The 6th proof that Jesus rose from the dead „on a Sabbath“ morning: The interlinear Bible text shows the literal equivalent in the English language. However, when most of today's Bibles are opened, the Resurrection chapter shows deliberate translation mistakes made by theologians. Their contradictory, illogical and often embarrassing argumentation clearly shows that the Bible is right and that Jesus must have risen „on a Sabbath“.

When speaking of translation errors, people who do not yet know the Bible in detail might feel a certain uncertainty about the Word of God. It could give the impression that the Bible is largely incorrectly reproduced or even falsified. This is by no means the case, however, and this must be expressly emphasised. All Christian churches use the same basic Greek text, and most translations of the Bible are 99% accurate. A necessary improvement therefore concerns only very few passages and not all, but only some of the Bibles. Especially the many old German Catholic Bibles have been translated very well and they are a clear proof of the resurrection of Jesus „on a Sabbath“ or „on a Saturday“ morning. An error analysis follows, which reveals the theologians' manipulations:

Preface:  

The reason for mistranslations (see below) 

The greatest translation mistake in the history of mankind: „μια των σαββατων“ (mia ton sabbaton) 

The opinions of the churches about the day of the resurrection of Jesus 

The seven major manipulations or the six substitutions of the Word of God are:

6.1  The word "Sabbath" was replaced by the words "week" and "Sunday" 

6.2  The plural "σαββατων" (Sabbaths) has been reinterpreted as "week" or "Sunday" (singular) 

6.3  "On the one" was replaced by „on the first" 

6.4  „On a Sabbath“ has been replaced by „AFTER a Sabbath“ 

6.5  The „Day of the Sabbaths“ was replaced by the „Day of the Sun“ (Sunday) 

6.6  "Evening" and "into" were replaced by "AFTER"

6.7  Sunday was made the „Lord's Day“ 

The question could arise: How can anyone dare criticise the work of trained professionals who have published modern Bibles? But this is not about criticism. We are all grateful for the great work that the various translators (KJV) have done. This is absolutely out of question; many Christians have found God precisely through these Bibles; but the point here is to do something that the translators themselves have asked for in their forewords, namely to point out mistakes. In the preface of the German Menge Bible, for example, it says that if something is not translated correctly, "I would ask you to inform me of your views or suggestions without reservation; of my gratitude... you may be convinced of my gratitude". Karl-Heinz Vanheiden (NeÜ) also writes: "The translator is grateful for any feedback, especially for suggestions for improvement or corrections...". This request is hereby granted, whereby the topic is examined here in great detail and from various perspectives.

It is not about accusing, nor judging, nor condemning, nor criticising, but rather pointing out clear mistakes that many Bible translators in previous generations have not made. Every translator has a very great responsibility in the judgment before God, because the one who adds to or takes away from the Word of God will have no part in eternal life (Rev 22:18-19). For this reason, too, silence must not be kept to warn people. To claim something that is against Christian doctrine can mean persecution and suffering. But the fear of God must always come before the fear of people. The biblical truth about the true day of Jesus' resurrection must not be hidden or distorted just to avoid problems.

It must also be emphasised again and again that this is absolutely not about new revelations, or new ideas from a religious splinter group, from religious fundamentalists or even from a sect. No, on the contrary, it is about ancient lost Christian basic knowledge, which was known to the Greek speaking Christian community and also to many Latin speaking Catholic and Protestant pastors for about 1,900 years and which was written in their official church bibles for centuries and is still written today, as chapter 7 (Historic Bibles) clearly proves. 

The Bible itself is a book that is not always easy to understand. Therefore, no translator should be accused of malicious or even deliberate intent (only God can judge that) in the incorrect translation of a few verses. There are some understandable reasons which favour an incorrect rendering of the nine biblical passages mentioned above:

Since the first Bible translators (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther...) hardly had the complete Greek basic text at their disposal, they had to fall back on the Vulgate of Jerome, which had already been translated from Greek into Latin, as a textual basis. This has been well translated in itself, but contains inaccuracies in some places. Even if someone were the humblest person on earth and would make a serious effort to translate everything correctly, he will still not be able to do so, because he will automatically have to translate the mistakes of his predecessor into his own language in unawareness of the actual wording of the original Greek text. One example is Mt 28:1, a verse whose meaning Hieronymus did not understand because he was not familiar with the biblical or Jewish holiday order and its division of the day (see Day). As a result, many translators after him, including Martin Luther, adopted his inaccurate translation and formed a sentence that was difficult to understand (see Luther Bible). Thus they spoke of a mysterious illumination or shining instead of a normal lightening at sunrise on a Sabbath day. Apart from the official Vulgate, there were some Latin texts in circulation, which themselves were not translations but interpretations, as the bilingual Bible (Latin-French) printed by Petrum Pernam in Basel in 1572 impressively proves. Here the coming of women is indicated in the Latin text in each case on a "primo post Sabbathum die", that is, "on the first day after the Sabbath", although the Vulgate reports of the coming of women "on a Sabbath" (una sabbati). Now, if even the humblest translator on earth uses the Latin version of 1572 as a basis, he must automatically include these errors when translating into another language. Every scholar should therefore always use only the unadulterated basic Greek text as the basis for translation. In addition, a very good knowledge of the Greek language (a dictionary is not enough) and especially the study of the Septuagint (LXX) is a prerequisite to really understand the ancient Greek phrases of the evangelists. Otherwise it will never be clear what the writers of the NT wanted to say. Especially the Septuagint is of utmost importance in order to understand how individual phrases were meant.

In the course of decades and centuries, much important basic knowledge has been lost, which has favored the development of misunderstandings. After many centuries, Ancient Greek of the NT was no longer a colloquial language, but a foreign language that had to be learned at university. As a result, there was a lack of linguistic confidence in the use of some words and idioms, resulting in linguistic or content-related errors. In addition, the Bible itself contains some sentences that are difficult to understand because important Old Testament principles have to be observed. Since many Christians neglect the Old Testament basis, they ignore about 70% of the Bible. They express an arrogant attitude towards the Word of God and overlook that Jesus said the words of Mt 4:4 ("Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [Also OT] that comes from the mouth of God") at a time when only the Old Testament existed, especially in the form of the Greek Septuagint! If someone does not have this foundation and does not know the biblical holidays and the biblical/Jewish calendar, he will therefore never be able to reproduce the original text of the New Testament in Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Mk 16:9; Lk 24:1 and Jn 20:1 correctly, because the statements of the evangelists do not make any logical sense to him. Therefore, the following errors of understanding occurred in the translators:

• The translators could not understand the meaning of Mk 16:2, since the preceding verse in Mk 16:1 reads as follows: "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." So if it is not known that there were and still are several Sabbaths during the Passover festival week, one is tempted to translate that Jesus must have risen AFTER the Sabbath, because Jesus cannot possibly rise "on a Sabbath" (Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1) if the Sabbath had already passed (Mk 16:1). A whole week between the purchase of the spices and the resurrection cannot possibly lie in between. But the explanation is simple, because the women prepared the ointments after the High Sabbath and went to the tomb on the following weekly Sabbath. This same sequence of days occurs about every third year. In 2020 we even had exactly the same sequence of days at Passover as in the year Jesus was crucified. And this is very often the case, statistically about every third year, that the 14th of Nisan falls on a Wednesday and the first Sabbath on the 17th of Nisan. After the Sabbath is always before the Sabbath because there are 3 Sabbaths in the Passover week and therefore 3 days of preparation, which are seen in every Jewish calendar and in God's calendar in every year.
• They could not understand the transition from the 23rd to the 24th chapter in Luke's Gospel, because it is impossible to prepare the ointments after the Sabbath and at the same time come to the tomb "on a Sabbath" or "on one of the Sabbaths". But Luke 23:54-56 is also very easy to explain. It says: "It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. 55 The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment." After the preparation day (Nisan 14) came the High Sabbath (Nisan 15). When this annual Sabbath (=High Sabbath; Nisan 15) passed, the women prepared the ointments an rested on the following wekly Sabbath (Nisan 17). The directly following verse in Lk 24:1 therefore does not refer to the High Sabbath (Nisan 15, Wednesday), but to the weekly Sabbath (7th day of the week, Nisan 17). It literally says: "But on the one of the Sabbaths, at deep twilight they [the women] came to the tomb". So there are problems of understanding only if the translators do not know the biblical or Jewish calendar and equate the preparation day for the annual Sabbath with a Friday (instead of a Wednesday).
• They could not understand why in the NT the plural form "σαββατων" ("Sabbaths") was used in some places and they thought that perhaps a "week" could be meant by it. They did not notice that the apostles spoke of an event "on one of the Sabbaths" because there are always 3 Sabbaths in the Passover week. Had they also taken into account that the Jews themselves used the plural "σαββατων" and the expression "day of the Sabbaths" (plural) in the Septuagint to describe an INDIVIDUAL Sabbath day in the singular (as it is even written in the NT itself, e.g. in Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 16:13), they would not have had these problems of understanding at all. Moreover, if they had taken into account that the Latin Vulgate had no problems with the plural "σαββατων" and saw this expression in the singular (sabbati, Sabbath), they would have additional certainty to report the Sabbath resurrection of Jesus.
• They could not understand why in Mt 28:1 there was talk about the "evening of the Sabbath", because they overlooked that the Jews meant by evening both an ordinary evening and the night phase of a whole day. Matthew describes here very precisely the transition from the dark phase of the Sabbath (Sabbath evening) to the light phase in the morning of the Sabbath, when it just started to get light (Sabbath light day). For them, the strange translation of Jerome in the Latin Vulgate with the expression "which lights up" was incomprehensible.
• They could not understand why Mk 16:9 speaks of the "first Sabbath". This was not a logical expression for them, because many did not know that there was a biblical way of counting the seven Sabbaths after the Passover until Pentecost and still exists today (see Omer). They therefore mistakenly thought that the "first day of the week" could be meant by this.  
• They could not understand the linguistic peculiarity in the Greek language: the Sabbath is feminine in Aramaic, but is a neuter in Greek, although the Greek day itself is also feminine. They did not understand why the feminine "mia" (one) stands before the neuter "sabbaton" (Sabbath). But this is easy to understand, see Interlinear and "one not first".

There have been false assumptions and heresies that have influenced the translators in their work. Since important basic knowledge was lost, the translators were vulnerable to false assertions and were tempted to draw false conclusions. The word "Sabbath", which is used seven times by all evangelists in the Bible in connection with the day of Jesus' resurrection and the gathering of the Christians, disturbed many theologians. They therefore invented new assertions about how to make a Sunday out of a Sabbath. This gave rise to explanations and theories which the translators often accepted as facts, so that mistranslations were inevitable. Some examples:

• Quote: "Sunday is the new Christian Sabbath" - On the part of the church it was said that Sunday is supposedly the "new Sabbath" of the Christians. Thus they distinguish between a "Jewish Sabbath" and an allegedly "Christian Sabbath" (= Sunday), which should be meant only at the end of the Gospels. Thus some theologians wanted to seduce Christendom with the assertion that, if it says in the Bible that women came to the tomb "on a Sabbath," then supposedly "on a Sunday" was meant by this, the "new Christian Sabbath". This assertion is completely false. The "Sabbath" has been a clearly defined term for thousands of years (see Sabbath) and the first day of the week is also clearly defined in the Bible. So if someone equates Sunday with a Sabbath, it only shows his great ignorance, because otherwise the evangelists could never speak of "a Sabbath", since they would always have to mean "a Sunday". Sunday may well be a voluntary day of rest for many Christians, but that does not mean that it can be called "a Sabbath," for this day is defined differently and has meant the period from Friday evening to Saturday evening, each time after sunset, since the creation of the earth. But a Sunday begins and ends in the deepest darkness, namely at midnight. The Sabbath is the last day of the biblical week, but Sunday is the first day of the pagan week. Sunday is also not the first day of the biblical week, because it begins at midnight, thus following a completely different calendar, which God did not make, but the Gentiles, who do not want to know anything about God. The differences between Sabbath and Sunday are enormous. Therefore Sunday was never the allegedly "Christian Sabbath", because there is only one Sabbath. And the evangelists speak also in the chapter on resurrection only of the "biblical Sabbath" and not of the day after.
• Quote: "The "Sabbath" also means "week" for the Jews" - The most common false doctrine to remove the Resurrection Sabbath from the Bible was that it was said that the word "Sabbath" could supposedly mean "week" or "Sunday". Thus, when the evangelists spoke of the women coming to the tomb "on a Sabbath day" or "on one of the Sabbath days," they supposedly meant that they went to the tomb "on the first day of the week" or "on a Sunday. In the 1703 edition of the Luther Bible printed in Nuremberg, John 20:1 was correctly translated as "on a Sabbath", but the subsequent church commentary twists Luther's words: "on the first day of the week, the next after the High Sabbath, which is our Sunday." That sounds like a joke. No one can seriously understand why "on a Sabbath" should really mean "after a Sabbath" or "on the first day of the week" or "on a Sunday". In that case the evangelists would never have the possibility to say that something happened "on a Sabbath" or "on one of the Sabbaths" because then it would automatically always mean that it was "on a first day of the week", "after a Sabbath" or "on a Sunday". Is it funny or sad? The question remains open, then, what idiom the evangelists would have had to use if they really wanted to say "on one of the Sabbaths," when at the same time supposedly "on one of the Sundays" is meant? The doctrine of equating the "Sabbath" with "week" was already exposed in the previous chapters as a clear heresy, and the following chapters will make it even clearer (see Manipulation 1: Sabbath not week).
• Quote: "All seven days during the Passover week were Sabbaths" - Especially in Catholic (later also in Protestant) circles it was claimed that the Jews designated all seven days of the entire Passover week as "Sabbaths" and thus Sunday was also considered a Sabbath. Therefore, some theologians said that the apostles said that although the women came to the tomb "on a Sabbath", they supposedly meant Sunday, or that the expression "first Sabbath" meant Sunday (first day of the week). This is completely wrong and proves the commentators' very poor knowledge of the biblical feast order. The aim of this assertion is to twist many correct Bibles and even Martin Luther's correct and clear translation, "on a Sabbath", now into the phrase, "on a Sunday". The Bible translations of Hieronymus and Luther are clear and easy to understand; only the unnecessary theological commentaries and interpretations create ambiguity and confusion. Those who know the Bible and the Jewish holiday order know very well that during the entire Passover week, a clear distinction was always made between the three Sabbaths (two annual High Sabbaths on the 15th and 21st Nisan with a weekly Sabbath in between) and the normal workdays. The individual working days between the Sabbaths were never "Sabbaths" (stop/rest days), but quite normal working and harvesting days, and they were never called "Sabbaths" (neither for Jews nor for Christians). Anyone who does not believe it can ask any Jew about it.

In the year 2020 there was exactly the same sequence of days at the Passover as in the year in which the people of Israel were delivered from Egypt and went forth (Exodus) and in the year in which Jesus was crucified, when we were consequently delivered from eternal death penalty by His blood and grace.

In addition to the lost basic knowledge and the associated errors of understanding and false assertions, there was another very important reason for mistranslations, namely ecclesiastical, state, social and family pressure. When the Bible was translated from the basic text into the languages of the people, there was already a Christian environment with a naturalized opinion on the supposed "Sunday resurrection of Jesus". There was a fixed weekly (Sunday) and annual holiday order (Easter Sunday...), according to which the entire state, work and church world was governed. Thus the translators came to an internal problem, because they saw that the Bible was in contradiction with the current doctrine of their state and church. In the assumption "my church cannot have been mistaken for thousands of years" and in order to avoid discussions and divisions, the biblical word was reinterpreted in such a way that it fitted the current doctrine and corresponded to the popular, church and state opinion. Thus, a translation in which the resurrection of Jesus was postponed by one day may be well-intentioned, but if a translator does not fully understand something, he or she must at least refer to the literal equivalent of the original Greek source in a footnote. He must not, however, introduce the doctrine of his church into the Bible and replace, distort, cover up or conceal the true meaning of the original Greek text of the Bible. Martin Luther said: "Sola scriptura" (by scripture alone in English) and "the word they shall leave standing" (das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn) and this is exactly what the revisers of his Bible (in 1912 and 1984) just did not do, because they changed his words dramatically! As grateful as we can be to the modern translators, some (not all) have made clear mistakes in 9 Bible passages:

1. The day of the resurrection of Jesus (5x):  Mt 28:1;  Mk 16:2;  Mk16:9;  Lk 24:1;  Jn 20:1 
2. The day when Jesus appeared to the disciples:  Jn 20:19 
3. The day of the assembly, on which the church broke the bread:  Acts 20:7 
4. The day of collection for the needy:  1Cor 16:2 
5. The day of fasting:  Lk 18:12 

In order to justify Sunday sanctification, six serious errors had to be made in these 9 Bible passages at once, in which some words were removed from the Bible (Sabbath, one, evening) and others added (first, after, day, week, Sunday). This is explained in detail in the following chapters (see links above).

But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end.

Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increas 

 (Daniel 12:4)

 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil"

(1Thess 5:21-22)

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them"

(Epheser 5:11)