Note above, the Jewish Encyclopedia calls “yom” the “season of light”, not the season of light and darkness. Go back just two chapters to Jer. 31:35 where we read, “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night…”. This is what I have been saying all along. Sun = day, moon = night. Therefore the seventh “greater light” (that rules the day) is the Sabbath. If you are observing the lesser light (that rules the night) as the weekly Sabbath and teaching others to do so you are adding to the scriptures. David, if you would like for me to continue to waste your time please go back to my first email to you and answer my scriptural points with scripture and logical reasoning. Please also answer my 2 simple questions at the end of my email. And as “absurd” as you think I am, please answer my points in this email in like manner instead of throwing out scriptures while calling me names at the same time. I understand your anger. If you take the time to read my site you would see I was angry when I first heard this information, but unlike you I did not take it out on someone else. I am happy to work with anyone, but you need to change your approach. I will leave you with only one simple request in this email. Please list all of the scriptures that you can think of that show any hours between 13 to 24. New (2/2/08) Your email is somewhat confusing. In your first sentence you seem to be saying that the timing of the Sabbath is not important. In your second sentence you seem to be saying that the timing is important. Which is it? If you believe what you said in your first sentence then it should not matter to you if someone observes Sunday or Thursday as the Sabbath? Yes, I believe the timing of the Sabbath is important to know. Why? Because it matters to God: Exo 16:26 “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. Exo 16:27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. Exo 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day“. The people above had no excuse because they understood the reckoning of the Sabbath day and they refused to keep it. Secondly, (Deu 4:2) “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you“. This brings me to your second and third sentences. Since God appointed only the sun (greater light) to rule the day Gen 1:16 and the seventh day (greater light - sun) is the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10) then if I do a non-Sabbath related activity on Friday night I might be breaking your tradition, but I am not breaking God’s Sabbath. You see, the moon was appointed to rule the night, not the day. Fortunately, we do not need a major theological discussion on day and night. Simply step outside your door at 10:AM and 10:PM and you will see the difference between day and night. They are two different seasons. As different as summer and winter Gen. 8:22. So I ask you, do you always base your beliefs on “traditionally understood” things? Or do you question and search the scriptures? If you are keeping the night as Sabbath when only the greater light rules the day (Seventh) you are adding to the word. This is nothing new. All throughout history many religious leaders have required more from their followers than God does. You ask, how does the 12 hr only position effect an advantage? In at least three ways. It agrees with Jesus Christ who said are there not twelve hours in a day? (John 11:9) It does not add to the word of God but moves us closer to His will. If you believe a day consists of 24 hours, then you must come to terms with the fact that you believe there is twice as many hours in a day than Jesus does (John 11:9). After all, how do men invent or accept a non-Biblical tradition. They disagree with God (unintentionally or intentionally). Regarding Gen. 1:5. I address both parts of it while you overlook the first part and the definition of a day from the very mouth of God. “And God called the light day”. Once again darkness is called “night”. If God wanted to include night as part of a 24 hour day He would have said "from evening unto evening makes one day". He would not say "and there was evening and there was morning". He classifies "evening" and "morning" as "day" (light). "Darkness" is classified as "night". While this is clear to me, I did not understand it until I searched the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. I certainly hope you do not base your belief of a day on one scripture. If you do this with other subjects, I would suggest that you re-think all of your beliefs. In case are not aware of it, many scholars do not agree on what Gen. 1:5 means. Some say it means sunset to sunset, some say sunrise to sunrise and some say dawn to dark. So it is a mistake to hang your sunset to sunset doctrine on a verse that scholars argue about. If you look at the Jewish authors on my site you will see that some of them admit that Friday evening was simply a tradition of man that was added so as to protect the Saturday Sabbath. Not that Jewish writings are the final answer, but many people think the Jews have always observed a sunset to sunset day and that God endorsed this tradition. This can be an eye opener. Finally, here are two quick questions for you. In Acts 2:15 Peter speaks of the “third hour of the day”. Approximately what time would that be according to our modern clocks? When does the middle of a day take place in both Testaments? This is not a test. Feel free to look up the answers. The Apostle Paul writes: "1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Paul understood the ancient meaning of Genesis 1:5 perfectly. New (1/23/08) Thank you for taking the time to clarify your view. We seem to be very close on our understanding of the “day”. While we both agree that a day is the period of light, I understand that you see a possible wider definition that could include some darkness before dawn or sunrise at the other end of the spectrum with dawn in between. While you see three possible scenarios, I believe that dawn begins the day. Is my understanding of your view correct? If dawn to dark is the definition of a day as I believe, Yeshua’s 12 hour day does not exclude dawn as part of the light that He speaks of in John 11:9. In other words just as God did not need Job or anyone else when He laid the foundations of the earth, Yeshua did not need a sundial to divide a day into 12 equal parts of light that included the dawn as it’s beginning. I believe dawn is included for several reasons. Jacob wrestled until the “day breaketh” (Gen. 32:26) or as Fox writes in his ‘Five Books of Moses’, “for dawn has come up”. Here we see day breaking at dawn before the sun rises in verse 31. When Yeshua speaks of Jonah and Himself and the three days and three nights, He is speaking of how they shared the same period of time. Not two different measurements of time. Many times we think of people in the Biblical period as being primitive, but it is not inconceivable to think that they could make such a calculation. We have seen ancient peoples build magnificent structures that would require complicated mathematical equations. At the very least the people could observe a day beginning at dawn to sunrise as hour one and use a sundial from sunrise to sunset observing the final hour from sunset to dark (or something similar to that). In Acts 2:15 when Peter speaks of the “third hour” of the day, my understanding is that dawn began that day. One reason why I believe this is because in 2Peter 1:19 he writes in a figurative sense: “until the day dawn” (meaning to glimmer through, that is, break (as day): - dawn”). Vine’s speaks of Luke’s “very early in the morning” (24:1) as “at early dawn” or “daybreak”. He also writes of Paul talking until “the break of day” in Acts 20:11 meaning “the beginning of daylight,” is translated “break of day”… Strong’s says “dawn: - break of day”. These are a few reasons why I believe Yeshua agrees that dawn begins the 12 hour day. I agree with you regarding “boker” and in fact I would say that “dawn” is the primary meaning of “boker”. Fox in his ‘Five books of Moses” translates boker in Genesis 1:5 as “dawning” and he states that elsewhere he uses “daybreak”. It is interesting to note that in Luke 1:9-11 we read of the “time of incense” (verse 10) The word “time” (hora) is the same word Yeshua uses in John 11:9 when He speaks of 12 “hours” (hora) in a day. In Exodus 30:7 we find that incense was offered every “morning” (boker - dawn). So we see in Luke that it was the “time” or the “hour” (hora) of incense and one of the hours of incense began at boker (dawn) or the first hour. Just food for thought. So my understanding is that the beginning of a “day” requires some light from God or from the sun, because God called the “light day” (Gen. 1:5), and He appointed only the sun (greater light) to “rule the day” (Gen. 1:16). That does not mean that there cannot be some “darkness” fading away at the beginning of the day while at the same time not being part of the day. Speaking of the crack of dawn in his ’Notes on the New Testament’, Albert Barnes writes that at early dawn (daybreak) “there is much appearance of night”. When John and Mark speak of the first day of the week, they both use the same word for “early”. John says “when it was yet dark” and Mark says “at the rising of the sun”. Barnes points out, not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise. Luke says it was very early in the morning (deep twilight) when there was scarcely any light (but there was light) though still much appearance of night. In other words at early dawn or break of day. John says “yet dark”. Note, he does not say “yet night”. So while “darkness” is called “night”, it is not officially night until the sun is gone and the moon is ruling. On the other hand darkness is no longer considered night with mornings first light because the sun is considered to be ruling as soon as the “day breaketh” at dawn (Gen. 32:26). So while some darkness can surround the beginning of a day I do not believe that a day exists until the first glimmer of dawns light appears in the east. As I wrote previously Paul says we are all children of the “light” and children of the “day”. We are not of the “darkness” nor of the “night”. When we live in the eternal day when the sun and the moon are no longer needed and all of our light comes from God, day will continue to be light but at that time no darkness of any kind will ever come near it again. That is why I believe that Light alone equals day and since dawn is light Yeshua’s 12 hour day begins at dawn. New (1/13/08) Thanks for your email. I am glad that you enjoyed the website. Were you born in Sofia? With the amount of information on my site I am sure it was easy for you miss the places that do show the literal translation of Genesis 1:5. You may have also missed a number of commentators I listed that agree with your interpretation of Genesis 1:5. If you take the time to read of my site again you will find that I am aware of the literal translation and your interpretation. Because the site is so large I may make an additional comment on the literal translation the first time I use Genesis 1:5 so it will be easier see. If the definition of a day was as simple as your interpretation, all scholarship would agree with you. As I am sure you must know, all scholarship does not agree with your interpretation. Some see sunset to sunset, some see morning to morning and some see dawn to dark. And there may be other interpretations. That is why my site is an in depth study on this subject and not just a scripture or a couple of words. You may note for example on my site that the 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible' states, "The ORIGINAL meaning of the word "DAY" is the PERIOD OF DAYLIGHT, FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET, AS DISTINCT FROM THE NIGHT, THE PERIOD OF DARKNESS". They go on to state that an interpretation like yours was a later development that moved away from the original meaning. And after that interpretation the idea of a sunset to sunset day was born. Defining the word "day", the 'Jewish Encyclopedia' admits the following: "Day" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the season of light (Gen. 1:5), lasting "from dawn (lit. "the rising of the morning") to the coming forth of the stars". Please note they use Genesis 1:5 as their reference. So while I am well aware of your interpretation, I agree with the "day as light" interpretations directly above that do not include night as part of a day. I base this not on Genesis 1:5 alone but on the use of day throughout the scriptures. However, even in Genesis chapter one we find that God appoints only the "greater light" (sun) to "rule the day" (verse 16). Night is a completely different season ruled by the moon and therefore is not part of the day. In fact day and night are as different as summer and winter (Gen. 8:22). If God wanted to include night as part of a 24 hour day He would have said something like "a day runs from morning to morning", or "day and night together makes one day". He would not say "and there was evening and there was morning". He classifies "evening" and "morning" as "day" (light). "Darkness" is classified as "night". While all scholarship does not agree on the meaning of Genesis 1:5, all scholarship that I am aware of does agree that "midday" in the bible arrives at "noon" (when the sun mounts its highest) in both testaments. If a day ran from morning to morning (including night), then "midday" would arrive around 6:00 PM or the 12th Biblical hour. That would place "midday" 6 hours later than the scriptural "midday"(noon). The scriptures are clear that he 6th Biblical hour is "midday" or "noon". Therefore Jesus meant exactly what He said when He states "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" A dawn to dark day is what is meant in Genesis 1:5. The Apostle Paul writes: "1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Paul understood the ancient meaning of Genesis 1:5 perfectly New (1/10/08) Regarding John 20:1 and the arrival early on first day of the week when it was yet dark. Please note that the arrival was "early" the first day of the week when it was yet dark. The word "early" is defined by Strong's as, "Adverb from G4253; at dawn; by implication the day break watch: - early (in the morning), (in the) morning." Vine's says "early in the day, at morn,". This is the same word used in Mark's parallel account where he writes, "And very "early" in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (16:2). Using the same word ("early") John says "yet dark" and Mark says "at the rising of the sun". In Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament, he writes, "Mark says (16:1-2) that it was after the Sabbath was past, and very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun-that is, not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise, or at the early BREAK OF DAY. Luke says (24:1) that is was very early in the morning; in the Greek, deep twilight or when there was scarcely any light (my note: but there was light). John (20:1) says it was very early, while it was yet dark- that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen, the time when they came, therefore, was at the BREAK OF DAY, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible. The first day of the week.”(p.317). In the same book speaking of early daybreak Barnes says “there is much appearance of night”(p.332), hence the reason John could say it was “yet dark”. Note, that Barnes is saying that the Gospel writers agree on the time of the day which is the “break of day” on the “first day of the week”, “very early in the morning”, “when the sun was about to rise”. He also says the time that they arrived was “just as the light appeared in the east, yet so dark as to render objects indistinct”(p.325). This time of day as light appeared in the east is called "early" the first day of the week according to John and Mark. If a day began at sunset and was 24 hours long, this period of time would be called "midday" and not "early" the first day of the week (Please see my short article in the links section at the top of my website called "Midday in the Bible: Was God Confused?" at: http://www.geocities.com/star_sraw/midday.html) On this point, Dr. Samuele Baccchiocchi, an advocate for sunset to sunset days states: "The day appears to begin at sunrise also in Mark 16:2 which says: "And very early on the first day of the week they... went to the tomb when the sun had risen." According to the sunset reckoning the "very early" part of the first day of the week would be the hours immediately following the end of the Sabbath at sunset--what we would call Saturday night. Mark however, takes pains to explain what he means be "very early on the first day of the week," namely, not the early hours of the night immediately following the close of the Sabbath at sunset, but "when the sun had risen."... ...Mark saw the need to clarify what he meant by "very early on the first day of the week," namely, "when the sun had risen." This time reference presupposes a sunrise reckoning because according to the sunset reckoning, by the time the sun had risen it was the middle and not the early part of the first day." It is interesting to note that John says “when it was yet dark” (V:1). He does not say “when it was yet Night”. In Genesis 1:16 God appoints only the “greater light” (sun)to “rule the day“. He appoints the “lesser light” (moon) to rule the night. Therefore, although God calls the “darkness night” this period of time needs to be more than just “dark”. It needs the sun to be gone and the moon to be ruling. At the crack dawn it can be dark but not night as I pointed out earlier. The day begins with the first light of dawn as we see in places such as Genesis 32: 22, 24, 26 where Jacob wrestles all night until the “breaking of the day” (V:24).Fox’s “Five Books of Moses” translates it, “"until the coming up of dawn". It is also worth noting that inside the tomb at this time of day it would be very dark. Finally, you may find this interesting. This comes from a sunset to sunset groups magazine (CGI) a few years ago. Notice how they agree with Albert Barnes conclusion regarding these verses: "What do we learn from these accounts? First, the event occurred on the first day of the week, as Mark, Luke and John make clear. Second, it was yet dark, as John tells us. Third, it was very early in the morning, as revealed by Mark and Luke. Fourth, it occurred at the rising of the sun, according to Mark. Our conclusion: Early Sunday morning, the sun beginning to peek over the mountains of the distant horizon-just enough light to make forms and images identifiable-the women approached the sepulchre". Also, John said while it was yet “dark” not while it was yet “night” New (11/5/07) I have not read your whole book (The Third Day Bible Code) as yet, but I am looking forward to reading all of it. I was immediately attracted to your information on days beginning at sunrise since I have studied this subject in depth. I do hope that you take the time to read the links that I sent to you regarding the Biblical 12 hour day. I also used to believe that Biblical days could be 24 hours long. I began to wonder why God would have more than one definition for a day. I now believe that this idea is strictly a non - Biblical tradition of Judaism as many of their traditions are. I do agree that Yom can have other meanings depending on the context, however I do not believe that 24 hours is one of them. Yom can mean time in general or it can be used in a prophetic sense such as “day of the Lord” for example. I agree with the “Oxford Companion to the Bible” when they say that a 24 hour day is not defined in the Bible (John 11:9). I am familiar with De Vaux and Milgrom and while I believe that they are both on the right track, I also believe that they overlook the definition of a day from the mouth of God (“And God called the light day“ (Gen.1:5), therefore the 7th light (day), not the 7th night is the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8) -- “Thou makest darkness and it is night…” (Psalm 104:20) -- Gen. 1:16 tells us that only the sun rules the day. Night is a completely different season (Gen. 8:22) ruled by the moon. You mention that Milgrom writes extensively on the subject but like me I noticed that you do not agree with everything Milgrom writes (see page 73 of your book). We know that many knowledgeable people have written extensively on the pre-trib rapture but we also know that with our studies of the Bible it is not so. In Gen. 1:5 not only does God tell us that light = day, He tells us that morning and evening are considered “day” (light). Please note that darkness is not called "day" or "light", but "night". When God wants to indicate a 24 hour period, He uses a phrase that contains the words “day” and “night” rather than “evening” and “morning”. Goliath presented himself to Israel for “40 days” “morning and evening”. We understand that he did not stand there for 40 consecutive 24 hour periods. Rather he presented himself two times a day (morning and evening) for 40 days. Night = darkness as Jesus confirms for us in John 11:9-10. He marries light and day in these scriptures and He puts night in a different category in verse 10 (see Gen. 1:4). Jesus said there is 12 hours in a day. This agrees with the ancient definition found in Gen. 1:5. Twelve is the highest numbered hour mentioned in scripture. Hours 13 to 24 are not found in the Bible. Nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus or anyone else (including his enemies) state that there is 24 hours in a day. As you know from your studies some scholars believe in sunset to sunset days, others in sunrise to sunrise days and some of them believe in both. If you check out my sights, you will find scholarship that understands that only the period of light was the original and ancient way to understand the day. In fact the Jewish Encyclopedia admits that according to the Bible Yom is considered the season of light, lasting from dawn until the stars come out. Elsewhere in the same source they say that according to the strict interpretation of Mosaic law all days begin with sunrise and end at sunset. You can get the specifics on my website. Please also see “The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible” (in several places) and “The Encyclopedia Biblica” for other examples of scholarship. Finally, all scholarship that I am aware of agrees that the middle of a day in scripture is at noon in both Testaments. Sunset to sunset would place the middle of a day early in the morning and sunrise to sunrise would place it late in the afternoon. Dawn to dark places it perfectly and agrees with Jesus that there is 12 hours in a day that consists of light. The Apostle Paul tells us that we are children of the "light" and of the "day" and that we are not of the "night" nor of "darkness" (1Thessolonians 5:4-5). Sounds familiar (Gen. 1:5). New (6/25/07) I read the article "Observe the Sabbath Day, But forget the Sabbath Night???. As you mention this guy "twists word meanings". He obviously has not seen my website study on how many angels can dance on the point of a needle at: Angeldancing.com (to save you time I already looked and there is no such website URL) The first problem with this article is found within the title. the words "Sabbath night" are not found anywhere in the scriptures. The major problem that this group faces and for that matter all groups that make "night" a requirement of the 4th commandment is that there is no such thing as a lunar day. For God calls the "greater light" (sun) "day". He calls the "lesser light" (moon) "night". Therefore the 7th "greater light" is the Sabbath day and night is not involved at all. As Dr. B. rightly points out, "...it is thus IMPORTANT to note at the outset that the method of observing the Sabbath from SUNSET TO SUNSET is dictated NOT BY THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ITSELF, but by the method of sunset reckoning which BECAME NORMATIVE IN JEWISH HISTORY." This writer does not even believe many of the things he wrote in paragraphs 2-4, including the definition of "morning" (boqer) means "dawn" ("as the break of day"). He ignores that the fact that God calls the "light day" and the fact that God considers both "morning" and "evening" day (light). For some reason the writer believes "evening" means "night" as a rule. The word "evening" as seen in Genesis 1:5 is found in the KJV 131 times and it is translated "night" 4 times. In 3 of those scriptures some translations use the word "evening" instead of "night". And maybe even in the 4th scripture (I can't remember). I did a study on this in the past and I will have to dig up the info. The 'Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament' says: "'ereb. Evening, night. This common masculine noun for "evening" likely developed from the expression, "the setting of the sun, sunset." They also add, "Only in Job 7:4 does 'ereb denote "night" proper." So of the 131 times the word is used, there is only a single time that it is properly translated as "night". 'Nelsons Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament' states, "in a late poetical use, the word can mean "night" (referring to Job 7:4). So the only time that ereb is properly translated as night, it is used in a late poetical sense, not in the primary sense. The 'Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon' says of Strong's 6153 "night" in Job 7:4,"(late poet.) = night" (p. 788). So as God reveals to us in Gen. 1:5 the primary meaning of evening in the scriptures is a time of light, hence the reason He calls "evening" "day". (a time from sunset on as the TWOT indicates). We never read about "three days and three evenings" (ereb) or "40 days and 40 evenings (ereb)". The author says that some daylight sabbath keepers claim that "yom" can only mean daylight and has no other meanings. Well I have not read any article making that claim. I can only speak for myself and I certainly have not said that. As we know "yom" can be used in a prophetic sense or it can mean a general period of time. It is translated "time" in 64 places. What I have said is whenever 'yom' refers to a natural day it only refers to the period of "greater light" and it is never over 12 hours long. The author then gives a list of scriptures using the word "yom" to defend his position. Almost all of them use "yom" in the sense of a general period of time and not a natural day. I looked at them all and see nothing to support his claim. If you do please let me know. The passover texts he uses we have talked about time and again. The author fails to notice that in one of his proof texts, (Exodus 16:23) that "To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath..." "To morrow" always starts with the morning and a new day in the OT. Sometimes we will see something like "to morrow at a certain time of the day we will do such and such." But whatever is done to morrow is always done sometime between dawn to dark. Moses did not say "the rest of the Holy Sabbath begins at even". (see Judges chapter 19 mentioned in my previous email regarding to morrow). I also cover this topic on my website. The author says "another obviously misconstrued translation by the writer is "darkness" (#2822)with "night" (#3915). Maybe God was confused when He said "and the darkness (2822) he called Night (3915)" (Gen.1:5). I guess Psalm 104:20 is a mistake also: "Thou makest darkness (2822), and it is night (3915)...". He then tries to bring up Nehemiah 13:19 to prove that the Sabbath begins at sunset. Since he does not seem to know the difference between evening and night or that darkness equals night or that light=day, etc., how can he know what this scripture means. I cover this issue on #(35) listed under "Quotes" on my website. He somehow concludes that "day" (#3117) is used almost exclusively to mean a 24-hour period..." As I have stated elsewhere, "It is interesting to note that while the word “yom”(day -3117) is used in the range of 2,000 times in the scriptures it is never once translated in the Kings James Version as “dark”,“darkness”, “night”,“midnight”, “night season”, etc. It stands to reason that if the word “yom” covers the period of night we would find numerous texts in which this word would be translated as “night” or “darkness”, etc. But we do not. God's primary word for "night" is "layela^h". And Psalm 104:20 reads, "Thou makest darkness, and it is night..." (layela^h). Any Bible dictionary will tell you that night is the opposite of day. Finally, for some reason he quotes 'Alexander the Great'. And for some reason I will quote from Paul McCartney's song "Every Night": "Every morning brings a new day And every night that day is through." I wonder if Alexander knew that? New (6/22/07) As you said, "YEAH, RIGHT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR!" I think some of the sunset to sunset groups are getting worried that they will lose people. It is interesting how a little child can tell us when a day begins and ends, yet this group says "from morning to night, this is a purely human invention." It is also interesting how "The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof" (Ps 50:1) and "From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name is to be praised." (Ps 113:3) and "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts." Mal. 1:11)-(now & future). God does call His people only once a year from "even unto even" and as you point out this includes a fast which sunset to sunset believers ignore but they are forced to use Lev. 23:32 as it is the only "even unto even" Sabbath in the entire Bible. They also ignore the fact that the 9th and 10th days are included in this "even unto even" and they do this by putting words in the mouth of God that He did not day. This writer has gone his own way when he says the 9th means the 10th. I have never seen a translation that calls the 9th at "even" the 10th. Only modern (compared to ancient) Sabbath keepers do that. This writer believes that Lev. 23:27 proves his point. This is not searching the scriptures, this is not even searching the entire chapter. This verse (27) certainly speaks of the 10th as the Day of Atonement in which we afflict our souls. If we do not stop at verse 27, we wind up at verse 32 which begins by telling us that this day of Atonement is a "Sabbath of rest". The very next word is "AND",(meaning in addition to what was just said), we must also "afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." (Note: God does not say "Oh by the way, the 9th really means the 10th). No. God calls the 9th the 9th as does every translation that I have seen (including Lamsa's). The Jews preserved Scripture: As you said, "that does not mean they understand it" (e.g., Jesus - excellent answer, Daryl). Just read all of Ezekiel chapter 20 to see how God's Sabbath's (statutes etc.) were polluted by Israel. At times God said I hate YOUR Sabbaths. In the New Testament Jesus told the religious leaders of His day that they kept none of the law (I think that would include the Sabbath). Yes Scholars make errors. I have learned a lot from Bible scholars, but I know that tradition can grab them just as it can grab us. While this writer shows some that believe days began at sunset to sunset, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi points out that, "...NUMEROUS SCHOLARS have argued for the existence in Bible times of a SUNRISE METHOD OF DAY RECKONING...the evidence for the SUNRISE RECKONING IS SIGNIFICANT AND CANNOT BE IGNORED..." And Dr. B. is one of the few sunset to sunset advocates who understands and is not afraid to admit there is sunrise reckonings on both testaments. Why do some see sunrise reckonings and some don't? TRADITION!! da da da da da da. It is interesting how people will bring up all the scriptures that say a person is unclean until "even" (Lev. 15:5). Funny how they do not notice that it never says a person is unclean until daybreak or until the next day when evening comes. It simply says "even" or "evening". The writer brings up Judges 20:26 where the people fast until "even". What does that have to do with the beginning of a new day. If only he would have gone back one chapter to Judges 19 maybe he would see when a new day begins. It is a beautiful chapter in this regard. Notice what some scholars say about this chapter: "...In EARLIER TRADITIONS a DAY apparently began at SUNRISE (E.G., Lev. 7:15-17; Judg. 19:4-19)..." (Oxford Companion To The Bible, p. 744). "Before the EXILE the Hebrews divided the day into MORNING, NOON, and EVENING...they also described it in terms of four periods: SUNRISE (Gen.19:15, "when MORNING DAWNED" (cf. Luke 24:1; 19:23, "when the Sun had Risen"; 32:31, "the Sun Rose" (cf. Mark 16:1), the heat of the DAY (Gen. 18:1; 1 Sam.11:11), the cool of the Day (Gen. 3:8), and Sunset (Gen. 15:12, 17; Judg. 19:8, ("until the DAY DECLINES"). (The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, p. 266). Note: Using Judges chapter 19 this author points out that the day declines at sunset. It does not end at sunset. "In Israel, the DAY was for a LONG TIME RECKONED FROM MORNING to morning...and it was in fact in the Morning, with the CREATION OF LIGHT, that the world began; the DISTINCTION of Day and Night, and time too, BEGAN ON A MORNING (Gn. 1:3-5, cf. 14:16, 18)...In the story of the Levite of Ephraim: he stays THREE DAYS with his father-in-law and Stops the NIGHT there. The fourth DAY, he WAKES and wants to depart. He is detained and again Stops the NIGHT. The fifth DAY, the father-in-law says to him: 'Behold, the DAY is FAR ADVANCED TOWARDS EVENING. Spend the NIGHT here again...TO-MORROW, EARLY IN THE MORNING, you will depart...' (Jg. 19:4-9). Saul's henchmen arrive at NIGHT to take David by surprise, and Mikal says to him: 'If you do not escape TO-NIGHT, TO-MORROW you are a dead man' (1 Sam. 19:11). In the house of the witch of Endor, Samuel appears to Saul during the NIGHT and says to him: 'TO-MORROW, you and your sons will be with me' (1 Sam. 28:19). (Ancient Israel, p. 181 - 182). ...The Israelites regarded the morning as the beginning of the day; in the evening the day declined 'or' went down,' and until the new day ('morning')...it was necessary to 'tarry all night' (cp Judg. 19:6-9)...Nu. 11:32 'all that day and all the night and all the next day'). Not till post-exilic times do we find traces of a new mode of reckoning which makes day begin at sunset and continue till the sunset following...” (Encyclopedia Biblica, pp. 1035-1036). “It would appear that the early Hebrews reckoned the civil day from one dawn to the next, as would naturally follow from its simplest meaning...cf. Num. 11:32; Judg. 19:5-9...Gradually however, they began to count from sunset to sunset, in accordance with the rising importance of their lunar festivals..." (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 783).” Even Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi , possibly the most well known Christian advocate of sunset to sunset Sabbath observance notes: "In the story of the Levite of Ephraim we are told that he stayed four days with his father-in-law. On the fifth day the father-in-law says to him: "Behold, now the day has waned toward evening; pray tarry all night...and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home" (Judges 19:9). The fact that the morning following the night is referred to as "tomorrow" suggests that the new day here begins at sunrise..." (Chapter 5). ('The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection'.) The writer states: "'evening-mornings' [in] Daniel 8:14; compare the Greek word 'nychthaemeron,' literally 'Night-Day,' = the time of 24 hours, 2 Corinthians 11:25)." (I sent you an article on the book of Daniel in another email).Regarding'nychthaemeron,'(2 Cor. 11:25), see number (81) listed under quotes on my website. They mention Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels as one who supports sunset to sunset. That is why Robertson is surprised that John says the evening is the same day as the afternoon and morning before it. And he says John may have always reckoned this way: ". . . one passage in John (20:19), when compared with Luke 24:29, 36, makes it NECESSARY to understand that JOHN used the ROMAN METHOD (my note: God's Method) in this instance. It was toward evening and the DAY HAD DECLINED according to Luke, when Jesus and the disciples drew near to Emmaus. Here he ate supper and, "rising up that very hour," the disciples returned seven miles to Jerusalem and told these things to the eleven who were together. But while they were narrating these things Jesus appears to them. Now John, in mentioning this very appearance of Jesus (20:19), says that it 'WAS EVENING ON THAT DAY, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK", i.e., evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord. But with the Jews the EVENING BEGAN THE DAY. Hence, JOHN, here at least, is BOUND TO MEAN THE ROMAN DAY (my note: God's day). It was the EVENING OF THE SAME DAY IN THE MORNING OF WHICH MARY HAD SEEN JESUS. THIS APPEARS CONCLUSIVE. John DID use the ROMAN method (my note: God's method) here, MAY HAVE DONE SO ALWAYS. . ." Robertson also writes: "Sabbath day may be used of the DAY FOLLOWED BY THE NIGHT, according to a possible understanding of the language. The JEWS originally counted from Evening to Evening, but this CUSTOM DID NOT PREVAIL UNIVERSALLY. Jonah (1:17) and Matthew (12:40) speak of three Days and three Nights, Following Day by the Night...". (Harmony of The Gospels, p. 289). They use "Cockrell" as a sunset to sunset advocate. Cockrell also admits to the following: "The Meaning of Day in the Bible The word "day" in the Bible in its primary sense means the interval between dawn and darkness. "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night . . . " Genesis 1:5. (Compare Genesis 1:14-18; 8:22.) This is the first occurrence of the word "day" in the Bible, and the Lord God himself gives its meaning. Jesus believed there were 12 hours in a day. He asked in John 11:9: " . . . Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world." (Was Jesus in the grave for exactly three days and three nights?) This writer tries to prove that a new day dawns in the evening using Mat. 28:1. Yeah Right: Regarding Mat. 28:1, Albert Barnes in his Notes on the New Testament writes. “In the end of the Sabbath. The word end here means the same as After the Sabbath- that is after the Sabbath was fully completed or finished, and may be expressed in this manner: in the NIGHT following the Sabbath, for the Sabbath closed at sunset, as it began to dawn-As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week-. The word dawn is not of necessity in the original. The word there properly means as the first day approached or drew on without specifying the precise time. Mark says (16:1-2) that it was after the Sabbath was past, and very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun-that is, not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise, or at the early BREAK OF DAY. Luke says (24:1) that is was very early in the morning; in the Greek, deep twilight or when there was scarcely any light. John (20:1) says it was very early, while it was yet dark- that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen, the time when they came, therefore, was at the BREAK OF DAY, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible. The first day of the week.”(p.317). In the same book speaking of early daybreak Barnes says “there is much appearance of night”(p.332), hence the reason John could say it was “yet dark”. Note, that he is saying that all 4 Gospel writers (Matthew included) agree on the time of the day which is the “break of day” on the “first day of the week”, “very early in the morning”, “when the sun was about to rise”. He also says the time that they arrived was “just as the light appeared in the east, yet so dark as to render objects indistinct”(p.325). Also note that Barnes as well as many other commentators state that in Mat. 28:1 they arrive “after the Sabbath”, that is after it is “fully completed or finished”. It is important to point out that Barnes says that there is a “Night following the Sabbath” but that the people did not arrive until the “break of day” as “the light appeared in the east” when there was “scarcely any light”. So Barnes, who was a 19th Century Sunday Keeper interprets all 4 Gospel writers describing the “break of day” as Sunday morning at first light and not at Night. If we look at the primary meaning of the word used for “dawn” in Mat. 28:1, ‘Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words’ states that it means “to grow light”. The light of evening is not growing light, it is growing dark. And the beginning of “Night” is obviously not “growing light”. Therefore the first day of the week would not start in the evening or at Night, but it would start following the night, “just as the light appeared in the east” and it began “to grow light”. The Apostle Paul writes: “The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.”(Romans 13:12). So a day is “at hand” only after a night is “far spent”. Dr. Bacchiocchi writes regarding Mat. 28:1 “...expositors are generally agreed that the verb epiphosko is used in its literal meaning of “to dawn”. This conclusion is based first of all on the parallel statements of the other Gospels, which explicitly place the visit of the women to the tomb “at early dawn” (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1). There is no hint in any of the Gospels that the women made two visits to the sepulchre, one on Saturday afternoon and one on Sunday morning. Thus we are justified in concluding that the “dawning” in Matthew is literal as in the other Gospels.”(The Time of The Crucifixion and Resurrection, Chapter 4). Dr. B. agrees with Albert Barnes that Mat. 28:1 should say “after the Sabbath” and that “the word opse is used by late Greek writers as a preposition meaning “after”. Standard Greek lexicons and modern translations recognize that this is the sense in which the word is used in Matthew 28:1.” He also states that “A second possible solution to the apparent contradiction between the two time references found in Matthew 28:1 is suggested by the possibility that Matthew here used the sunrise-to-sunrise method of day reckoning...”(same book as above). Dr. B. concludes that this is the case. And as you know, Dr. B. is a sunset to sunset observer. Another well know sunset to sunset Sabbath observing group (CGI) states the following on Mat. 28:1, “Answer: Let's see if we can clear the confusion by comparing Matthew 28:1 with several other passages. The event in question is described by all four "gospel" writers, as quoted below: ^Matthew 28:1: ' '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. " Mark 16:1-2: "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. " Luke 24:1: ' 'Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, ..." John20:l: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto thesepulchre, ..." What do we learn from these accounts? First, the event occurred on the first day of the week, as Mark, Luke and John make clear. Second, it was yet dark, as John tells us. Third, it was very early in the mom-ing, as revealed by Mark and Luke. Fourth, it occurred at the rising of the sun, according to Mark. Our conclusion: Early Sunday morning, the sun beginning to peek over the mountains of the distant horizon-just enough light to make forms and images identifiable-the women approached the sepulchre. In order for Matthew's account to harmonize with the other accounts, the phrase, "In the end of the Sabbath... " (Matthew 28:1), must mean ' 'After the Sabbath...," or ' 'Following the Sabbath..." Several translators agree with this. "After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn" (The Twentieth Century New Testament). "On the night after the Sabbath, at the hour when dawn broke on the first day of the week" (The New Testament in the Translation of Mon-signor Ronald Knox). "After the Sabbath, towards dawn on the first day of the week" (The Four Gospels, C. H. Rieu). Below see a number of other translations that state it was “after the Sabbath” was over before the first day of the week began to dawn and grow light: Anthony Purver's translation London. 1764), renders it "But in the night after the sabbath-at the dawning of the first day after, it" In the Book the New Covenant [translator not named; London, 1838) it says: "And after the sabbath, when it began to dawn on the first day of the week." Emphatic Diaglott: "Now after the sabbath, as it was dawning to the first day of the week." F. W. Grant: "Now after the sabbath, as it began to dawn the first day of the week." Overbury: "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn." Weymouth: "After the sabbath, in the early dawn of the first day of the week." Fenton: "After the sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day following the sabbaths." Woodruff: "After the sabbath, when the day began to dawn; on the first day of the week." Campbell: "Sabbath being over, and the first day of the week beginning to dawn. "Noyes: "And the sabbath being over, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." Newcome: "But after the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." Wakefield: "Now, after the end of the week, as the first day of the (next) week began to dawn." Thomson: "Now the sabbath being over, at the dawn of the first day of the week."Weekes: 'Then after the sabbath, at the dawning toward the first day of the week." Scarlett: "After the sabbath, in the dawn, toward the first day of the week." Taylor: "And after the sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn." Worsley: "Now after the sabbath, in the dawning towards the first day of the week." Norton: "And the sabbath being over, in the dawn of the first day of the week." Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: "After the sabbath, as it grew toward day light." I will comment on the "Jewish Groups" article in my next email to you. P.S. I think only "12 hour Sabbath" will come to the top of Google and Yahoo. Don't forget the Journal link under "C" for "Case" New (2/22/07 As promised, below is a draft of my response to Eric Snow's article "“Is the Sabbath just Twelve Daylight Hours?”. Again, at this time I am only using this to answer various people who have asked me to respond to this article. I continue to add and make adjustments to it and I will use a similar version if I am ever asked to respond to it in a public forum. I would appreciate your thoughts. My response starts below: Yes, the Sabbath Day is Just Twelve Daylight Hours! Approximately eleven years ago I asked the question (in a Genesis to Revelation study), does the weekly Sabbath day begin at sunset and is it 24 hour long? I concluded then and I still believe that the Biblical day (including the Sabbath day) begins at dawn and ends at dark. You can find my in depth study (A Case for the 12 Hour Sabbath) at: http://www.geocities.com/star_sraw/sabbathday.html Recently I have been asked by some people to review the article “Is the Sabbath just Twelve Daylight Hours?” by Eric Snow. As an introduction, please keep in mind that while I must point out what I believe to be a number of errors in this article, it is not my intention to put Mr. Snow down. I believe the reason some people have asked me to review his article is because he has a history of writing Biblically based articles and is well respected. I understand the authors reaction to this teaching because my belief was identical to his for many years. Many people have observed the sunset to sunset tradition for years, thinking that there was nothing new to learn about the timing of God‘s weekly Holy day. The mistake that some of us have made when confronted with this issue and the overwhelming evidence that it presents is that we let our emotions rule. Instead of searching all of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation as we normally would, we simply search our emotions and therefore we see nothing except the traditions that we have been taught over the years. Many of us discovered years ago that we were observing the first day of the week instead of the seventh day Sabbath as instructed by God. And then when we discovered what we thought was the “true Sabbath” we knew that we finally “got it right“. Now, it is very hard to swallow the fact that we might have been wrong again after all of these years of believing that we had the “right doctrine” . In addition, we shared this “right doctrine” with many other people telling them that the exact time matters to God. The combination of these various factors have made this a very emotional topic. Many people have observed sunset to sunset from their youth because someone in their family discovered the “true Sabbath” prior to their birth. This group of people have grown up hearing all of the stories of how certain members of their family and other people sharing the same belief discovered the “true Sabbath”. As a result of hearing this all of their lives, they never thought to question a sunset to sunset day (Please see my article, “Does the Weekly Sabbath Day Really Begin at Sunset?”): http://www.geocities.com/star_sraw/sabbathsunset.html The article that I have been asked to review (Is the Sabbath Just Twelve Daylight Hours?”) is a critique of another gentleman’s belief that the seventh day Sabbath takes in only the light of day and does not extend into the night. In his summary the author (Eric Snow) states: “Above, it's been briefly shown that Myron Martin's view that the Sabbath is only twelve hours of daylight each week is wrong because it inflexibly assumes the exegetical principle that words in the Bible have only one definition.” I contend that anyone who is willing to take a fresh look at this subject and do an in depth study will quickly discover why the author had to briefly show his position by using inappropriate proof texts. I believe that an extensive study will dismantle these proof texts. And while my review of this article cannot be as extensive as I would like it to be, my full length study is and continues to grow. So please do not to forget to combine this review with my exhaustive study mentioned in the first paragraph of this article. What follows is my review of article “Is the Sabbath Just Twelve Daylight Hours?”: Observe how the author appeals to the “traditional Jewish”...”teaching” when he states: “But is this true? Is the traditional Jewish and church of God teaching that the Sabbath is a twenty-four hour period running from sunset to sunset false?” In this case he whole heartily supports the ancient traditional Jewish teaching because it agrees with the traditions that he has been taught. But does this author always appeal to traditional Jewish teachings to support his beliefs? In an article in which he attempts to demonstrate that Jesus is God, he writes: “...the Jews have misinterpreted their own Scriptures, especially because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the New Testament as the further revelation of God. (p.4 ‘Further Evidence That Jesus Is God’). -- And remember that within the pages of the New Testament, Jesus reveals to us that there is 12 hours in a day (John 11:9-10). The author continues: “... In reality, since the New Testament helps us interpret the Old Testament, and vice versa, we should be wary of following in the footsteps of centuries-old Jewish tradition. This tradition has been influenced by paganism (as Philo and the name of the month "Tammuz" show) and has not had the Holy Spirit to guide its development for, by now, almost two millennia.” (p. 4 ‘Further Evidence That Jesus Is God’). As you can see from the above the author is not as excited about other traditional Jewish teachings. Based on this writers previous warnings concerning “centuries old Jewish tradition”, should we not also be wary of the ancient Jewish teaching that says a day is 24 hours long and runs from sunset to sunset? Should we not at the very least question it? The author continues” “Below, some basic Biblical evidence supporting the traditional teaching of the Church of God that the Sabbath lasts twenty-four hours and starts at sunset is considered and analyzed.” Unfortunately from the beginning of his article the authors argument is with Jesus Christ, who informs us, “...Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9-10). The author must come to terms with the fact that he believes that there is twice as many hours in a day than our Lord and Savior does. The author must also be willing to live with the fact that Jesus confirms the fact in these verses (John 11:9-10) that LIGHT and DAY are married, and that NIGHT and NO LIGHT (Darkness) belong in a separate category, as Genesis 1:4 indicates: ". . . and God DIVIDED the LIGHT from the DARKNESS. And of course no one in the scriptures contradicts Jesus by saying “are there not 24 hours in the day?” How do people invent their own non-Biblical religious traditions? They disagree with God (unintentionally or intentionally). Speaking of Genesis 1:5 he writes, “Looking at the latter part of the verse alone, you can see that the evening ("ereb" in Hebrew) precedes the morning ("boqer" in Hebrew).” Here he makes the critical mistake of ignoring the first part of the verse and the definition of a “day” from the very mouth of God (“And God called the light day“). He does not explain: (1) How an "evening and the morning" could possibly = 24 hours (God calls them both ”day” which = light, Gen. 1:5). (2) He fails to tell us that if there is 24 hours in a day, how many hours are in a night? (God says day and night are two different seasons as different as summer and winter, Gen. 8:22). In our society we have an expression that something is “as different as night and day”. Fortunately, we can step outside our front door and observe that day and night are not the same. (3) He forgets to tell us how "the evening and the morning" (Gen. 1:5) could possibly mean the same thing as "from even unto even" (Leviticus 23:32). (4) He does not explain that the primary meaning of the word "morning" is "dawn" or "daybreak". The first light of morning is consistently the “break of day” throughout the scriptures. "Genesis 32:22, 24. Verse 22 indicates that Jacob "rose up that NIGHT" and in verse 24, "...Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until THE BREAKING OF THE DAY" (or "until the coming up of DAWN" ---from the book "The Five Books of Moses", p. 155). Verse 26 reads: "And let me go, for THE DAY BREAKETH..." (or "for DAWN has come up"--"The Five Books of Moses", p.155). And in verse 31, after they have wrestled, we see that, "...as he passed over Penu'-el the SUN ROSE UPON HIM..." (5) He does not note that “morning” comes before “evening” more times than “evening” comes before “morning” in the scriptures. He does not explain why the word “evening” in the scriptures is simply called “evening” “even” “sunset” etc. and why it is never called “daybreak” or “break of day” as it should be called if days started at sunset. (I have covered all of the above in detail my study.) Genesis 1:5 can be confusing when we approach it with preconceived notions. That is why the author must skip over the very first thing that God says: “And God called the light day…” He must ignore this statement from the very mouth of God in order hang on to his position. Even if Genesis 1:5 does seem confusing, God clarifies what He means in the very same chapter when He placed the sun and the moon in the sky (verse 16). He tells us that the sun was made to rule the day (light - the sun rules long after sunset until dark) and that the moon was made to rule the night (darkness). “You makest darkness and it is night..” (Psalm 104:20). Note that Psalm 104:20 does not say “You makest darkness and it is day”. As I explain in my study, night is a completely different season than day. As different as summer and winter (Gen. 8:22): "O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent." (Psalm 22:2). "I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons." (Psalm 16:7). “...the ancient Hebrew often lived and thought in terms of SEASONS...he cried unto God in the NIGHT SEASON. In the first chapter of Genesis God has seemingly himself determined this division of time, for He has placed the sun and the moon in the firmament of heaven "to Divide the Day from the Night"...When Hebrew writers refer to the ONLY TIMES OF DAY RECOGNIZED BY THEM, they do so in terms of the NATURAL divisions of MORNING, NOON and EVENING, times which, of course, varied in length depending upon the actual seasons of the year..." (Life and Language in the Old Testament, p. 33,36,37). "There is a beautiful little parable in Rom. xiii. (my note: Rom 13:12) when the apostle, picturing the close of the night season and the near approach of the daybreak, urges all to awake out of sleep, to cast off the works of darkness, the apparel belonging to the night, and to clothe themselves for the day in the armour of light..." (The Study of the Types, p. 108). The author continues: “But must the word "day" only refer to daylight? Martin maintains that the word "day" can only refer to daylight:” Question. Is Martin the only one who maintains this view? What does God Himself say? “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here again is the part Genesis 1:5 that the author ignored. I cannot ignore it or get around it. So yes, when it comes to natural ordinary days and the 7th day Sabbath, “day” = “light”. Jesus agrees with this perfectly (are there not 12 hours in the day?-- John 11:9-10). Can the word “day” have a other meanings? Yes, when it does not have to do with ordinary days. Such as: “ For, behold, in those "days", and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,...” (Joel 3:1). Other places where the word “day” is used in a prophetic sense, it is called the “day of the Lord or great day of the Lord, etc.” (Zep. 1:14). About 95% of the time the word “day” (Hebrew “yom”) simply means an ordinary day from dawn to dark. It is important to note that while the word “yom” (day) is used in the range of 2,000 times in the scriptures it is never once translated in the Kings James Version as “dark”, “darkness”, “night”, “midnight”, “night season”, etc. It stands to reason that if the word “yom” covers the period of night we would find numerous texts in which this word would be translated as “night” or “darkness”, etc. But we do not (“And the darkness he called night”, Gen. 1:5). There is no such thing as a lunar day, because God’s instruction says the “greater light” (sun) is “to rule the day” (Gen. 1:16). And He also says, “…the seventh day (light) is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:8). The author then writes: "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me" (Luke 22:34). Now, since Jesus declared this during the Passover meal during the night portion of Nisan fourteenth, it's undeniable that Jesus used the word "today" to refer to the "night" portion of a twenty-four hour period. According to Thayer's (p. 574), the Greek word here translated "today" is "semeron," which means "to-day, this day." So when Peter denied Jesus three times by sunrise, which is when roosters crow, that included "today" (see Luke 22:60-62).” Before we look at the scripture in question, let us go back a little further in time to Mark 14:17 and Mat. 26:20. Mark states as the Apostles came together for the Passover meal: “And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.” Matthew writes: “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.” In both cases, note that the writers simply say that evening has come. neither one states that it was the break of day or the next day as Jesus sat down with the 12 disciples. Moving on we read in John 13:30 “He (Judas) then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.” (“...and the darkness he called Night.” - Gen. 1:5). Now we come to Luke 22:34 and Jesus says : “And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.” When Jesus said “the cock shall not crow “this day”, why does He tie “this day” with the cock crow. Because a cock crows at daybreak . So Jesus was speaking of the new day to come in the morning and not the period of time when He made the statement which was still at night. Peter was going deny Jesus before the cock would crow which would be at dawn or the break of day or “this day“. The “IVP Bible Background” states: “For most people in the ancient Mediterranean, a rooster’s crowing marked daybreak.” (p. 252). “The cock is accustomed to crow twice--once at midnight and once in the morning at the break of day...The latter was commonly called cock-crowing...Mark and Luke speak of the second crowing and mean the same time...” (Barnes on the New Testament, p. 285). Notice how the Knox version of the Bible translates verse 34: “by cock crow this morning.”. The Living Bible states: “Between now and tomorrow morning when the rooster crows.”. Here they call the “morning” “tomorrow” and the time when the “rooster crows“. Why, because the first light of morning starts the new day. Clearly we need to look at the whole picture and not just pull a word out of thin air and try make it fit our theology. In Matthew 26:31 Jesus says: “Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night...”. In verse 34 we read, “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” Jesus knows the difference between day and night and He states that it will still be night and before the cock crows when Peter denies Jesus 3 times. Here we get a better feel for what He was saying. Combine this with Luke and it makes sense. In 1Corinthians 11:23, Paul writes, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:” Paul states that it was at night, not day that Jesus was betrayed. Paul also wrote: "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all children of the light and the children of the day; we are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore, let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." (1 Thessalonians 5:4-8). Paul is in perfect agreement with Genesis 1:5, as he calls the light day and the darkness night. He also shows that day is not a part of the night.” In Romans 13:12, Paul divides light and darkness when he says: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." A day is "at hand" only after a night is 'far spent". Day and night do not share the same space. As we move back to the chapter in question, Luke (22:60-61) writes, “And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” Remember that in Matthew 26:34 Jesus stated “That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice”. As soon as Peter denied Him a third time at “night” the “cock crew”. So night takes us right up to daybreak. That is why Paul said, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." As we come to verse 66, notice carefully what Luke writes, “And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council...” Why does Luke say this now? Because it was not “day” until the cock crew. Luke would definitely not agree the author that it was day when Jesus spoke the words “this day”. It became day only after the night was over. ‘Moffatt’ translates verse 66 as, “When day Broke”. ‘Knox’ writes, “when day came”. ’The Living Bible’ adds, “Early the next morning at daybreak”. It important to be aware of the fact that the word for “day” that Luke uses in verse 66 when he writes: “And as soon as it was day” (hemera) is different from the word Jesus uses in verse 34 when He says “this day” (semeron) referring to the day that will shortly arrive at dawn (cock crow). The word for “day” (hemera) used in verse 66 is the same word that Jesus uses in Matthew 12:40 when He refers to Himself and Jonah and the three days and three nights in both testaments. Obviously the word “hemera” is equivalent to the word “yom” in the Older Testament and has a primary meaning of “dawn to dark“. It is this word in which the vast majority of Sabbath observing groups agree that none of the 3 days mentioned in Matthew 12:40 (New Testament) - (or Jonah 1:17 Old Testament) exceeds 12 hours in length. Jesus uses “hemera” again in John 11:9 when He says, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?”. Hemera (V:66) is the standard word for day in the New Testament and is used some 366 times. Semeron (V:34) is used about 40 times. We will take a closer look at the lesser used word of “semeron” shortly. It should be clear in this instance that not only has the author not searched the whole council of God before arriving at his conclusion in Luke chapter 22, the fact is, he did not even search to verse 66 of the chapter in question. This is the very same Luke who wrote some very interesting things in Acts the 20th chapter. The "New International Biblical Commentary" states" . . . they met on THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. This is a JEWISH EXPRESSION, but it must still be asked whether LUKE was thinking in Jewish or ROMAN TERMS (my note: God's terms) in marking the days. By JEWISH reckoning this would have been a "Saturday" night (as we would call it), since the new day for THEM started at sunset, making Saturday night the beginning of the first day of the week. But because LUKE speaks of "SUNRISE" as "THE NEXT DAY" (cf.vv. 11 and 7) he APPEARS to be using ROMAN RECKONING (my note: God's reckoning), according to which midnight, and effectively SUNRISE, MARKED THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW DAY. . ." ". . . hence the meeting at night (SUNDAY NIGHT) . . ." (p. 347). LUKE considered the "MORROW" (v. 7) when PAUL departed as the "BREAK OF DAY" (v. 11 and not the evening before as most commentators assume.) Vine’s commenting on Acts 20:11 writes, “Break of day" (my note: listed under "Day")...auge..."brightness, bright, shining, as of the sun"; hence, "the beginning of daylight," is translated "break of day" in Acts 20:11." (p, 147).” It is also important to note that in the Bible “noon” (Acts 22:6) means "middle-day" (Vine's pg 434). Once again it is Luke who wrote Acts 22:6: If days begin at sunset and are 24 hours long, why does God indicate that noon is midday? God should be calling morning midday. Notice what Dr. Bacchiocchi writes: "The day appears to begin at sunrise also in Mark 16:2 which says: "And very early on the first day of the week they (the two Mary’s) went to the tomb when the sun had risen." According to the sunset reckoning the "very early" part of the first day of the week would be the hours immediately following the end of the Sabbath at sunset--what we would call Saturday night. Mark however, takes pains to explain what he means by "very early on the first day of the week," namely, not the early hours of the night immediately following the close of the Sabbath at sunset, but "when the sun had risen." ...Mark saw the need to clarify what he meant by "very early on the first day of the week," namely, "when the sun had risen." This time reference presupposes a sunrise reckoning because according to the sunset reckoning, by the time the sun had risen it was the middle and not the early part of the first day." ('The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection' -Chapter 5).---Notice. Not only does Dr. Bacchiocchi conclude that the day begins at sunrise in this New Testament verse, he also correctly observes that morning should be midday if the day began at sunset. The next scripture that the author presents is Matthew 27:19 and he writes: "And while he [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night [semeron] I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him." As Thayer's (p. 574) comments, this is "where the speaker refers to the night just passed," although the literal meaning of the word is "today," as the NASB margin notes. Since Pilate was judging Jesus during the morning hours, it's dubious to assert that his wife's special dream had been during the daylight portion of Nisan 14th. She wasn't just getting up from a siesta! Clearly, the word "today" can include the night portion of a twenty-four hour period.” The KJV translates the verse in question as follows: “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things “this day” in a dream because of him.” As the author points out “Pilate was judging Jesus during the morning hours” and his wife says “I have suffered many things this day in a dream”. I don’t know about you, but there have been a number of times in my life that I have awaken from a dream in the morning when the sun had risen. Therefore it makes perfect sense that she would say “this day”. If Pilate’s wife had suffered in her dreams at night she surely would have awaken Pilate in the night to express her fears and not wait until the light of day as she did. As the author admits the “literal meaning of the word is "today”. The use of “this day” in this case in not at odds with God’s definition of a day. What if Pilate’s wife had said, “It is dark outside and the moon is full “today”. Whould we have taken the words of a woman who was married to the pagan ruler (Pilate) and try to override God’s definition of a day? Of course not. This is exactly what the author is attempting to do. We must remember that while all of the original words of the Bible are truly recorded, not all of the words are truth. For an example we would never dream of using the words of Satan recorded in the Bible to override God’s instructions. Surely the author does not believe the accusations of the Pharisees that Jesus broke the Sabbath. We must be careful in choosing the voices we believe no matter where they are recorded. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). As promised, we will now take a look at the word “semeron” that the author has used in his last two proof texts (Luke 22:34 and Matthew 27:19). Once again “semeron” (“this day” or “today”) is not the word that Jesus used when speaking of “three days and three nights” (Mat. 12:40) or “12 hours in a day” (John 11:9). As we discovered in Luke 22:34, Jesus was clearly refering to the break of day (cock crow) in the morning (future) when He used the word “semeron” (this day) and not the night in which he said it. While “semeron” can certainly mean today as in right now, it also can have other meanings that look to the future as did Jesus when He used it in Luke 22:34. Vine’s commenting on the word “Daily” states: “&lt1,,1967,epiousios> is found in Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3. Some would derive the word from epi, "upon," and eimi, "to be," as if to signify "(bread) present," i.e., sufficient bread, but this formation is questionable. The same objection applies to the conjecture, that it is derived from epi, and ousia, and signifies "(bread) for sustenance." The more probable derivation is from epi, and eimi, "to go," (bread) for going on, i.e., for the morrow and after, or (bread) coming (for us). See the RV marg. This suits the added semeron, "to-day," i.e., the prayer is to be for bread that suffices for this day and next, so that the mind may conform to Christ's warning against anxiety for the morrow. Confirmation of this derivation is also to be found in the word epiouse, in the phrase "the next day," Acts 7:26; 16:11.” (p, 143) On page 635 Vine’s adds, “In Heb. 4:7, the "today" of Ps. 95:7 is evidently designed to extend to the present period of the Christian faith.” Semeron is used in another familiar text to the Sabbath Observing community. That text is Luke 23:43 where we read: “And Jesus said unto him (thief on the cross), Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Because of various doctrines some say the comma in this verse should appear before the word “to day” as it is in the King James Version and some say the comma should appear after the word “to day” as do many Sabbath keepers because we know the thief on the cross was not in paradise the very day that Jesus spoke these words. When did the thief ask Jesus to remember him in verse 42? “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”…“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day (or “this day) shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (V:43). What day was the thief and Jesus refering to? The future day when the Kingdom of God is established on earth. Just as Jesus was looking to the future cock crow, calling that period of time “this day” at daybreak (dawn), here, He uses the same word in Luke 23:43 as He looked to the future resurrection and Kingdom of God and called it “this day”. If we read the verse with this understanding, it does not matter if the comma is before or after “this day” or “to day”. The point is that “semeron” has a number of meanings and as the author points out Thayer indicates that it can also mean the “night just passed”. Strong’s states, “day (or night current or just passed)” While Thayer believes that the wife of Pilate dreamt at night and the NASB Bible uses the word “night” in its text, I have shown that there is no proof for that assumption. In fact the author points out that the NASB admits that “the literal meaning of the word is "today," as the NASB margin notes.” Addressing Thayer’s assumption, it must be noted that while this word may have been used somewhere in Greek literature to mean “night”, it is always translated as either “to day” or “this day” in the King James Version of the Bible. It is never translated as “dark“, “darkness“, “night“, “midnight“, “night season“, etc. Next on the authors list is the following statement: “But does Scripture provide specific evidence that a day ends at sunset or at nightfall? For example, consider Joshua 8:29 : "And he [Joshua] hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua gave command and they took his body down from the tree, and threw it at the entrance to the city gate, and raised over it a great heap of stones that stands to this day." Now why did Joshua move to remove the executed king's body by sunset? That was when the day ended, since he was following the instructions of Deut. 21:22-23 : "And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance." First of all please observe that the king hung on a tree until “evening, and at sunset...”. He did Not hang on a tree until daybreak or the next day, for a day does not begin at sunset. The author asks, “Now why did Joshua move to remove the executed king's body by sunset?”. That was when the day ended, since he was following the instructions of Deut. 21:22-23 :” - Note that the king was already hanging on the tree prior to evening, for the scripture says “hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening...”. Also note that he was not removed by sunset, because he was still hanging at sunset. It was “at sunset” that Joshua gave the command to take the body from the tree. So if days began at sunset, Joshua disobeyed Deut 21:22-23 because the king was hanging on 2 different days if a new day begins at sunset. Deut. 21:22-23 states, “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree...you shall surely bury him on the same day.” If days begin at sunset, not only was he not buried on the same day that he hung, he was not even taken off the tree until the next day (sunset - according to the author). Since days begin at dawn and do not end until dark, we have no problem with this scripture. The King was hanging before sunset and “at sunset” (still the same day), Joshua had him taken off the tree with plenty of time to bury him so his “corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day”. Just two chapters earlier in the very same book of Joshua we read, “And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times...” (Joshua 6:15). The word used here for “day” (Joshua 6:15) in “the dawning of the day”, is the same word that Job uses in Job 38:12 and the KJV translates as “dayspring”. this is obviously the spring of day. ‘Easton’s Bible Dictionary’ defines the word as “the dawn of the morning; daybreak..” . Here is how some other versions translate Joshua 6:15: “they rose early at daybreak” (NIV), “When the seventh day came, they got up early” (MSG), “On the seventh day they rose early at daybreak” (Amplified), “On the seventh day the Israelites got up at dawn” (NLT), “On the seventh day, the army got up at daybreak” (CEV), “And it cometh to pass, on the seventh day, that they rise early, at the ascending of the dawn” (YLT). The author need not leave the book of Joshua to find out when a day begins, just as he does not need to leave Luke chapter 22 (explained above). And as my study shows, days beginning at dawn is the consistent pattern all throughout the scriptures. In Job chapter 38, note what God says to Job in verses 4-11: 4 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? ----All through these verses God is speaking of how He laid the foundations of the earth. And in verse 12 as mentioned above, God says: 12 Hast thou commanded the +"morning" since thy days; and caused the *“dayspring” to know his place;” --- Not only does the KJV translate this foundational day as *“dayspring” and ‘Easton’s Bible Dictionary’ define the word as “the dawn of the morning; daybreak..” The word +“morning” used here is defined by Strong’s as, “1242 boqer bo'-ker from; properly, dawn (as the break of day); generally, morning:--(+) day, early, morning, morrow. This is the same word for “morning” that we find in Genesis 1:5. Now, please consider Genesis 1:1-5, 16 and Job chapter 38:1-12. “In the beginning“, at “the foundations of the earth“. When does a day begin? And remember in Job 38:12 God does not mention the word “evening” as He describes the beginning of a new day. The second part of the authors question is: “But does Scripture provide specific evidence that a day ends at sunset or at nightfall?” "...Woe unto us! for the DAY GOETH AWAY, for the SHADOWS OF THE EVENING are STRETCHED OUT...Arise, and let us go by NIGHT..." (Jeremiah 6:4-5).-------OTHER VERSIONS: (a) "...Despair! The DAYLIGHT is FADING already, the EVENING SHADOWS LENGTHEN...To arms! We will launch the attack under cover of DARK..." (The Jerusalem Bible). (b) "...Pity the DAY is DECLINING, the SHADOWS ARE LENGTHENING!...Come on, let us attack by NIGHT..." (James Moffatt). (c) "...It's too late, the DAY is ALMOST OVER, and the EVENING SHADOWS ARE GROWING LONG..." (Today's English Version).----(Note: After the SHADOWS of EVENING have arrived, the DAY is said to be GOING AWAY, FADING, DECLINING and ALMOST OVER, but it HAS NOT ENDED nor has a NEW DAY BEGUN as it would have if a new day began at sunset). Note that “Night” follows day and is obviously different than day. In fact God divides the light from the darkness (Gen 1:4) and calls them by their separate names (day and night) at least 78 times in the scriptures. "To HIM that made great lights...The SUN to RULE by DAY...The Moon and the Stars to RULE by Night (darkness)..." (Psalm 136:7-9). -- "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the SUN for a LIGHT BY DAY, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by Night (darkness)... " (Jeremiah 31:35). -- If the sun rules the day, it begins to rule at first light and it continues to rule after sunset until it is dark when the moon begins to rule the night. Please read all of Mark Chapter 4. Here we find Jesus teaching throughout the course of a day, and in verse 35 we read: "And the SAME DAY, when the EVEN WAS COME, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side." Based on the standard teaching, this "EVEN" should NOT be the "SAME DAY", but it should be the NEXT DAY if a NEW DAY begins at EVENING). John Chapter 20 (please read the whole chapter). Here on the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, Mary Magdalene discovers that Our Lord has RISEN FROM THE DEAD early that day. The account takes us through the course of the day, and in verse 19 JOHN writes, "Then the SAME DAY AT EVENING, being the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. . ." ("EVENING"-same word as "EVEN" in Mark 1:32). Again, we find that the "EVENING" is NOT the NEXT DAY, but it is still the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. From the book (A Harmony of the Gospels, p. 286), another commentator states, ". . . one passage in John (20:19), when compared with Luke 24:29, 36, makes it NECESSARY to understand that JOHN used the ROMAN METHOD (my note: God's Method) in this instance. It was toward evening and the DAY HAD DECLINED according to Luke, when Jesus and the disciples drew near to Emmaus. Here he ate supper and, "rising up that very hour," the disciples returned seven miles to Jerusalem and told these things to the eleven who were together. But while they were narrating these things Jesus appears to them. Now John, in mentioning this very appearance of Jesus (20:19), says that it 'WAS EVENING ON THAT DAY, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK", i.e., evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord. But with the Jews the EVENING BEGAN THE DAY. Hence, JOHN, here at least, is BOUND TO MEAN THE ROMAN DAY (my note: God's day). It was the EVENING OF THE SAME DAY IN THE MORNING OF WHICH MARY HAD SEEN JESUS. THIS APPEARS CONCLUSIVE. John DID use the ROMAN method (my note: God's method) here, MAY HAVE DONE SO ALWAYS. . ."). Days obviously do not end at sunset. Sunset is still part of the same day as the afternoon that came before it. Note how this is true in both the Older and New Testaments. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night...” (Gen. 1:5). The "Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible" says, "The ORIGINAL meaning of the word "DAY" is the PERIOD OF DAYLIGHT, FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET, AS DISTINCT FROM THE NIGHT, THE PERIOD OF DARKNESS. “ Light = Day. The day ends with “Darkness”. "DAY" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the SEASON OF LIGHT (Gen. 1:5), LASTING "FROM DAWN (LIT. "THE RISING OF THE MORNING") TO THE COMING FORTH OF THE STARS" .--- As you can see, even though Genesis 1:5 is used as an example, this definition shows that a DAY BEGINS AT DAWN AND ENDS AT DARK. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 475). The author pushes on by stating: “Similarly, after Jesus was crucified, the Jews requested that Jesus' body be taken down from the stake before sunset in order to avoid desecrating the coming Holy Day:” ---- Was Jesus body taken down before sunset? (1) In John 19:31-42, prior to the evening, John calls this day "the Preparation" and informs us that bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath. It does not say that “the Jews requested that Jesus' body be taken down from the stake before sunset “. (2) Mark 15:42 coming after John's comments explains that the "even was now come". This is the same word for "even" that he uses in the first chapter when he tells us that "the sun did set". According to tradition, this should be the time when the Sabbath begins and no bodies should be on the cross. However , not only does John call the time prior to sunset "the Preparation", we also find Mark at evening stating "And when even was now come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath..."(15:42). Mark states that the preparation day is "the day before the Sabbath". This poses no problem for a dawn to dark day, because it was preparation prior to sunset and it was still the preparation at "even " (the same day) and according to Mark still the day before the Sabbath. So the preparation and the Sabbath are not on the same day, and since the evening is called the dav before the Sabbath, the Sabbath does not start in the evening. (3) Matthew 27:57 also states that when "even" was come (same word for "even" as found in Mark 1:32) Joseph of Arimathea (mentioned in all 4 Gospels-Mark and Luke state that it was at even) comes in this evening period (which should be the Sabbath according to tradition) and asks Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mat. 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, Luke 23:50-54, John 19:31-42), which is still hanging on the cross and should not be if the Sabbath began at sunset. Joseph takes the body "down" during this evening period, which once again shows that this cannot be the Sabbath (Mat. 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). Jesus body is then laid in the tomb and then Luke states that it is still "...the day of Preparation (the day before the Sabbath)..." (Luke 23:54). So the body of Jesus was taken down after sunset and laid in the tomb and it was still the preparation day or the day before the Sabbath. Thus the Sabbath did not begin at sunset nor was His body taken down before sunset as the author claims. Continuing the author states: “Undeniably the most problematic text for Martin's view is Leviticus 23:32. Indeed, it's so problematic he actually never directly quotes it in the article cited above. When describing the Day of Atonement's requirements, Moses wrote: "It is to be a Sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath." Here again the sacred time extends from sunset to sunset, not just during the twelve hour daylight period.”... On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the Lord." “The tenth day begins at sunset of the ninth, thus showing also that a "day" includes the "night" by one definition of the word "day. Here the author believes that Leviticus 23:32 is the ultimate scripture to prove his point, as he writes, “Undeniably the most problematic text for Martin's view is Leviticus 23:32. Indeed, it's so problematic he actually never directly quotes it in the article cited above.” The author makes a dangerous mistake as he tries to use this scripture to support his position. He does this by putting words in the mouth of God that are not found in the scriptures. He writes, “The tenth day begins at sunset of the ninth.” Sabbath keepers have heard this stated so often, some of them probably think that it is really in the scriptures. I now quote from the Bible version that the author supplied: “It is to be a Sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your Sabbath.". God calls this first evening (Annual Sabbath) the 9th. Those who say otherwise are putting words in the mouth of God that He did not say. Every translation below verifies the fact that the annual Sabbath / Fast of Leviticus 23:32 starts on the 9th day of the month (not the 10th) in the evening: (a) "...This time of rest and fasting will begin the evening before the Day of Atonement (see note 7) and extend until evening of that day." -- Note (7) "Hebrew the evening of the ninth day of the month". (New Living Translation (NLT). The 'New Living Translation' correctly indicates that the Sabbath/Fast begins the "evening before the day of Atonement" and not on the Day of Atonement. Why? Because a new day (Day of Atonement - 10th) begins at dawn. (b) "...and you must abstain and fast: from sunset on the ninth day to sunset on the tenth day you shall hold your Sabbath." (James Moffatt). Not only does 'Moffatt' understand that the Sabbath / Fast begins at sunset on the ninth day, he also understands that the following evening is still the 10th day and not the 11th day, as it would be if a new day started at sunset. (c) "...and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." (King James Version). (d) "...and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your Sabbath." (New American Standard Bible (NASB). (e) "...and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your Sabbath." (New International Version (NIV). Moffatt correctly understands that this Sabbath falls on 2 different days (9th & 10th). Why? Because as I show in my study, a Sabbath is not limited to one day (Leviticus 25:1-4) and the word “Sabbath” does not mean “day“. Why does God call this first evening of the Sabbath the 9th and not the 10th? Because the 9th day did not end at sunset. Jewish scholar Jacob Z. Lauterbach writes: “The fact is that Rabbis of the Talmud no longer knew or would not acknowledge that in ancient times there was another mode of reckoning the day according to which the EVENING PRECEDING THE TENTH DAY STILL BELONGS TO THE NINTH DAY. In the case of the Day of Atonement the law especially prescribes that the FAST be observed in a NEW MANNER, COVERING PART OF THE NINTH AND PART OF THE TENTH DAY (pp. 447-448)... (Rabbinic Essays). Please refer to my longer study on my web site (A Case for the 12 Hour Sabbath). In the Table of Contents click on : “The Day of Atonement --- Sifting Through the Traditions”. As the author attempts to tackle the Passover scenario in Exodus 12:18 and Leviticus 23:6, he continues his dangerous pattern of putting words into the mouth of God that He did not say. He writes: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening." So here, at the end of the fourteenth, we are to eat unleavened bread until the end of the twenty-first day. But then Leviticus 23:6 says : "on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." Unless someone is prepared to assert the full day of the fourteenth is also a Day of Unleavened Bread, thus making for eight full Days of Unleavened Bread and a self-contradictory Bible, it's necessary to conclude that the term "evening" can refer to the moment that both ends and begins a day.” A quick rewind of the authors last two arguments reveals that God called the 9th day at evening “the 9th” while the author calls it the 10th. And while Gods calls the 14th day at evening “the 14th”, the author concludes that it is the 15th. Here we find that an incorrect original premise forces the author to once again disagree with God even if his disagreement is unintentional (as I believe it is). While it is not my mission in this review to try to harmonize all of the Passover events in both testaments, I would like to point out some basic facts. As many of you know, it sometimes seems as though there are as many Passover scenarios are there are Sabbath observing groups. This can get quite confusing as people try to juggle the many scriptures along with Jewish tradition. This can lead to some false assumptions. While I do not claim to have all of the answers in this case, I do know that most scenarios will be wrong as long as we continue to look at them through the sunset to sunset day. The fact that Passover harmonization can be confusing does not change the fact that God’s definition of a day is pure and simple and does not change. We may discover (as I hope to in a future study) that the Passover chronology is not as difficult as we thought once we understand that God made the greater light to rule the day (Gen. 1:16) and that a day is 12 hours long (John 11:9-10). By knowing that God calls the light day (Gen. 1:5) we can eliminate the tradition of beginning our Passover observance 24 hours to soon on the 13Th day at evening. If we take God at His word that the 14th day at even is just that, we will better understand why Israel had to be ready to leave in a moment’s notice (Exodus 12: 11,33,39). We will understand that the morning (at dawn) that immediately followed the evening of the 14th begins the new day of the 15th. Because as demonstrated earlier the evening is the same day as the morning and afternoon that preceded it. In Exodus 12:18 we are told, “on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread...” Here, God is not defining when a day begins (He already did that in Genesis), but rather He telling us at what time of the day He wants us to eat unleavened bread. And He wants us to begin eating it on the 14th day at even. Not the 15th. The author claims that the 15th starts on the 14th at evening. God commands: “And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.” (Exodus 12:22). The word “morning” here means “1242 boqer bo'-ker ... properly, dawn (as the break of day); generally, morning:--(+) day, early, morning, morrow. (Strong’s Concordance). After blood is applied to their houses, the Israelites are told not to go out of their houses until morning. So when did they leave their houses? “And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians. (Numbers 33:3). They departed on the “fifteenth day” which was the “morrow after the passover”. The Passover began on the 14th day at even (Leviticus 23:5), and the 15th day was the “morrow after the Passover”. The word “morrow” means “the day after” or the “next day”. Note above that word “morning” also means “morrow” So the 15th was the next day after the passover and since the Israelites could not leave their houses until at least dawn the 15th day did not begin on the 14th at even. Here are what some other versions say: “They journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Passover the sons of Israel started out boldly in the sight of all the Egyptians...” (NAS) “They set out from the city of Rameses on the morning after the first Passover celebration...” (NLT) “They began their journey from Ram'ses in the first month. On the fifteenth day of the first month, the morning after the Pesach, the people of Isra'el left proudly in view of all the Egyptians;” (The Complete Jewish Bible). “They journeyed from Ra`meses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Pesach the children of Yisra'el went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Mitzrim,..” (Hebrew Names Version). So the Israelites departed on a different day than the Passover day (14th). They departed on the “next day” “morning” “morrow” “fifteenth day”. In the last half of Exodus 32:5, Aaron says: "...TO MORROW (Strong's 04279 - As the day following the present day) is a feast to the Lord". Verse 6 continues, "And they ROSE UP EARLY ON THE MORROW (the same word “Morrow“ (Strong’s 4283) as found in the Passover text, Num. 33:3 above). This MORROW was a time of EARLY RISING. The "Today's English Version" Bible renders the same scriptures as "...TOMORROW there will be a FESTIVAL to honor the Lord...EARLY THE NEXT MORNING...The people sat down to a FEAST..." "The Jerusalem Bible" says, "...TOMORROW he said will be a feast in honour of Yahweh...And so EARLY the NEXT DAY (Note: if a day began at Evening, MORNING would NOT be EARLY the NEXT DAY, but about HALF WAY through a 24 hour day)...the people sat down to eat and drink..." And finally "Moffatt" reads, "Aaron erected an altar in front of the calf and proclaimed a FESTIVAL NEXT DAY for the Eternal...So NEXT MORNING... the people sat down to the sacrificial FEAST...” Finally, on the Passover issue, please review some comments from the author in another one of his writings (Was the Passover Early Or Late On Nisan Fourteenth?). In this section he describes “The Meaning of the Word Boqer (Morning)…” Keep in mind as you read this information that the author has consistently stated that a day begins at sunset. And also remember that this word “Boqer” (Morning) is the very same word used for “morning” in Genesis 1:5. (please note on the following information emphasis is mine) The author writes : “There are other problems with saying the Israelites left in the six hours during the night of the fifteenth (my note: the night following the 14th day at even). First, the Israelites had to burn the uneaten leftovers of the Passover lambs: "And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire" (Ex. 12:10). Doing this would not only take up a certain amount of time, but points to departure occurring after daybreak, since the word here is boqer. Another command about the morning occurs in Ex. 12:20: "None of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning." This text remains one of the strongest arguments for an early fourteenth Passover. It renders moot all the discussion above about whether Israel was capable of leaving in six hours between midnight and daybreak: They weren't allowed to leave then anyway. Mr. Edwards replies to this argument by saying this was a temporary command God soon changed, comparing it to how Moses' command to "stand by" was canceled by God telling Israel to "go forward" in crossing the Red Sea (Ex. 14:13-15). The problem with this argument is that no place in Ex. 12 does God cancel the command of Ex. 12:20 to stay inside all night. While Pharaoh did command them to get out (Ex. 12:31-32), this can't be seen as an inspired command of the Eternal like the words of Moses, a prophet of God. Furthermore, even with his command, since it contradicted God's, they may have chosen to disobey their "civil government" for a few hours until dawn arrived, and then left. Arguments by others that the Hebrew word for "morning" (boqer) here can include anything from 12:01 AM to 6 AM at night are not credible. It imputes to the Hebrew mind the Roman (and modern) mentality of starting days at midnight, making anything after midnight and before noon "morning." Gesenius' (p. 137) has for boqer: "morning, daybreak, dawn ['and even before light, Ruth 3:14'], so called from the breaking forth of light; see the root No. 2." Brown-Driver-Briggs (p. 133) similarly has: "morning (N[ew] H[ebrew] id.; from split, penetrate, as the dawn the darkness, light through the cloud-rifts, etc.) . . . 1. morning (of point of time, time at which, never during which, Eng. morning=forenoon):--a. of end of night . . . b. implying the coming of dawn, and even daylight . . . c. of coming of sunrise . . . d. of beginning of day." Wilson's (p. 279) has for this word: "the first breaking forth of light,; dawn of prosperity and happiness." Nelson's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words (p. 152) explains: "This word means 'morning,' though not the period of time before noon. Rather it indicates the point of time at which night is changing to day or that time at the end of night . . . Boqer can represent the time just before the rising of the sun. In Judg. 19:25 we read that the men of Gibeah raped and abused the Levite's concubine "all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go" (cf. Ruth 3:13). . . Boqer can mean 'daybreak' or 'dawn.' . . . Sometimes boqer appears to mean 'early morning,' or shortly after daybreak." They maintain only in the term "morning watch" does it mean something potentially useful to the cause of the late fourteenth Passover advocates (2 AM to sunrise). Both of these commands concerning the morning in Ex. 12 point to Israel's departure occurring later, not on the night they ate the Passover, since boqer doesn't mean, or include in its meaning, "anytime between midnight and dawn," but normally refers to a specific point or moment in time when night ends or is about to. NUMBERS 33:3-4--A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO THE LATE FOURTEENTH VIEW OF THE PASSOVER Then we come to one of the most problematic texts for the late fourteenth view of the Passover. Note Num. 33:3-4: "And they journeyed from Ramses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Passover the sons of Israel started out boldly in the sight of all the Egyptians, while the Egyptians were burying all their first-born whom the Lord had struck down among them." Here we get the simple statement that the day after the Passover is the fifteenth, which means the fourteenth is the Passover then. It can't be, by a strict definition, a festival that extends over two days, in which the fifteenth also is the "Passover." The word translated "next day" literally means "morrow." This word, Mahorat, is said to mean in Brown-Driver-Briggs (p. 564): "the morrow (the day following a past day)." Under its heading for "tomorrow," the Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (p. 264) says: "'the next day.' . . . About 28 times Mahorat is joined to the preposition min to mean 'on the next day.' . . . In 3 passages this adverb is preceded by the preposition le, but the meaning is the same." Gesenius' (p. 466) has: "(1) the morrow . . . to-morrow, Nu. 11:32; hence--(2) . . . to-morrow . . . the next day, the day after . . . until the next day . . . the morrow of that day." Wilson's (p. 279) has a similar definition: "to-morrow, the morrow…” (Was the Passover Early Or Late On Nisan Fourteenth? -- by Eric Snow) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mr. Snow continues, “Several other problematic verses contradict Martin's belief that days begin in the morning rather than at sunset. Note Judges 19:9 : "When the man arose to go along with his concubine and servant, his father-in-law, the girl's father, said to him, "Behold now, the day has drawn to a close; please spend the night. Lo, the day is coming to an end; spend the night here that your heart may be merry. Then tomorrow you may arise early for your journey so that you may go home." Martin's way to duck this text is to assert that the word "day" only refers to the daylight portion of a twenty-four hour period during which the earth spins on its axis once. Hence, when daylight, a "day" ends, the "night" begins, not the next "day" (i.e., period of daylight)! But as shown in the preceding paragraph a numbered day has to include the night portion in order to be complete. Otherwise, you could eat leavened bread during the nights of Nisan from the fifteenth to the twenty-first! The Day of Atonement includes the night, or else it couldn't be from evening to evening. It's simply false to assume the word "day" have only the twelve-hour definition when other texts contradict this meaning, such as Luke 22:34 and Matt. 27:19.” Read all of Judges chapter 19. This provides some beautiful examples of days beginning in the morning (not in the evening) a number of times. Bible commentators use Judges chapter 19 to show that days begin at dawn/sunrise and only decline at sunset: "...In EARLIER TRADITIONS a DAY apparently began at SUNRISE (E.G., Lev. 7:15-17; Judg. 19:4-19)..." (Oxford Companion To The Bible, p. 744). "Before the EXILE the Hebrews divided the day into MORNING, NOON, and EVENING...they also described it in terms of four periods: SUNRISE (Gen.19:15, "when MORNING DAWNED" (cf. Luke 24:1; 19:23, "when the Sun had Risen"; 32:31, "the Sun Rose" (cf. Mark 16:1), the heat of the DAY (Gen. 18:1; 1 Sam.11:11), the cool of the Day (Gen. 3:8), and Sunset (Gen. 15:12, 17; Judg. 19:8, ("until the DAY DECLINES"). (The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, p. 266). Note: Using Judges chapter 19 this author points out that the day declines at sunset. It does not end at sunset. "In Israel, the DAY was for a LONG TIME RECKONED FROM MORNING to morning...and it was in fact in the Morning, with the CREATION OF LIGHT, that the world began; the DISTINCTION of Day and Night, and time too, BEGAN ON A MORNING (Gn. 1:3-5, cf. 14:16, 18)...In the story of the Levite of Ephraim: he stays THREE DAYS with his father-in-law and Stops the NIGHT there. The fourth DAY, he WAKES and wants to depart. He is detained and again Stops the NIGHT. The fifth DAY, the father-in-law says to him: 'Behold, the DAY is FAR ADVANCED TOWARDS EVENING. Spend the NIGHT here again...TO-MORROW, EARLY IN THE MORNING, you will depart...' (Jg. 19:4-9). Saul's henchmen arrive at NIGHT to take David by surprise, and Mikal says to him: 'If you do not escape TO-NIGHT, TO-MORROW you are a dead man' (1 Sam. 19:11). In the house of the witch of Endor, Samuel appears to Saul during the NIGHT and says to him: 'TO-MORROW, you and your sons will be with me' (1 Sam. 28:19). (Ancient Israel, p. 181 - 182). "Among the ancients the day was reckoned in a great variety of ways...'From dawn to dark'...was the ancient and ordinary meaning of a day among the Israelites; night, as being the time ' when no man can work ' (Jn. 9:4).... ...The Israelites regarded the morning as the beginning of the day; in the evening the day declined 'or' went down,' and until the new day ('morning')...it was necessary to 'tarry all night' (cp Judg. 19:6-9)...Nu. 11:32 'all that day and all the night and all the next day'). Not till post-exilic times do we find traces of a new mode of reckoning which makes day begin at sunset and continue till the sunset following...” (Encyclopedia Biblica, pp. 1035-1036). “It would appear that the early Hebrews reckoned the civil day from one dawn to the next, as would naturally follow from its simplest meaning...cf. Num. 11:32; Judg. 19:5-9...Gradually however, they began to count from sunset to sunset, in accordance with the rising importance of their lunar festivals..." (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 783).” Even Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi , possibly the most well known Christian advocate of sunset to sunset observance notes: "In the story of the Levite of Ephraim we are told that he stayed four days with his father-in-law. On the fifth day the father-in-law says to him: "Behold, now the day has waned toward evening; pray tarry all night...and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home" (Judges 19:9). The fact that the morning following the night is referred to as "tomorrow" suggests that the new day here begins at sunrise..." (Chapter 5). ('The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection'.) While Dr. Bacchiocchi is a sunset to sunset advocate, he is one of the few holding this position who has the courage to state that he observes sunrise reckonings in both testaments as noted twice in this review. In fact he writes: "...Numerous scholars have argued for the existence in Bible times of a sunrise method of day reckoning...the evidence for the sunrise reckoning is significant and cannot be ignored..." (The Time of The Crucifixion and The Resurrection, Chapter 5). He also states in chapter 6 of the same book: "It is thus important to note at the outset that the method of observing the Sabbath from sunset to sunset is dictated not by the Fourth Commandment itself, but by the method of sunset reckoning which became normative in Jewish history." The author has become so entrenched in his belief that a day begins at sunset that he does not even search the entire scripture that he supplied, (and obviously not the entire Bible) to see as Dr. Bacchiocchi notes: “The fact that the morning following the night is referred to as "tomorrow" suggests that the new day here begins at sunrise..." The author states, “when Jesus prophesied that: "so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40; cf. Jonah 1:17), could the word "days" in such verses as Mark 8:31 ("after three days rise again"), Mark 9:31 ("He will rise three days later"), and John 2:19 ("in three days I will raise it up") fail to include the intervening nights? In Mark 8:31, Jesus is simply telling us that He would rise after (“on” as other verses state) the third day and not after or on the third night after His death. Finally, the author writes, “Another problematic text for Martin's position is Nehemiah 13:19 : "And it came about that just as it grew dark at the gates of Jerusalem before the sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut and that they should not open them until after the sabbath. Then I stationed some of my servants at the gates that no load should enter on the sabbath day." Now "as it grew dark" would include the period of twilight after sunset, but also the lessening of light shortly before sunset as well. Since "it grew dark . . . before the sabbath," it has to mean the Sabbath immediately followed sunset, instead of referring to the daylight period beginning the next morning following some twelve hours of intervening night time. Since workers could have shut the gates shortly before sunset "as it grew dark," they wouldn't have broken the Sabbath to do so. It was necessary to shut the gates then, not shortly before daybreak, since that would be holy time (during the Sabbath's night), and they would be doing a significant physical task then to do that. Saying it would be too dark just before dawn to work (Martin's stated explanation) isn't persuasive, since even a few lamps or torches would provide sufficient light to close the gates then. If an enemy army had approached the city at night, would the lack of natural light be used as a reason not to be able to close the gates? Does Nehemiah 13:19 really tell us that the Sabbath begins "on Friday Evening when the sun goes down"? What does the verse say? "And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark BEFORE the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day." The important thing to notice in this verse is that the Gates BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH. If the Sabbath begins at Sunset, how is it that this period of time between Sunset and Dark is said to be BEFORE THE SABBATH. The answer is simple. The Sabbath does NOT Begin on Friday at Sunset. It Begins at Dawn on Saturday Morning. Translation after Translation places the period of time in this verse between Sunset and Dark and BEFORE THE SABBATH: "...the gates of Jerusalem BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (The American Standard Version). "...the gates of Jerusalem HAVE BEEN DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (Young's Literal Translation). "...it BEGAN TO BE DARK in the gates of Jerusalem BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (Darby Translation). "...it BEGAN TO BE DARK at the gates of Jerusalem BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (Revised Standard Version). "...I ordered that the doors be SHUT AT SUNSET BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (New Century Version). "...the gates of Jerusalem BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (Webster's Bible Translation). "...When EVENING SHADOWS FELL on the gates of Jerusalem BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (New International Version). "...the gates of Yerushalayim BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SHABBAT..." (Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible). "...the gates of Jerusalem BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (Third Millennium Bible). "...the gates of Jerusalem, as it BEGAN TO BE DARK BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (New King James Version). "...just as it GREW DARK at the gates if Jerusalem BEFORE THE SABBATH..." (New American Standard Bible). "...the gates of the city should be shut as DARKNESS FELL EVERY FRIDAY EVENING (Note: Hebrew on the DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH)..." (The New Living Translation). Regarding Nehemiah 13:19 the author seems quite confused as he says, “Now "as it grew dark" would include the period of twilight after sunset, but also the lessening of light shortly before sunset as well. Since "it grew dark . . . before the Sabbath. He admits here that “as it grew dark”, the “twilight” which arrives after “sunset” is still “before the Sabbath”. He then says, “it has to mean the Sabbath immediately followed sunset..” That would be difficult since he just said that twilight came after sunset and before the Sabbath. He then attempts to persuade us to believe that the “workers” closed the gates before sunset so they would not break the Sabbath. I think that is his point. His words are quite jumbled in this last section. The scriptures state that it “began to be dark BEFORE the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut,...” So it was after sunset that the gates were closed. And the “workers” according to the authors beliefs would have broken the Sabbath by working after sunset. Since a day does not end at sunset, it does not matter whether the workers closed the gates before or after sunset. In the end the author once again misses a vital point. Nowhere in Nehemiah 13:19 does the Sabbath ever start as it should have if a day began at sunset. Unfortunately, I believe the old saying is true. People can make the Bible say anything that they want to make it say. Here is a prime example : “ Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18). John clearly writes here that Jesus had “broken the Sabbath”. Well if Jesus broke the Sabbath, He was a sinner. If we fail to search any other scriptures, we must conclude that John believes that Jesus broke the Sabbath and fell into sin. But John also writes: “ And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.” (1 John 3:5). Putting these and other scriptures together we understand that John was simply writing the opinion of the Jews (John 5:18) and not giving his own in this text. The good news is that the Bible gives us numerous scriptures to search on the subject of the Biblical “Day” so we can look at the whole picture.. We can either interpret numerous clear scriptures by a couple of confusing scriptures, or a couple of confusing scriptures by the numerous clear scriptures. I can only assume that you are like me and will put all of the clear scriptures you can find together before you arrive at a conclusion. I believe that if you take my answers here and combine them with my full study on my web site devoted to this subject (and most importantly search the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation for yourself), any concerns that you may have will vanish. (END) New (2/19/07) How bad has the snow been for you? We rarely have any snow worth mentioning, but the small storm we had shut down the schools for a couple of days here. As for as what bread Jesus used, do you mean "unleavened bread" (Mat. 26:17) (strong's 106) vs "Jesus took bread" (Mat. 26:26) (strong's 740 the standard rising bread)? It seems that every time "days" or "feast" of unleavened bread is mentioned, "106" is used and any time bread is eaten, passover or not, "740" is used. My guess is that even the standard word for "bread" (740)that Jesus took is unleavened if no leaven was added. And it would fall in line with "106". In 1Cor. 5:6 Paul writes, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?". Verse 7: "Purge out therefore the old leaven" (spiritually speaking, because they were already "unleavened" (106) physically speaking), "as ye are unleavened" (106) beginning with Passover (14th at even). Spiritually speaking we are to become a new "lump" (verse 7 -this time unleavened). The same word for "lump" is used when we are leavened and unleavened. It is the added "leaven" (strong's 2219)that makes a difference between the two "lumps". And of course through Christ we become the "new" unleavened "lump". The real difference. In the Older Testament, "ye shall eat unleavened bread" (Ex. 12:18) is normally "matstsa^h" ("unleavened bread" Strong's 4682). Exodus 29:2 however reads, "And unleavened(4682) bread (3899 -the standard word for leavened bread in the O.T.)". So here this bread can't be leavened and unleavened at the same time. It is unleavened "bread" (3899) because leaven was not added as it normally would be with this "bread". The "loaves" (3899) of Leviticus 23:17 only become "leavened" when they are " baken with leaven". I agree with you that "surely Christ wouldn't use leavened bread to symbolize his body". So far, this is my understanding. We could be wrong, but at this time, we just keep the symbolisms on the 14th. As you said, "Christ seemed just to command His last Passover with symbols as THE commemoration to remember!". I am not clear what you meant when you said, "...and think perhaps this could be the reason and provision for it in the term "between the evenings" that would make it legit and override the keeping of the 14th? Obviously, God knew in advance that Jesus wouldn't be keeping the 14th and could it be he intended there be a change and therefore a "Christian Passover?" And maybe I am not clear on some of the other things that I commented on earlier in this email. You can let me know if you think that I understood what you meant. New (2/11/07) My son (the computer expert) still needs to get the Eric Snow info off of the other computer. I hope to get it to you in a few days. I think we need some special software to transfer the information. Sorry for the delay. And now finally, to this email that you sent some time ago. I notice that Myron Martin says, "The commanded assembly or Holy Convocation on the fourteenth, (Lev.23:4) has to be from NOON on, to be "between the two evenings" My understanding is that "between the two evenings" is sometime between sunset and twilight and not at midday. If that is not your understanding please give me your take, and I will elaborate on mine. Martin also says that he does not find a scripture that "tells us to hold a Holy convocation on the fifteenth". Leviticus 23:2 says the "feasts" of the "Lord" are to be "proclaimed" as "holy convocations" and these are "my feasts". Verse 6 says, "And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD." Sounds like one of the Lord's "feasts" that should be a "holy convocation". Gary Miller agrees with Martin that Passover is a Holy day and not the 15th. He points out that Passover is a feast (Chag- Eze. 45:21,23) just as Tabernacles is a feast (Chag-Lev.23:34). The problem is that the feast (unleavened bread) on the 15th is also a Chag. while I am not convinced that the 15th is not a holy day, I am not opposed to the possibility that Passover (14th at even) might also be considered holy time. I am opposed to the idea at this point that all of the 14th day is holy which Miller believes and I think Martin also believes. If it is holy time, I believe that it begins on the 14th day at even or "between the two evenings" (Lev.23:5). When you say that you "have kept the Passover on the evening of what we know now to be the 13th" I think you mean that you will now observe the 14th day at even and then you will begin observing the Feast of unleavened Bread the very next morning whereas before you had a longer gap between passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. Is that what you meant or am I off base? This is the way we are now observing it. You state, "We have been confused about the verses in Matt.26:17 "Now the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? "verse 20 Now when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve." -- Join the crowd on the confusion. I think some of the verses you point out explains why there are so many different scenarios. I am going to throw out a couple of thoughts that we can kick around, but that is all that they are at this point. It seems to me that the O.T. scenarios are a little more straight forward in there chronology than the New Testament. For the most part (not always) the O.T. seems to separate Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (example - "And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days." (2Ch. 35:17) whereas the N.T. seems to mix them a little more. So the question in my mind is how to harmonize the N.T with the O.T. scenario ($64,000.00 question). Matt.26:17 "Now the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" I guess you are saying that here is the first day Unleavened Bread before the Passover(v:20)? Technically the word "feast" is not used here. Just the "first of Unleavened Bread." Just because Matthew says it is the day of unleavened bread does not mean that it is officially unleavened bread when he says it. It IS the day of unleavened bread, but not until sunset of this same day. so it is called the first and not the feast of unleavened bread. So "even" begins the feast of Passover in which unleavened bread is first eaten. It could be like us saying "this is the day of the ballgame we have been waiting to see", but the game does not start until evening. The event has not started even though it will start the very same day express our excitement. Your thoughts? Luke 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." Note that the words "feast of unleavened bread" are used here. We see that it "drew nigh" and it is called the "Passover" It seems that the whole period of seven days can be called "Passover" While most of the time Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread seem to be separated in the O.T., Ezekiel 45:21 says, "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." Here, the word "Passover" seems to cover all of the days. Back to Luke: (1) The feast of Unleavened bread is near (verse 1). (2) It is called Passover (3)Verse 7 of Luke 22 says, "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." Verse 1 says "FEAST" of unleavened bread is nigh and verse 7 says "DAY of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." I may be blowing smoke, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread can be near (verse 1) (and could be called Passover as a whole), but the DAY of unleavened bread (first day of unleavened bread 14th) comes first in which the Passover is killed. If the Passover is the 14th and killed and the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, it is still very near. My main thought is that verse 1 says "FEAST" and verse 7 says "DAY". That might be the difference. Just a guess. What do you think? Mark 14:12, " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" Again, it IS the first day of unleavened bread, but not until sunset when they killed the Passover. My thoughts on some of the scriptures above are officially not official and are at this point speculation. I will continue to see what I can glean from the scriptures that you provided. New (2/4/07) You asked, "What Jesus was predicting was Peter wouldn't have even made it into the beginning of that day(cock crow) before he denied him. Is this how you would explain it?" Exactly!!!. You hit the nail on the head when you said Jesus was "predicting". when Jesus said "the cock shall not crow this day", He was tying "this day" to the "cock crow" that happens in the future at daybreak. He was not saying that it was "day" in the dead of night (as we know Jesus knows the difference between day and night -Mat. 12:40). The Living Bible says "Between now and tomorrow morning when the rooster crows". Notice it is "tomorrow morning" when the "rooster crows" Matthew 26:34 says, "this night before the cock crow" which I think gives us a better idea of what Jesus meant. And when you go back to Luke 22:60-61, while Peter yet spoke, the "cock crew" shows that night takes you right up to daybreak. Also refer to my letter of Jan. 28th below. The word Jesus uses for "this day" in Luke is the Greek word "se¯meron" in which I point out can mean a future time. As mentioned in my Jan. 28 letter "se¯meron" is not the primary word for day the Jesus used when He said "12 hours in the day" or "three days and three nights". In this case, not only does Mr. Snow not do an honest search all of the scriptures, he does not even search all of Luke chapter 22. The chapter in which he uses as his proof text. Note in Luke 22:66 (KJV) after the "cock crows" in verse 61, Luke writes "And AS SOON AS IT WAS DAY (Greek he¯mera - Primary word for day), the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council..." Luke clearly disagrees with Mr. Snow's interpretation that it was "day" when Jesus said "this day" in the dead of NIGHT. It only becomes day here as it always does throughout the scriptures (with the morning light). As you said Jesus was "PREDICTING" a future event. I go into even greater detail in my response that I will send to you. Below is my Jan. 28th letter regarding "se¯meron": Luke 2:8-11 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9And £behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (The angel of the God said “this day” not tomorrow morning that Christ would be born while talking to the shepherds at night)--my thoughts--: The word used for "this day" in Luke 2:11 is the Greek word "se¯meron". It is not the word that Jesus used when speaking of "three days and three nights" (Mat. 12:40 or "12 hours in a day" (John 11:9). That is word "he¯mera" mentioned earlier which has the primary meaning of dawn to dark and is equivalent to the word "yom" in the Old testament. Jesus was three "he¯mera" (days) in the heart of the earth and Jonah was three "yom" (days) in the fishes belly in addition to their three "nights". The word "se¯meron" used in Luke 2:11 has a number of meanings. Strong's says, "day (or night current or just passed.)" Vine's states "In Heb. 4:7 the "today" of Ps. 95:7 is evidently designed to extend to the present period of the Christian faith." (p,635). while some say it can mean night, It is never translated as "dark", "darkness", "night", "midnight", "night season", etc. in the KJV. It is always translated as "to day" or "this day". So when the angel said in Luke, "For unto you is born this day", it can mean as Strong's says, this day just passed. Based on the fact that se¯meron is never translated as anything meaning dark or night in the KJV, it stands to reason that it must mean the daytime period that had just ended prior to the night in which the shepherds watched their flock. Please note that there is a perfectly good word for "night" (nux) used in verse 8 and it means "night" literally or figuratively. If the angel meant that the birth took place that night, he certainly would have used the word "nux". Also note in the very same chapter of Luke (chapter 2) in verse 37 Luke writes: "And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day." Here Luke uses the primary words for night (nux) and day (he¯mera) showing that he knows the difference between day and night. If the objecting party was to read the website I have much more on Luke and his understanding of a "day". In addition to the fact that se¯meron can mean now or a time just past, as I mentioned Vine's indicates it can mean a time in the future. Se¯meron is used in another familiar text to the Sabbath observing community. That text is Luke 23:43 where we read: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Sabbath keepers understand that the thief on the cross was not in paradise the very day that Jesus said, "To day" or "this day"(se¯meron) shalt thou be with me in paradise. When did the thief ask Jesus to remember him in verse 42? "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."...And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day (or this day) shalt thou be with me in paradise." They both were looking to the future kingdom of God and Jesus said "this day" (when the kingdom of God comes) you will be in paradise with me. Here again we see that se¯meron does not mean right now at this moment, but this case a future time. New (2/3/07) If you still have it, would you please send me the last email that mentions the eating of unleavened bread at night. I must have deleted it by mistake. I want to keep it in my files. Excellent point about no leavened bread is to be found in the house at all (and by eating leavened bread, "that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel".) Here is another scripture (that I will point out shortly) for those who know better but say, "is it ok to eat leavened bread at night?" Some of these people may not understand this scripture until they understand the difference between day and night. But the scripture is there nonetheless. From my website I wrote: "In 1 Samuel 17:16, we find Goliath presenting himself for 40 days, "Morning AND Evening" to Israel. Clearly, he did not stand there for 40 consecutive 24 HOUR periods. He appeared before Israel at 2 different periods every day (Morning and Evening)--This is NOT a from and to situation...In Exodus 18:13 we find that the "...people stood by Moses FROM THE MORNING UNTO THE EVENING." Now that IS a "FROM and TO" situation." In Goliath's case the period of time does not cover everything from morning to evening. In Moses case this period of time covers everything from morning to evening including the afternoon. In Leviticus 23:32, we are to observe the Sabbath "from even unto even". This IS a from and to situation that covers everything including the night, the morning of the next day and the afternoon. while this is a 24 hour Sabbath, we know it is not a 24 hour day because it takes in parts of the 9th and the 10th days (or as Moffatt says,"...and you must abstain and fast: from sunset on the ninth day to sunset on the tenth day you shall hold your Sabbath." Here is the scripture I want to point out. Notice God's command: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even." (Exodus 12:18) This IS a from and to situation. For those who may be tempted to eat leavened bread at night (like those who were tempted to gather manna on the Sabbath), they should observe that they are ONLY to eat unleavened bread FROM the fourteenth day at even UNTIL the one and twentieth day of the month at even. This covers all periods of time (including the nights). Just as "even unto even" covers the night in Lev. 23:32 and is not a 24 hour day, this period of times takes in all of the nights but these are not 24 hour days (as I point out in my last lengthy email regarding the beginning and ending of days in the Passover scenario). So why is it that in the very next verse (19) God says: "Seven DAYS shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land." Because as you so wonderfully point out that 99.9% of the time people eat during the DAYTIME throughout the scriptures. God's special command to eat the flesh and unleavened bread on this one night is not the norm. That is why He specifies "night" in this one instance and otherwise commands "days" of "no leaven" for the rest of this period of time. So don't get hungry for leavened bread at night, because all periods of time are covered. (I still owe you an email) New (1/28/07) I know I have not replied to your last email. Behind on my emails. I will reply to this one first. Thanks for sending this information. It always helps me to know what people are thinking and what scriptures they use to support the sunset to sunset tradition. I think that you are right that this person did not look at the website judging by the first scripture used (Gen. 1:5)as they state that "evening" came first. They also mention Lev. 23:32. I note that no comment was made on anything written about these 2 scriptures on the website. Regarding Lev. 23:32, you might ask them on what day are we to afflict our souls (9th). Then ask them on what day is the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27 - 10th day). I have never seen a translation that says we are to afflict our souls on the 10th. So much for the evening to evening day. As I looked at the scriptures provided, two major themes came to mind which I think covers many of the objections by this person: (1) There is light at night because the moon reflects the sunlight and therefore night is part of the day. (2) While we are told at that Israel left their captivity by day, we also find that God brought Israel out by night. Conclusion: Night is part of the day. Here are two general thoughts that I believe answers many if not most of this persons objections (I would love to know your response to this person as it will help me with my future answers): (1) To the best of my understanding there are only 2 lights that define "day" in the scriptures: (a) God, who gives His own light (example - Revelation 21:23-25) when there will no longer be a sun or a moon (v:23) but there will be a continual "day" of light with no "night" (v:25). (b) The "sun" while the moon reflects sunlight God does distinguish between the two different lights: "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night..." (Jer. 31:35). The answer is that "light" does not define "day". Only specific light defines "day". The light from GOD HIMSELF and the GREATER LIGHT that rules the day (the SUN - Gen. 1:16). The light from the moon and stars at night is called the "LESSER LIGHT" (Gen. 1:16) that rules the "night" and therefore has nothing to do with day. In fact this light is so minimal that God calls this period of time "darkness" (Gen. 1:5). We can prove this by simply driving down a country road at night with no artificial lights and turn off our headlights. In John 11:10 Jesus is speaking of night using some figures of speech and He says: " But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." Why do we stumble at night? Because it is dark and we cannot see. While there is some light in the night Jesus considers it dark enough to be called "No Light". The psalmist writes, "Thou makest darkness, and it is night..." (Psalm 104:20). He does NOT say "Thou makest darkness, and it is DAY" God led Israel at night with a the bright light of fire. But it was still night. The artificial lights of Las Vegas brilliantly light up the city, But it is still night because only the light of God and the greater light from the sun equal "day". Finally, Revelation 21:23-25 once again shows us that night and darkness have nothing to do with day. Objection # 2 - While we are told at that Israel left captivity by day, we also find that God brought Israel out by night. Conclusion: Night is part of the day: Deut. 16:1 and a number of others scriptures are brought up to prove objection # 2 above. Note that Israel "...departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians." (Num. 33:3). Why did Israel not physically leave or come out by night? "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD." (Ex. 12:12). "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning" (Ex. 12:22). In Num. 33:3 (above) we find that Israel departed not at night, but on the morrow after the Passover (or as Green's literal translation says,"On the next day after the Passover". Ex. 12:22 says, "...none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning." The word "morning" in this verse is the Hebrew bo'-ker which Strong's defines as "dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow". This is the same word for morning used in Gen. 1:5. They also left in the "sight of all the Egyptians" (Num 33:3). So it makes sense that they left with the light of day and not at night which God commanded them not to do anyway. Notice also that the "morrow" (next day) or (morning -break of day)after the Passover is "...fifteenth day of the first month..."(Num. 33:3). Therefore Israel did not depart until the morning (15th) after the Passover (begins 14th day at even) and this morning (bo'-ker) is when the new day breaks (15th). That is why we observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread(15th) on the morning immediately follow the night in which the flesh of the Passover lamb was eaten. Sunset did not begin the new day. The fact that Passover begins on the 14th day at "even" does not define when a day begins. God already did that in Genesis. Here He is simply telling us at what time of the day (14th) we are to begin eating unleavened bread. That is why God says 14th day at even and not the 15th as is would be if a day began at evening. So how is it that Israel came out by "night"? Commenting on Deut. 16:1 (mentioned above), Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown state: "for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee out of Egypt by night--This statement is apparently at variance with the prohibition (Exo_12:22) as well as with the recorded fact that their departure took place in the morning (Exo_13:3; Num_33:3). But it is susceptible of easy reconciliation. Pharaoh's permission, the first step of emancipation, was extorted during the night, the preparations for departure commenced, the rendezvous at Rameses made, and the march entered on in the morning." So God secured Israel's release at "night". Pharaoh let Israel go that "Night". They were absolutely free to leave, But God delayed their departure until the first light of morning (15th). God brought them out by night, but they physically left by day. John Gill, who was very familiar with Jewish traditions, and even believed that days ran from sunset to sunset, states in his commentary: "for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night; for though they did not set out until morning, when it was day light, and are said to come out in the day, yet it was in the night the Lord did wonders for them, as Onkelos paraphrases this clause; that he smote all the firstborn in Egypt, and passed over the houses of the Israelites, the door posts being sprinkled with the blood of the passover lamb slain that night, and therefore was a night much to be observed; and it was in the night Pharaoh arose and gave them leave to go; and from that time they were no more under his power, and from thence may be reckoned their coming out of bondage; see Exo_12:12." Day and night are not the same. In fact they are two completely different seasons. As different as summer and winter (Gen. 8:22). I believe the above answers many if not most of this persons objections. I will now comment on some of the other scriptures presented: As you mentioned many of the scriptures used prove nothing in favor of a sunset to sunset day, such as "2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." I need not mention all of the others as you can clearly see which ones to discard that fall into this category. Other scriptures used simply verify the difference between day and night, such as: "Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good." Psalms 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. --my thoughts-- (Notice that darkness shines as the day to God (not to us) showing there is a difference between day and night). while they are both alike to God in that we cannot hide from Him in the darkness, they are not both alike to us. People can easily hide from us in darkness and again, take a walk down a country road at night vs the day to see if they are the same to us. Numbers 3:13 Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the LORD. (God smote them at midnight Exodus 12:29 but God call it day)"--My thoughts: In Num. 3:13 God says that He "smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt". And while we know that this happened at Midnight, God says that it was "On the DAY" that I struck all the first-born. The word for "Day" used here is the Hebrew word "Yom". While 95% of the time "Yom" simply refers to an ordinary day (dawn to dark), it can have other meanings. For example, prophetically speaking, it is used as "the Day of the Lord", which we understand is not an ordinary day, but a period of time. In fact the KJV translates "Yom" as the word "time" on 64 occasions. Another example is Isa. 23:15 where we read, "And it shall come to pass in that Day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years..." One more example: "And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the DAYS of Abraham..." (Gen. 26:1) The word "days" here is "yom". The Good News bible translates this as "during the time of Abraham..." The CEV translation says, "during Abraham's lifetime". Regarding Num. 3:13 specifically, The book "Five Books of Moses" points out that "On the DAY" in this context simply means "At the time" and it states that these three words (On the DAY) frequently has this connotation. John Gill says it "signifies time". The Holman Christian Bible says, At that time". NAB and NRSV say "when", etc. Please refer to other versions to see that this is the meaning of "on the day" in this verse. KJV could have easily used the word "time" here as they do in 64 other places. It is interesting to note that while the word “yom” (day) is used in the range of 2,000 times in the scriptures it is never once translated in the Kings James Version as “dark”, “darkness”, “night”, “midnight”, “night season”, etc. It stands to reason that if the word “yom” covers the period of night we would find numerous texts in which this word would be translated as “night” or “darkness”, etc. But we do not. God's primary word for "night" is "layela^h". And Psalm 104:20 reads, "Thou makest darkness, and it is night..." (layela^h). Again, while "Yom" can have other meanings 95% of the time it simply refers to an ordinary day. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits that, "DAY" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the SEASON OF LIGHT (Gen. 1:5), LASTING "FROM DAWN (LIT. "THE RISING OF THE MORNING") TO THE COMING FORTH OF THE STARS." This is the primary meaning for the word "yom". Mark 13:32-37 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 33Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. 34For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. 35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: (Of that day, includes an even, a midnight, a morning and a cockcrowing.)--my thoughts-- Again like Num. 3:13 above, "day" used in this context is simply speaking of some future time. This word for "day" (Greek -he¯mera) is equivalent to the word "yom" in the Old testament and can simply mean "time" as it does here. The KJV translates it as "time" in Luke 9:51 for example. Wesley says of the verse: "Of that day - The day of judgment is often in the Scriptures emphatically called that day." Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown say: "But of that day and that hour--that is, the precise time." We must also keep mind if Jesus returns in the daytime where we are, it will be night somewhere else on earth. He could be returning at all of the times mentioned above depending on where you are. That is why Jesus said some will be in bed and some will be in the field at His return (Jesus understood, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." - Isa. 40:22). And He knows the difference between day and night (John 11:9 & Matthew 12:40). Luke 2:8-11 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9And £behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (The angel of the God said “this day” not tomorrow morning that Christ would be born while talking to the shepherds at night)--my thoughts--: The word used for "this day" in Luke 2:11 is the Greek word "se¯meron". It is not the word that Jesus used when speaking of "three days and three nights" (Mat. 12:40 or "12 hours in a day" (John 11:9). That is word "he¯mera" mentioned earlier which has the primary meaning of dawn to dark and is equivalent to the word "yom" in the Old testament. Jesus was three "he¯mera" (days) in the heart of the earth and Jonah was three "yom" (days) in the fishes belly in addition to their three "nights". The word "se¯meron" used in Luke 2:11 has a number of meanings. Strong's says, "day (or night current or just passed.)" Vine's states "In Heb. 4:7 the "today" of Ps. 95:7 is evidently designed to extend to the present period of the Christian faith." (p,635). while some say it can mean night, It is never translated as "dark", "darkness", "night", "midnight", "night season", etc. in the KJV. It is always translated as "to day" or "this day". So when the angel said in Luke, "For unto you is born this day", it can mean as Strong's says, this day just passed. Based on the fact that se¯meron is never translated as anything meaning dark or night in the KJV, it stands to reason that it must mean the daytime period that had just ended prior to the night in which the shepherds watched their flock. Please note that there is a perfectly good word for "night" (nux) used in verse 8 and it means "night" literally or figuratively. If the angel meant that the birth took place that night, he certainly would have used the word "nux". Also note in the very same chapter of Luke (chapter 2) in verse 37 Luke writes: "And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day." Here Luke uses the primary words for night (nux) and day (he¯mera) showing that he knows the difference between day and night. If the objecting party was to read the website I have much more on Luke and his understanding of a "day". In addition to the fact that se¯meron can mean now or a time just past, as I mentioned Vine's indicates it can mean a time in the future. Se¯meron is used in another familiar text to the Sabbath observing community. That text is Luke 23:43 where we read: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Sabbath keepers understand that the thief on the cross was not in paradise the very day that Jesus said, "To day" or "this day"(se¯meron) shalt thou be with me in paradise. When did the thief ask Jesus to remember him in verse 42? "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."...And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day (or this day) shalt thou be with me in paradise." They both were looking to the future kingdom of God and Jesus said "this day" (when the kingdom of God comes) you will be in paradise with me. Here again we see that se¯meron does not mean right now at this moment, but this case a future time. Ezekiel 45:21 1In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. (Passover call a day but kept at night. The night is a part of the day by Gods definition)--my thoughts--: As I have already shown above only light from God or the sun constitutes a day. First of all the Passover begins "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even". The sun still rules at even (Gen. 1:16, and therefore it is still day. That is why God calls it "day". Note also, God says this is the 14th day at even not the 15th (as some believe) as shown above. Just as Lev. 23:32 is the 9th day at even, not the 10th as many have been led to believe. The fact that Passover begins in the day and continues at night does not make night part of the day as I have shown above. That is why God says, "they shall eat the flesh in that night". Why is it that " neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning:"?? (Deut 16:4). Because morning (bo'-ker) begins the new day (15th) and Passover is over as shown above. I am going to stop now as I am wearing out (as I am sure you are too). I think I have addressed most of the objections. I am going to see if any other comments are in order and I will address them when I reply to your previous email. If you think of any points that need to be addressed please let me know. I believe that if a person with an open mind (that God has opened) will read the above answers and combine it with my website they can come to an honest conclusion. The question is as you stated, will they read it? New (1/14/07) Great to hear from you again. I am very thankful that you are finding the information beneficial and that you are sharing it with other people. Regarding John 20:1 and Mary Magdalene's arrival the first day of the week while it was yet dark. Please note that she arrived "early" the first day of the week when it was yet dark. The word "early" is defined by Strong's as, "Adverb from G4253; at dawn; by implication the day break watch: - early (in the morning), (in the) morning." Vine's says "early in the day, at morn,". This is the same word used in Mark's parallel account where he writes, "And very "early" in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (16:2). Using the same word ("early") John says "yet dark" and Mark says "at the rising of the sun". In Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament, he writes, "Mark says (16:1-2) that it was after the Sabbath was past, and very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun-that is, not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise, or at the early BREAK OF DAY. Luke says (24:1) that is was very early in the morning; in the Greek, deep twilight or when there was scarcely any light (my note: but there was light). John (20:1) says it was very early, while it was yet dark- that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen, the time when they came, therefore, was at the BREAK OF DAY, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible. The first day of the week.”(p.317). In the same book speaking of early daybreak Barnes says “there is much appearance of night”(p.332), hence the reason John could say it was “yet dark”. Note, that Barnes is saying that the Gospel writers agree on the time of the day which is the “break of day” on the “first day of the week”, “very early in the morning”, “when the sun was about to rise”. He also says the time that they arrived was “just as the light appeared in the east, yet so dark as to render objects indistinct”(p.325). This time of day as light appeared in the east is called "early" the first day of the week according to John and Mark. If a day began at sunset and was 24 hours long, this period of time would be called "midday" and not "early" the first day of the week (Please see my short article in the links section at the top of my website called "Midday in the Bible: Was God Confused?"). On this point, Dr. Samuele Baccchiocchi, an advocate for sunset to sunset days states: "The day appears to begin at sunrise also in Mark 16:2 which says: "And very early on the first day of the week they... went to the tomb when the sun had risen." According to the sunset reckoning the "very early" part of the first day of the week would be the hours immediately following the end of the Sabbath at sunset--what we would call Saturday night. Mark however, takes pains to explain what he means be "very early on the first day of the week," namely, not the early hours of the night immediately following the close of the Sabbath at sunset, but "when the sun had risen."... ...Mark saw the need to clarify what he meant by "very early on the first day of the week," namely, "when the sun had risen." This time reference presupposes a sunrise reckoning because according to the sunset reckoning, by the time the sun had risen it was the middle and not the early part of the first day." It is also worth noting that inside the tomb at this time of day it would be very dark. Finally, you may find this interesting. This comes from a sunset to sunset groups magazine (CGI) a few years ago at the time of GTA. Notice how they agree with Albert Barnes conclusion regarding these verses: "What do we learn from these accounts? First, the event occurred on the first day of the week, as Mark, Luke and John make clear. Second, it was yet dark, as John tells us. Third, it was very early in the morning, as revealed by Mark and Luke. Fourth, it occurred at the rising of the sun, according to Mark. Our conclusion: Early Sunday morning, the sun beginning to peek over the mountains of the distant horizon-just enough light to make forms and images identifiable-the women approached the sepulchre". You also wrote: "Numbers 3:13......".On the DAY that I struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt",....As all the first-born in the land of Egypt died at Midnight -Ex12:29, this indicates Midnight was a part of that DAY." In Num. 3:13 God states that He "smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt". And while we know that this happened at Midnight, God says that it was "On the DAY" that I struck all the first-born. The word for "Day" used here is the Hebrew word "Yom". While 95% of the time "Yom" simply means an ordinary day (dawn to dark), it can have other meanings. For example, prophetically speaking, it is used as "the Day of the Lord", which we understand is not a single day, but a period of time. In fact the KJV translates "Yom" as the word "time" on 64 occasions. Another example is Isa. 23:15 where we read, "And it shall come to pass in that Day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years..." Regarding Num. 3:13 specifically, The book "Five Books of Moses" points out that "On the DAY" in this context simply means "At the time" and it states that these three words (On the DAY) frequently has this connotation. John Gill says it "signifies time". The Holman Christian Bible says, At that time". NAB and NRSV say "when", etc. It is interesting to note that while the word “yom” (day) is used in the range of 2,000 times in the scriptures it is never once translated in the Kings James Version as “dark”, “darkness”, “night”, “midnight”, “night season”, etc. It stands to reason that if the word “yom” covers the period of night we would find numerous texts in which this word would be translated as “night” or “darkness”, etc. But we do not. God's primary word for "night" is "layela^h". And Psalm 104:20 reads, "Thou makest darkness, and it is night..." Brown-Driver-Briggs says that "night" is "opposed to day". Again, while "Yom" can have other meanings 95% of the time it simply means an ordinary day. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits that, "DAY" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the SEASON OF LIGHT (Gen. 1:5), LASTING "FROM DAWN (LIT. "THE RISING OF THE MORNING") TO THE COMING FORTH OF THE STARS." Geoff, I hope that this has been helpful. Please keep me updated and let me know if you or anyone in your Bible study group decide to make the change to a dawn to dark Sabbath. New (12/25/06) This email was sitting in my "Drafts" and I think I forgot to send it. If you have read it, please disregard it. But I do not think I sent it to you. Here are my thougts on your question "to fast or not to fast on Atonement". True, the words "fast" or "fasting" are not mentioned in Lev. 23:32, just as the "even unto even" Sabbath mentioned here is not mentioned anywhere else in the scriptures where "Day of atonement" instructions are given. Now if we read all of the other verses regarding Atonement and leave out Lev. 23:32 we may conclude that this annual Sabbath does not require the Sabbath to begin the evening before this Holy Day (9th & 10th). My point is that we need to put all of the scriptures together before we conclude that this annual Sabbath runs from "even unto even". What is the only Holy day in which we are required to afflict our souls? Atonement. In Isaiah chapter 58 the people want to know why God is not pleased with their fasting and the affliction of their souls (verse 3). God is not unhappy with "fasting" He is unhappy with the peoples actions. They oppress their workers. They do their own pleasure. They fight as they fast. They go through the motions with evil in their hearts. God says: Isa 58:6 "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Isa 58:7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? God does choose "the fast" as He states in the first sentence of verse 8. His fast is much different from that of the people He is displeased with. With God's fast people are to be freed. His people are to keep bread from their lips and take the food they would eat and give it to the hungry and do the other things mentioned in the verses above. In verse 13 God calls His fast "my Holy day" and a "Sabbath". He tells the people not to do their pleasure on His Holy day (as He points out in verse 3). Now the only "Holy day" "Sabbath" in which the soul is to be afflicted is the "Day of Atonement". Here, the people think they are afflicting their souls and they are fasting. God does choose a fast that is a "Holy day" and a "Sabbath". I conclude that the only Holy Day that fits these verses is the Day of Atonement. In Acts 27:9 we read: "Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past..." This speaks not of any fast, but "the fast". Every commentary that I have read states that this is the "Day of Atonement". In Acts 27:9 we have "the fast" and God states in Isaiah 58:6: Is not this "the fast" that I choose. As of now we continue to fast. What are your thoughts. New (12/10/06) We are thankful that we did not loose power this time. My wife's mother lost power for several days. We are in the St. Louis area Refresh my memory. I am thinking that you are in Ohio? I am glad that you believe Jesus is God. It is sad to see so many in the Sabbath community moving away from this belief. Do you ever get the feeling that some people have decided not to believe anything that HWA believed just because he believed it and they are still angry with him? Have you heard David Antion's 13 part series on the deity of Jesus? It is a great resource. I have listened to it numerous times. You can get it through his Guardian Ministries. I may have asked you this already. Do have E-sword? Another great Bible resource on the net. If you are not familiar with this let me know and I will give you more info. Here is the website: http://www.e-sword.net/ You are right. It is encouraging to read the words to Philadelphia in theses times. Thanks for reminding me to read them again (and I did). Ah, yes, the Passover. Don't feel alone. I think a lot of people are confused. I have always felt that the Passover/Unleavened bread scenario has caused more confusion than any other Holy day season. Sometimes it seems like every group has a different formula. between the scenarios found in the O.T. and the N.T., and many assumptions and Jewish customs it is easy to get way off track. And as long as sunset to sunset prevails, I fear things will not get any less confusing. Do I have all of the answers???? No. You probably knew that. But I do have a lot of questions. Of course, dawn to dark days would be a step in the right direction to solving many of the puzzles. Based on our understanding of a "day", for a number of years we have observed (and still do) the memorial of Christ's death beginning on the 14th day at evening and the very next morning (15th) we begin the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I have not read Martin's Passover beliefs, but I have read Gary Miller's (International Congregation of Yahweh). His belief seems to be similar. He believes that Passover is a Holy day that includes all of the 14th starting at dawn. And he does not believe that the 15th is a Holy day. While I believe Miller is very bright (I got my first taste of dawn to dark days from him), I have a number of questions regarding his Passover conclusions. First of all, I believe that Miller makes a good case for Passover (14th) being a Holy day. Even if Passover is a Holy day, I am not convinced that it begins at dawn on the 14th (This is where I think his argument is weak). He Mentions Ex. 34:25. Passover is called the "feast (Heb. Chag) of the Passover". He explains that "Chag" means a feast or festival. And if the "Chag" of Tabernacles (Lev.23:34) and "Chag" of weeks (Ex. 34:22) are considered Holy days so should the "Chag" of Passover. The problem is that he also mentions the "Chag" of Unleavened bread (Lev. 23:6) which the Bible points out is on the 15th day. He tries to ignore it, but so far I cannot ignore the "Chag" of the 15th. He stresses the fact that Num. 28:16 says that the 14th day of the month is the Passover and says "Note evening is not mentioned". Therefore he concludes that Passover begins at dawn. Even if I were to accept the idea that Passover was a Holy day, at this point, I do not buy the argument that Passover begins on the 14th at dawn. Why? because Lev. 23:5 says: "In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover". Here is another reason why I believe the argument is weak. I could point out a passage to someone unfamiliar with the scriptures that shows Jesus was crucified and buried. And I could say "see, it does not mention that he will rise from the dead". Now if the person does not look at any other Scriptures, they may believe me. So while I believe that the Passover is on the 14th day, I also believe that it begins "at even" and not before. Miller also gives a good number of other scriptures supporting Passover as a Holy day. And in the N.T. Mark 14:12 states "And the first day of Unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover..." Miller concludes that the first day of Unleavened bread is on the 14th and not the 15th. Not only because of this, but because we are instructed to begin eating it on the 14th day at "even" (Ex. 12:18). There are a good number of other points and assumptions that he makes. Where does this leave me. It leaves me with some questions. If the 14th is the first day of unleavened bread and a Holy day and we see holy convocations the first and last day, how is it that the 15th is called a feast day. Is is possible that just because the first and last days are Holy days, that there could not be a third Holy day (15th - assuming the 14th is also Holy) Are we to eat unleavened bread 7 full days or 7 days even if they are not full days. In other words if you start eating unleavened bread with the evening of the 14th day (1 hour would complete the day) and then we would continue with 12 hours for each day 15th through the 20th. We are to eat unleavened bread only until the evening of the 21st (11 hours). That would give us a total of 7 full days based on 84 hours by adding the 11 hours of the 21st with the 1 hour of the 14th and it would equal 12 hours of light for parts of 2 days (This is Gary Miller's calculation). On the other hand if the official time to count the 7 days does not begin until dawn of the 15th (Chag) as it seems to say in Lev. 23:6, we cannot get 7 full days of light between then and the 21st at evening. Maybe 7 full days are not required. Just as long as unleavened bread is eaten on each day for 7 days from the 15th through the 21st. Just as the annual Sabbath/fast is not 2 fulls days but runs from the 9th day at even until the 10th day at even. I hope I am making some sense. Funny thing is while I am considering observing the Passover as a Holy day, we have always approached this period of time as if it was Holy anyway. As I mentioned earlier, even if we changed, we would still begin it on the 14th day at even. When does it end? We know the Passover was also eaten in that night. So it is possible that the Holy time may include the night. If so, it definitely ends by dawn (15th) because they departed on "fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover" (Num. 33:3). So we know that the 15th is the day after ("morrow after") the Passover. And we also know that it is called the "feast (Chag) of unleavened bread" (Lev. 23:6). If I accept this (Passover/Holy day) I must conclude that even though the first and last days are considered Holy convocations, it does not mean that a third period could not also be Holy. I have not concluded anything as yet. What are your thoughts? As far as the feast of Tabernacles, I meant to say that we have not attended a traditional Church of God feast site for several years. What I mean by that is that we have been going strictly as a family and we have not met with other people at a big feast site recently. New (7/23/06) I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "there is much evidence that the Sabbath was kept prior to the establishment of Jerusalem" and that God “called the light DAY" and when the Sabbath DAY begins in Jerusalem it will be NIGHT where we live.” Since this gentleman believes in sunset to sunset days he has no problem observing what he believes to be holy time on the Sabbath in the dark and in the light. I believe that no matter how you slice it God “…makest darkness, and it is night…” And since God calls the “light day” and the 7th “light” is the Sabbath, it does not ring true that we should spend about 8 of our 12 hours of Sabbath time half asleep or asleep in the dark (based on the Sabbath beginning at dawn in Jerusalem). I think sometimes when people focus on the “land which the LORD thy God giveth thee” that they do not see a universal application with regard to His instructions. For example, Exodus 20:12 says, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Paul understood that you need not be in the land or look to the land in order to follow this instruction and receive the blessings. He writes to the Ephesians, “Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise.” (Eph 6:2). Going back to the foundations of the earth (Job 38:4): God says “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? In verse 12 He says, “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;” Here we see that morning (boqer) is the break of day or the spring of a new day (“dayspring“) -- Note: Evening is not mentioned at all as He speaks of the springing of a new day on the earth--. God asks Job, have you “caused the dayspring to know his place” As commentators point out this refers to the different points in which daybreak appears during the course of the earth’s revolution. Verse 13 reads “That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” Albert Barnes writes: “That the wicked might be shaken out of it - Out of the earth; that is, by the light which suddenly shines upon them. The sense is, that the wicked perform their deeds in the darkness of the night, and that in the morning light they flee away. The effect of the light coming upon them is to disturb their plans, to fill them with alarm, and to cause them to flee... The wicked are engaged in various acts of iniquity under cover of the night.” This springing of the new day disturbs the plans of the wicked as the first light of day comes to them at different times all over the earth. We know that the wicked are not all in one place so daybreak finds them one by one even to the “ends of the earth”. God could have made the earth flat so that sunrise and sunset happened at the same time everywhere as it does in Jerusalem, but He “…sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;…” (Isa. 40:22). Speaking of His second coming Jesus says “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left…Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” (Luke 17:34,36). Here we see that “field” implies “day” because people in general did not work at night (especially in the “field” - John 9:4). Since His statement consists of one instant in time, it indicates that Jesus takes into account that people would be working and sleeping (on a round earth) at the same time, thus inferring “day” on one side of the earth and “night” on the other side. Both the righteous and the unrighteous will be working and sleeping at His return. While Jesus expects the righteous to be ready and “awake” spiritually when He returns, He does not expect them to all be “awake” physically at that time. Genesis 8:22 says: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” We can see from this that God speaks of day and night on the earth as a whole. He points out that day and night are different seasons. As different as summer and winter. Therefore, if we observe the Sabbath based on Jerusalem time (dawn), Jerusalem would be observing the Sabbath in one season while we are observing it in a completely different season. And by the time our observance was over, we would be observing it in two different seasons. Based on sunset to sunset both countries would be observing two seasons instead of the one “season of light” or the 7th “day”--- ("Day" (Hebrew, "yom"): In the Bible, the season of light (Gen. 1:5), lasting "from dawn (lit. "the rising of the morning") to the coming forth of the stars"..." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 475).--- In the Older Testament (Deut 16:15) God said, "Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD shall choose...", without specifying a location. God was worshipped in different places from Egypt to Shiloh. When the woman said to Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him…” (John 4:22,23,25). Since each individual is a tabernacle, when more than one tabernacle comes together at His feast, this makes the tabernacles feasting together. We know that the tents of Israel were not doing the feasting it was the individuals dwelling in the tents that honored God. (2 Cor. 5: 1-4, 1 Peter 1:12,13). So “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And wherever we come together to worship Him that is where God chooses to be. His first light of dawn will find us where ever we are. “Even to the ends of he earth”. Then we can truly enjoy His weekly Sabbath or annual feast day refreshed and in the light of day as it comes to us. “From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name is to be praised” (Psa. 113:3). Eventually God does choose to bring us all together in Jerusalem. But eventually other things will change. He will be our light in an eternal “day” (or Sabbath), for there will be no need for the sun or the moon and there will be no night (Rev. 21:25) which we now know is darkness and the opposite of day (Gen 1:5). “And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.” (Rev. 22:5). At this point I have to agree with you when you say “I can't go along with it because "He called the light DAY" and when the Sabbath DAY begins in Jerusalem it will be NIGHT where we live. Perhaps people who still follow sundown time can't see this.” New (4/21/06) I am thankful that you found the information thought provoking. I will attempt to clarify my understanding: I believe that "light" = "day" - Gen 1:5 (or more specifically the "greater light" from the sun which rules the day - Gen 1:16). All days including the 7th day Sabbath run from dawn to dark. The holy time for the Sabbath is Saturday from dawn to dark and it does not begin on Friday at sunset nor does it extend past the end of sunset Saturday into the dark hours of the "night". Day and night are 2 different seasons as different as summer and winter (Gen. 8:2). A key point is to remember that the word "Sabbath" does not mean "day". "Day" = the period of light from dawn to dark. (Note: God says the 7th day (light) is the Sabbath - a specific period of time. night is not included) The word "Sabbath" means "to cease to desist". The length of a Sabbath can vary. It can be 1 day (weekly) or many days as the land Sabbath of Lev. 25:1-4 shows. I was taught (and I assume you were) that in Lev. 23:32 that God really meant to call the 9th day at evening the 10th (Day of Atonement) and that the Day of Atonement begins at even. In fact the 9th day began at dawn and it was still the 9th day at evening (as God said) because days do not end until dark. Therefore the 10th day (Atonement) begins at dawn following the Sabbath/Fast that began on the 9th at evening. The bottom line is that this annual Sabbath of Lev. 23:32 begins on the 9th day at evening and ends on the 10th day at evening. It takes in parts of 2 days. Why? Because a Sabbath unto the Lord is not limited to 1 day as we see with the land Sabbath of Lev. 25:1-4. This is the only Sabbath (annual or weekly) that runs from evening to evening. This is not a 24 day, for God calls the light day. This is a 24 hour Sabbath that takes in parts of 2 days. The night following the evening of the 9th would be holy time only in this case. The Moffatt translation says: "...and you must abstain and fast: from sunset on the ninth day to sunset on the tenth day you shall hold your Sabbath." (Lev. 23:32)--- Not only does 'Moffatt' understand that the Sabbath / Fast begins at sunset on the ninth day, he also understands that the following evening is still the 10th day and not the 11th day, as it would be if a new day started at sunset. I know of no translation that calls the 9th day at evening the 10th. God is not telling us that a new day begins at evening here. He is simply telling us that this is the time of day He wants us to begins this particular Sabbath. The other Holy days such as Pentecost run from dawn to dark: In Acts 2:1 God's word states: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." In verse 15 Peter says: "For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." The Williams translation (and others) say, "nine o'clock in the morning". . If nine o'clock in the morning was the third hour of the day, then the Day of Pentecost began in the morning around sunrise. (Please read "The Day of Atonement - Sifting through the Traditions". You will find this in the table of contents on the website). I used to not allow my children to work on Friday nights. I do now. There has been a time or two that one of them worked on the night after Saturday. Normally when they say they cannot work on Saturday no one asks them to come in at night. You mentioned that you are a bit confused with the Sabbath summary on the Website. I think that you may have looking at the section titled "What People are Saying" (see table of contents at top of page). These are letters sent to me from people who have read this information. One person who had observed sunset to sunset all of his life (some 38 years) came to understand that the day in general and the Sabbath day in particular is simply the period of light. He wrote a summary comparing his new understanding to the traditional view that the weekly Sabbath is evening to evening. His email letters start at #(7) listed under "What People are Saying". I think that may be what you were reading and caused some confusion. Please let me know if this was the problem. I hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to send me your questions. I will try to answer them to the best of my understanding.  New (1/31/09) (Not on website yet or laptop) I am glad that you see the 12 hour Sabbath. It took me about 5 years of study from Genesis to Revelation to finally change to the 12 hour belief. And I started out totally against the idea. I am a little unclear as to some of your points here, but I think that you are saying the term “first day of the week” is an annual Sabbath rather than an ordinary “first day of the week” (or “first of the SABBATHSG4521) as John writes). Regardless, I am glad that you do see the 12 hour Sabbath. You mention that we should take a close look at the words used in John 20:1. First of all I believe that it is questionable that the “first of the week (Sabbaths) mentioned in John 20:1 is referring to a special annual Holy Day for a number of reasons: As I am sure that you know the vast majority of all translations state that this this verse is simply noting the first day of the week. I understand that we do not always except something because the majority believes it, however a majority view from Biblical scholarship does deserve some attention before it is rejected. While the word “day” is not used here, John does use it in verse 19 when referring to the same first of the Sabbaths (week) mentioned in verse 1. I am aware that some people think all of these translations are trying to hide an annual Sabbath in this verse. While decades of scholarship is not perfect especially when tradition rears it’s ugly head, to automatically throw out the consensus of scholarship on any matter that we disagree with could indicate that we have now become our own self appointed scholar giving meanings to words and structure that may simply fit our own theology. I try not to go down that road unless it is clear that the particular meaning of various texts have been vigorously debated by scholars or that it is evident beyond doubt that all translators of a specific scripture have been fooled by their own traditions. When I did my original study on the word “day” and the “Sabbath day” in particular, I studied Genesis to Revelation without using outside scholarship with the exception of bare minimum meanings of words I was not clear on. When I concluded that a “day” = “greater light” and was 12 hours long based on my own study, I then began to look at many Biblical Encyclopedias, books, dictionaries, commentaries, translations, lexicons, etc. to see if I stood all alone in my conclusions. I discovered that numerous scholars agreed with much of my understanding. What I found is that people who have studied Hebrew and Greek for decades are pretty much in agreement with each other as to what most words mean. Therefore if I believe their understanding is wrong, I had better know what I am talking about before I reject their understanding. That being said note the following: (A) The women rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. So while most of all scholarship may personally disagree with Sabbath keeping (or keeping other Holy Days) for example, they do not hide the Sabbath day mentioned in Luke 23:56 or the some 60 times it is mentioned in the New Testament. Most scholarship does not hide other New Testament days as well, such as Pentecost, Passover, Tabernacles, “the Fast”, Last Great Day, etc. So the question must be asked, are the vast majority of all translations hiding a Sabbath in this case, or do they have a good reason for calling these texts “the first day of the week”? I think that they do. (B) The women rested according to the Sabbath day, but the text does not say that they continued to rest on the first of the week, but that they headed for the tomb. (C- We do find the disciples gathering together on that day although not for a special Sabbath, but for fear of the Jews. (John 20:19). (D) Can this Greek word “Sabbath,G4521” mean “Week” instead of a Holy day? Yes. This same Greek word is used in Luke 18:12, where Luke writes, “I fast twice in the week (Sabbath,G4521), I give tithes of all that I possess.” Almost all translations use the word “week”, because it would not make any sense to say “I fast twice in the Sabbath”. (E) In addition to the points above, on this same first day of the week, two disciples decide to take a journey (about 8 miles) to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-34), which to my understanding was not an easy trek. They take this journey for no apparent reason (some think it was their home town) and with no command to do so. This would be an exhausting hike on a special annual Sabbath day. Not only that, but as they walked the Messiah appears to them and walks with them. As they reach Emmaus, the Messiah continues to walk on as though He was going to walk forever. They ask Him to stay and eat and when they recognize Him He vanishes. The two disciples then leave Emmaus and walk another 8 miles back to Jerusalem to tell the others what they have seen. They now have walked about 16 miles over rugged terrain on this so called annual Sabbath. And as far as they knew the Messiah would have walked on for who knows how long had they not asked Him to stay with them. It appears to me that this may have been a normal first day of the week. That is why I use first day of the week and as you mentioned it does not change the fact that a day is 12 hours long and therefore so is the Sabbath day. Lets take an even closer look at John 20:1: First it is interesting to note that John says: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early…” He does not say she came before the first of the week. Regarding John 20:1 and the arrival early on first day of the week when it was yet dark (Forgive my use of caps as I took some of this from my website): Please note that the arrival was "early" the first day of the week. Vine's says regarding the word “early”, "early in the day, at morn,". This is the same word used in Mark's parallel account where he writes, "And very "early" in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (16:2). Using the same word ("early") John says "yet dark" and Mark says "at the rising of the sun". In Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament, he writes, "Mark says (16:1-2) that it was after the Sabbath was past, and very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun-that is, not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise, or at the early BREAK OF DAY. Luke says (24:1) that is was very early in the morning; in the Greek, deep twilight or when there was scarcely any light. John (20:1) says it was very early, while it was yet dark- that is, it was not yet full daylight, or the sun had not yet risen, the time when they came, therefore, was at the BREAK OF DAY, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible. The first day of the week.”(p.317). In the same book speaking of early daybreak Barnes says “there is much appearance of night”(p.332), hence the reason John could say it was “yet dark”. Note, that Barnes is saying that the Gospel writers agree on the time of the day which is the “break of day” on the “first day of the week”, “very early in the morning”, “when the sun was about to rise”. He also says the time that they arrived was “just as the light appeared in the east, yet so dark as to render objects indistinct”(p.325). This time of day as light appeared in the east is called "early" the first day of the week according to John and Mark. It is interesting to note that John says “when it was yet dark” (V:1). He does not say “when it was yet Night”. While this word “dark”(G4653) may be used in Greek somewhere to mean “night”, it is not the primary meaning for this word. Had John wanted to say it was still night, the primary word to use would be “nux” (G3571) which means “night“ literally or figuratively. In other words, not all darkness is night and not all light is day. For example in Genesis 1:16 we are informed that the greater “light“ (H3974) rules the day. In Exodus 35:14 we read, “The candlestick also for the light (H3974), and his furniture, and his lamps, with the oil for the light (H3974)…” Obviously, the light coming from a lamp does not bring us day. The “greater light” from the sun does bring us day. Not all light equals day. In Genesis 1:16 God appoints only the “greater light” (sun) to “rule the day“. He appoints the “lesser light” (moon) to rule the night. Therefore, although God calls the “darkness night” (Gen. 1:5) this period of time needs to be more than just “dark”. It needs the sun to be gone and the moon to be ruling. At the crack dawn it can be dark but not night as I pointed out earlier. The day begins with the first light of dawn as we see in places such as Genesis 32: 22, 24, 26 where Jacob wrestles all night until the “breaking of the day” (V:24).Fox’s “Five Books of Moses” translates it, “"until the coming up of dawn". In Acts 20:11 the Greek word “auge” according to Vines’s is "the beginning of daylight," and is translated "break of day" (KJV). It is also worth noting that inside the tomb at this time of day it would be very dark and if the sun was still behind a hill or mountain that would add to the darkness but it still would be day. Extra comment on darkness from Job 24:14 (The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief.): Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Job 24:14: “14. with the light-at early dawn, while still dark, when the traveler in the East usually sets out, and the poor laborer to his work; the murderous robber lies in wait then (Ps 10:8). is as a thief-Thieves in the East steal while men sleep at night; robbers murder at early dawn. The same man who steals at night, when light dawns not only robs, but murders to escape detection.” Commentary on Acts 5:21 on break of day and “darkness“ (COMMENTARY NEW TESTAMENT.BY LUCIUS R. PAIGE. VOLUME III. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Search the Scriptures.—John v. 89. BOSTON: B. B. MUSSEY & CO., 29 CORNHILL. SOLD BY J. M. USHER AND ABEL TOMPKINS. NEW YORK : C. L. STICKNEY.—PHILADELPHIA : GIHON, F A I IK.'111 l.l, ft CO. CINCINNATI: J. A. GURLEY. 1848. ): 21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought 22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, 23 Saying, The prison truly bund we shut with aU safety, and ;he keepers standing without be- bre the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. 24 Now when the high priest, and the captain of the temple, and a similar form of speech. See John vi. 68. The great doctrine brought to light in the gospel is an immortal, a holy and happy existence beyond the grave. 1 Cor. ch. xv.; 2 Tim. i. 10. The words of life, therefore, were the gospel. Some have interpreted the phrase as referring specially to the renewed life of Jesus Christ, as this was the great fact so earnestly and constantly asserted by the apostles, as the foundation-stone on which the doctrine of Christianity rested. They understand, therefore, that the apostles were here commanded to persist in the public declaration that God had restored to life and glory the same Jesus whom the Jewa had slain in the most ignominious manner. But the other interpretation, more general in its character, seems preferable. It embraces the particular point referred to, but includes also all the other words pertaining to life, or the whole of Christianity. 21. Wlirn they heard. Or, having heard. They entered into the temple. The structure of the sentence indicates that they went directly from the prison to the temple. If such be the fact, they were delivered just as the morning was beginning to appear. If Early in the morning. The word here used occurs in only two other places in the New Testament, Luke xxiv. 1; John viii. 2 ; in both which cases it is translated as here. It indicates what is often called " break of day; " the period when light begins to appear, but before it dispels the shades of darkness. Thus, what is called " very earlv in the morning," Luke xxiv. 1, is defined to be " early, when it was yet dark," John xx. 1. At this early hour they repaired to the temple, that they might instruct the people as soon as they should begin to assemble; and they were found actively engaged in the performance of this duty, when the officers sought for them, ver. 25, 26. FROM A BLOGGER ON JOHN 20:1: John 20:1 states, “Now on the first day of the week comes Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and sees the stone taken away from the tomb.” If it was dark without the sun raised, then John 20:1 would disprove or present another understanding that a day starts on another time other than sunrise in contradiction to the Scriptures above. Note John 20:19 again which states, “When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said unto them, ‘Peace be unto you.’” Also consider that Luke 24:1 makes it clear that the women came at early dawn, so though it was dark though it was not evening. In mountainous areas, the sun can be up and it still be much darker in certain areas like valleys where mountains block the sun’s light in some places and not others especially where a tomb is carved into a rock. Darkness after dawn is evidently possible. BLOGGER ON GENESIS 1:5: Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning [sunrise, Heb. "boqer"], one day.” (Also see Genesis 1:8,13,19,23,31.) The Hebrew word for morning is “boqer”, which means “sunrise”, “end of night”, “coming of daylight”, and “beginning of day”. Therefore, note the order of day then night and also, “And there was evening [sunset] and there was morning [sunrise], one day”, which means day came then sunset then night then sunrise started a new day. New (12/6/08) (Not on website yet or laptop) This is a follow up to my previous message, a sharing of information as it were. I am not sure if you have these quotes from Josephus, from the portion titled "The Life of Flavius Josephus": Section 30: “…I had already sent away my armed men from Taricheae, to their own homes, because the next day was our Sabbath; for I would not have the people of Taricheae disturbed [on that day] by a multitude of soldiers…the present day was almost over; and had those forces been with me, I could not take up arms on the next day, because our laws forbade us so to do.” Section 31: “However, they desired me to lodge some where else, because the NEXT DAY was the Sabbath, and it was not fit the city of Tiberias should be disturbed [on that day]….On the next day, therefore, they all came into the Proseucha [note: place of prayer]…thither Jonathan went in, and thought he durst not openly speak of a revolt, yet did say that their city stood in need of a better governor….But the multitude were not pleased with what was said, and had certainly gone into a tumult, unless the sixth hour [noon], which was now come, had dissolved the assembly, at which hour our laws require us to go to dinner on Sabbath days….When I was informed of these affairs, I determined to go to the city of Tiberias in the morning. Accordingly, on the next day, about the first hour of the day, I…found the multitude already assembled…” Here we have it all spelled out. “The next day” and “morning” are linked together; it was desired that Josephus spend the night somewhere else because the next day was the Sabbath—not that night! New (12/6/08) (Not on website yet or laptop) Thanks for the great info from Josephus. Morning, Next day and Sabbath linked together is wonderful. I have not seen these texts from Josephus. Please feel free to share this type of information with me any time. As I am sure you know many use Josephus to prove sunset to sunset days because Josephus wrote: "...one of the priests stood of course, and gave a signal beforehand, with a trumpet, at the beginning of every seventh day, in the evening twilight, as also at the evening when the day was finished, as giving notice to the people when they were to leave off work, and when they were to go to work again..." (Wars of the Jews). I am not surprised that this tradition existed at that time, but was Josephus only reporting what some people did while observing morning days in his own life. It seems that it may be so based on the info you sent and some of the info I have supplied below (if you have not seen this I hope you enjoy it): One author who believes in sunset to sunset days wrote some interesting things about Josephus. In case you have not seen it, here it is: "Josephus’ Reckoning of the Passover. In explaining the law concerning the Passover celebration Josephus writes: "On the fourteenth day of the lunar month ... the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called Passover; and so do we celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following."25 In this passage the fourteenth day of the month on which the Paschal lamb was sacrificed between 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. (Lev 23:5), extends through the night during which the lamb was eaten in companies and ends in the morning when for Josephus the fifteenth day began. While according to the sunset reckoning (see Lev 23:5-6; Num 28:16, 17), the lamb was sacrificed in the afternoon of Nisan 14 and eaten during the night of Nisan 15, because the new day began in the evening, according to Josephus, both the sacrificing and the eating of the Passover lamb took place in Nisan 14, presumably because the new day began in the morning. Josephus’ Dividing Line. It is noteworthy that the Biblical injunction "let none of it remain until the morning" (Ex 12:10),26 is rendered by Josephus as "till the day following," which clearly suggests that the morning marks the beginning of the new day. This conclusion is substantiated by the very next statement which says: "The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month."27 In this passage Josephus places the beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread immediately after the morning which marks the end of the 14th day, and the beginning of the 15th day. "It is hardly conceivable," rightly observed Roger T. Beckwith, "that Josephus was ignorant of the fact that, according to the Pentateuch, the dividing line between the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread, and between the seven days of the latter, falls in the evening" (Ex 12:8, 18; Lev 23:5-6).28 The fact that Josephus places the dividing line between the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread in the morning rather than in the evening strongly suggests that he is using the sunrise reckoning. Another example occurs in the following paragraph, where Josephus, in explaining the sacrifices offered by the priests on the day of Pentecost, writes: "They bring two lambs; and when they have only presented them to God, they are made ready for supper for the priests; nor is it permitted to leave anything of them till the day following."29 Here again the following morning is referred to as "the day following" which suggests that the new day began in the morning. The Replacement of the Showbread. The sunrise reckoning is possibly implied also in the next paragraph where Josephus explains how the priests prepared the loaves of showbread on Friday and placed them in the Temple before the Lord on Sabbath morning. He writes: "They were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the Sabbath, and set upon the holy table."30 The practice of replacing the showbread on Sabbath morning was presumably introduced at a later period of Jewish history, because we read in 1 Samuel 21:6 that Ahimelech the priest gave to David "the holy bread, for there was no bread there by the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away." The replacement of the showbread with "hot bread " could hardly have been done on Sabbath morning but presumably on Friday afternoon in conjunction with the beginning of the Sabbath. This conclusion is required by two facts. First, it is hard to believe that the priests would bake bread on Sabbath morning, since, as Josephus points out, all the baking was done "the day before the Sabbath." Second, David and his men could hardly have traveled on a Sabbath day all the way to Nob where Ahimelech lived. These considerations lead us to conclude that while at the time of David the showbread was replaced by "hot bread" on Friday afternoon before the beginning of the Sabbath, at the time of Josephus, however, the loaves of showbread "were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the Sabbath."31 The shift in time from Friday afternoon to Sabbath morning may reflect the adoption of a sunrise reckoning in Temple services, according to which Sabbath rituals would begin on Sabbath morning rather than on Friday afternoon. Temple Reckoning. The use of a sunrise reckoning in Temple rituals implied in Josephus’ statements is supported by some Talmudic passages. Jacob Z. Lauterbach explains that "the older system [sunrise to sunrise] continued all through the time of the existence of the second Temple, and there the day was reckoned from morning to morning, or as the Talmud puts it ‘in sacrificial matters the night follows rather than precedes the day.’"32 The latter statement from the Talmud "simply means," writes Lauterbach, "that in the sanctuary the conservative priests persistently held on to the older practice [sunrise reckoning] though in all other spheres of life it had been abolished or changed."33 Lauterbach continues pointing out that "according to the Talmud (p. Ned. 8:1 [40d] even among the common people the older system continued and in popular language the day included the following and not the preceding night."34 He mentions also some Jewish sects among which the sunrise reckoning "continued and the Sabbath was observed from Saturday morning to Sunday morning." (THE RECKONING OF THE DAY IN BIBLE TIMES) Sacha Stern (Jewish believer in sunset days), in his book 'Calendar and Community' seems quite frustrated with Josephus because he often speaks of solar calendars and Stern does not feel Josephus gives much information regarding a sunset day calendar. Interesting book (I have one) because Stern removes the idea that the Jewish Calendar was always the same as Judaism tries to portray. He says that the normative calendar used by the Jews in modern times did not come together until the 10th century. In the beginning of his book he admits that he does not know if the ancient calendar was solar or lunar. Here is a link to where you can read parts of it at Google book search: http://books.google.com/books?id=CiFIKURVNRwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sacha+stern&ei=7vs6ScnIMpDCMr2m0YEM If the above does not come through, just search for the title (Google book search) and then you can search within the book. Key in "Josephus" and read as many pages between the first and last page allowed in the search. Interesting. If you do not have this book try searching for solar and lunar calenders to read more of this book. New (11/23/08) (Not on website yet or laptop) I am thankful that you have taken a lot of time to read the information on my website and that you found it interesting enough to ask my opinion on some things that you have written. I absolutely love the first three paragraphs of your writing including the thought that the Genesis writer is looking back from evening to morning. I have seen this expressed before and I think it is very possible that this is the meaning. The idea that the word “were” may be translated as “followed” in this case is certainly interesting and something that I had not thought of before. Based on my current understanding and the numerous translations that I have looked at, I do lean towards the Genesis writer looking back from evening to morning. I lean this way because just as “day” and “night” stand in contrast to each other, I also believe that “evening” (light) and “night” (darkness) have two different meanings as God defines day in these texts. Here, I believe God defines both “morning” and “evening” as “day” (light) and “night” as darkness (using the word “were“). If someone was to ask me, Just what does God mean in Genesis Chapter One? I would say exactly as you wrote to a gentleman during an internet conversation. The following is attributed to you: “The first day started when God said, “Let there be light”--light, not night. “Evening” brought about the end of the day, night followed, and ended with “morning.” Then the second day followed, etc.” -- If this is what you wrote, it is precisely my understanding and I think it lines up beautifully with what you wrote in the first three paragraphs and shared with me in this email. Extra Information: (Not on website yet or laptop) (PASSOVER) Deu 16:8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein. (point of interest “Six Days”) Deut 16:4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. Exo 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Exo 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Exo 12:20 Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. (WHERE DOES THIS SAY ANYTHING ABOUT FROM EVEN UNTO EVEN? -- ONLY LEVITICUS 23:32 STATE FROM EVEN UNTO EVEN) - THEY WERE NOT INSTRUCTED TO EAT THE PASSOVER FOR SEVEN DAYS OR SEVEN NIGHTS. JUST THE ONE NIGHT ALONG WITH UNLEAVENED BREAD. IN ADDITION TO THIS THEY WERE TO EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR SEVEN DAYS. New (1/17/09) (Not on website yet or laptop) There was no such thing as “Day” or time as we know it until God gave a name (Day) to the newly created light. There was no such thing as “Night” or this period of time as we know it until God gave a name (Night) to this short block of darkness. This short block of darkness did not exist prior this time. Night has only existed from after the time “day” was created and it only exists when the light of day is gone. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night…” Therefore “Night” has followed “Day” from that time even up to the time I send you this email. The most important fact is that the “greater light” rules the day. Since you have asked me a question before you further address my email, I would like to for the record ask you two questions: (1) In Genesis Chapter one God calls the “darkness” “night”. What do you call the darkness in this chapter? (2) In the very same Chapter God informs us that the “lesser light” rules the “night”. What do you say the lesser light rules in Genesis Chapter one?