The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And into the bin with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories you go......
please be patient, I will adress every bullet point white asked. But I am busy at the moment. But if you don't stop using ad hominems, you will be ignored. Part of being polite means you don't put yourself in a constant barrage of ad hominem attack, I will respond to every factual reply. But not ad hominems. And once blocked, I usually don't go back and unblock people. Again I do this not to be mean, but to create a more polite atmosphere. So I hope you don't get offended.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.
^_^
Now that says a lot..........I call it the KJperVersion
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Majority Text is the true word of God, which originated in Antioch. The Textus Receptus was a collection of faithful translations from the Majority manuscripts, of which the KJV is a faithful translation of.

The contemporary versions use the Alexandrian set of manuscripts, which were corrupted from the time of about 200 AD.
Which word would you use in this verse? [this is just one of many variances in Revelation and why I compare at least 3 or more Mss when translating it]

I put all 3 words in my version:

Allusions in Revelation from Old Testament
The Song of Moses

Revelation 15:3

And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God and the Song of the Lambkin saying "great and marvelous the works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty.
Just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the saints" [*nations/*ages].

[Exodus 15]

Revelation 15:3 biblehub

New American Standard Bible
And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations!

King James Bible
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou
King of saints.

English Revised Version
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; righteous and true are thy ways, thou
King of the ages.


3 καὶ ᾄδουσιν1 τὴν ᾠδὴν2 Μωϋσέως τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν2 τοῦ ἀρνίου3 λέγοντες, μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ4 τὰ ἔργα σου, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ·5 δίκαιαι καὶ ἀληθιναὶ6 αἱ ὁδοί σου, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν[nations].

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt


Revelation 15:3
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus

kai adousin thn wdhn mwsews doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o
basileuV twn agiwn

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
kai adousin thn wdhn mwsews tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o
basileuV twn agiwn

Byzantine Majority
kai adousi thn wdhn mwusews tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o
basileuV twn eqnwn

Alexandrian
kai adousin thn wdhn mwusews tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o
basileuV twn eqnwn

Hort and Westcott
kai adousin thn wdhn mwusewV tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o
basileuV twn aiwnwn
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.
It's pathetic, frankly.
It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Agreed.
And as some of us havenoticed on the "Eschatology" board, bad translations can lead to some rather bizarre and bad interpretations.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Royal Priesthood Part 17

Hebrews 7:12
For being translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a translation/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),

Hebrew 11:5
To faith Enoch was translated/meteteqh <3346> (5681) of the no to be seeing death and not was found thru translating/meteqhken <3346> (5656) him.
For the God, before the translation/metaqesewV <3331> of him, he has been witnessed to have well pleased to the God.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Funny thing is, the Mormons are really big on using.....(wait for it)…..the King James!
the mormons drive cars too, does that make cars evil? This type or reasoning is what is called an informal fallacy. Poisoning the well to be exact. Basically it's saying because something does something once, they are fatally tied to that line of reasoning their whole life. Or in this case because mormons use a certain translation (that happened to exist before mormons), that does not mean that the KJV is somehow tied to mormonism.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And that takes care of that!
okay so here is the bullet points that james white did not get answers for, and allegedly won the debate:
1) Constantine Simonides claimed that he wrote the document based on collating pre-existing manuscripts, and that his uncle corrected the document.

Both sides agree that he so claimed. Dr. White demonstrated that these claims are essentially impossible, as explained below.

we will see if that is a false statement as we read on
2) The most sympathetic source for Simonides says that Simonides was not a truthful person.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto did not dispute it except to say that this source was not the only supportive source and that the source himself says Simonides did not always lie.
there is an eye witness that actually saw simonides forging the sinaiticus. In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that


...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself.Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.
3) There are no known examplars that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto’s response was to point out that the source(s) could be as-yet-unknown manuscripts on Mt. Athos.

what about the majority text, or the textus receptus? They existed at the time.

4) Codex Sinaiticus was written by several different, distinguishable scribes (as evidenced by different handwriting, different style of abbreviations, and different accuracy of work).

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it.

again the textus receptus probably retained those distinguishable scribal differentiations, and they were probably just copied over to the sinaiticus.
5) Codex Sinaiticus has corrections by multiple different correctors.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it except to say that two other men (a monk and a scribe) may have been involved in the corrections.
I would have to see the evidence for this. I can see saying there was different scribes, but proving that there were also additional correctors is very hard to do. I would love to see a scholarly essay on this, and none have been provided by white or anyone else that I know of at least.

6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto responded that possibly his uncle started on the project years before Simonides began.

not if you are copying it, as I suggested.

Additional notes:

1. Regarding the Mt. Athos manuscripts, there is an on-going digitization project (link). At one point, Mr. Pinto alleges that the one way to resolve the mystery was to explore the Mt. Athos library for manuscripts corresponding to Simonides’ claims. He won’t be able to stand behind that argument from ignorance forever.
that is not an argument of ignorance. An argument from ignorance is saying this "because you can't prove me wrong, I am right." And that is a fallacy because just because you don't have the resources to prove it wrong at that point, does not mean the resources don't exist.

2. Simonides himself states that the collation began after Simonides himself joined the project, as demonstrated by Dr. White. So, although the uncle allegedly had corrected the other manuscripts in advance, the collation project had not been done in advance, according to the primary source for Mr. Pinto’s theory.

I would need to see the primary source that is being talked about here. I am not sure the primary souce they are saying is primary is in fact the number one source. My number one source is the eye witness. And other discrepancies such as: the manuscript was put online in 2009 by the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It became possible to see that the 1844 Leipzig 43 leaves, about 10% of the parchment, was still a very unusual white parchment, it never yellowed with age. While the 90% of the parchment in London, which had been brought to St. Petersburg in 1859, had a more stained yellow appearance. When this disparity was connected to the specific allegations published in 1863 that Tischendorf (or his allies) had stained the manuscript in the intervening period from 1844 to 1859, you had a rather incredible before and after confirmation of tampering.

This was one of numerous elements that have arisen that has led to the questioning of Sinaiticus "authenticity". Meaning, it may not have been written in the 4th century, there is strong evidence that its production was actually around 1840.

Steven Avery


and someone else pointed out:
I am not a Greek scholar, but I've read that the date of this codex cannot be as ancient as claimed since it contains modern Greek writing (Epistle of Barnabas) and the state of the book itself has not aged as other manuscripts of any significant age. These factors seem to put more weight on it being the writing of Simonides.

that means that the part that is whiter, was the epistle to barnabas. So it was clearly added on to existing manuscripts, and then sold as an entirely new manuscript.
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I see NO KJVO will DARE address the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, which automatically renders it false. Seems KJVOs think more of their myth than they do of the TRUTH.
Hi robycop3, you are perfectly correct, KJV is only a translation like all other translations. However the KJV is the best translation available to those who are moderately educated with English as their primary language. The KJV best presents the English rendering of words and teachings of Jesus

A simple challenge:

“The KJV English translation presents the best rendering of the words and teachings of Jesus. If you disagree, please site chapter and verse of the words and teachings of Jesus from another translation that you think presents Jesus' words and teachings better.”

With love,
Howard
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItIsFinished!
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Hi robycop3, you are perfectly correct, KJV is only a translation like all other translations. However the KJV is the best translation available to those who are moderately educated with English as their primary language. The KJV best presents the English rendering of words and teachings of Jesus

A simple challenge:

“The KJV English translation presents the best rendering of the words and teachings of Jesus. If you disagree, please site chapter and verse of the words and teachings of Jesus from another translation that you think presents Jesus' words and teachings better.”

With love,
Howard

Well, actually, Sir, it DOESN'T.

We don't use Elizabethan English any more. remember, the KJV was made for the British of 400 years ago, & a lot has changed since then.

An example of a BETTER translation of Jesus' words? EASY!

Luke 2:49, KJV: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

Same verse, NKJV: "And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

There are many more, of course, that newer versions render in TODAY'S English, much-better understood than the archaic Elizabethan style.
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, actually, Sir, it DOESN'T.

We don't use Elizabethan English any more. remember, the KJV was made for the British of 400 years ago, & a lot has changed since then.

An example of a BETTER translation of Jesus' words? EASY!

Luke 2:49, KJV: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

Same verse, NKJV: "And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

There are many more, of course, that newer versions render in TODAY'S English, much-better understood than the archaic Elizabethan style.
Hi again!

Making Synonymical modifications of a text is not translation. The NKJV is an update of the KJV not a new translation. If you feel that the KJV is too archaic to grasp and the NKJV fits your needs better, wonderful. However you may find that the KJV is subtly closer to the original Greek in ways that are not simply words. Remember this was the era of William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon and Ben Johnson. Language was vital. The 50 or so translators worked to instill in the KJV a sense, feel and tradition of the Greek – diction, cadence, rhythm.

There are a few books that might interest you. If so, please let me know.

With love,
Howard
 
Upvote 0

ItIsFinished!

Jesus Christ is our only hope.
Sep 1, 2018
1,678
1,134
51
Middletown
✟52,772.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Also, God hasn't always been holy.
This is 100% false.
God has been Holy forever.
There was never a time that God hasn't been Holy.
Never.

OT: Nothing wrong with the KJV.
Best translation in my opinion.
Attacking the KJV is a futile attempt.
Praising God and carrying out The Great Commission is what should be focused upon.

All glory be to God now and forever.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi again!

Making Synonymical modifications of a text is not translation. The NKJV is an update of the KJV not a new translation. If you feel that the KJV is too archaic to grasp and the NKJV fits your needs better, wonderful. However you may find that the KJV is subtly closer to the original Greek in ways that are not simply words. Remember this was the era of William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon and Ben Johnson. Language was vital. The 50 or so translators worked to instill in the KJV a sense, feel and tradition of the Greek – diction, cadence, rhythm.

There are a few books that might interest you. If so, please let me know.

With love,
Howard
just curious as to what books you are referring to.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Hi again!

Making Synonymical modifications of a text is not translation. The NKJV is an update of the KJV not a new translation. If you feel that the KJV is too archaic to grasp and the NKJV fits your needs better, wonderful. However you may find that the KJV is subtly closer to the original Greek in ways that are not simply words. Remember this was the era of William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon and Ben Johnson. Language was vital. The 50 or so translators worked to instill in the KJV a sense, feel and tradition of the Greek – diction, cadence, rhythm.

There are a few books that might interest you. If so, please let me know.

With love,
Howard

Well, actually, Sir, the NKJV IS a new translation, using the same mss. the old KJV used. And ACCURACY is more-important than making a translation read smoothly. The KJV contains its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

God causes His word to appear in CURRENT languages. After all, 'tis HE who created all languages & who causes/allows all changes in a language.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, actually, Sir, the NKJV IS a new translation, using the same mss. the old KJV used. And ACCURACY is more-important than making a translation read smoothly. The KJV contains its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

God causes His word to appear in CURRENT languages. After all, 'tis HE who created all languages & who causes/allows all changes in a language.

It is not a new translation. It is an updated translation which is acknowledged by the 100 so pastors, ministers, etc. who drew up the guidelines for the updating.

From the Preface to the New King James Bible
In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures.

From the Preface to the English Standard Version
The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to reproduce the precise wording of the original text

The ESV goal was a new translation, the NKJV goal was to update the existing KJV for modern readers..

With love,
Howard
 
Upvote 0

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
just curious as to what books you are referring to.

First see my post on this thread from the Preface to the KJV.

Below is an excerpt I kept from an article in The Sunday Times by Arnold Hunt 2011 that shows the debates about language.
In The King James Bible: A short history from Tyndale to today, Norton highlights a discussion recorded by John Bois, one of the translators, over the rendering of Hebrews 13:8 – “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever”. Another of the translators, Andrew Downes, proposed an alternative wording, “Jesus Christ yesterday, and today the same, and for ever”, arguing that “if the words be arranged in this manner, the statement will be more majestic”. It is easy to imagine – indeed, hard not to imagine – such debates occurring again and again as the translators weighed one form of words against another

BOOKS that you might find interesting... but also search out others for yourself.
The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today
by David Norton
(This is the book referenced in hunt’s article)

Two others of interest might be:
God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
by Adam Nicolson
and also
An the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture
by Alister McGrath

Research into how the exact words of the original KJV were determined is not simple. My suggestion is to never rely on one or two sources,, find as many as you can.

With love,
Howard
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Aactually, Sir, the NKJV IS another translation. Its makers did not sit down with a KJV & say, "Let's eliminate all the thees, thous, & other archaic language & call it the NKJV." While theh mighta consulted the KJV some, they mostly re-translated the mss. used to make the KJV, correcting many of the KJV's goofs & booboos in the process.

For instance, they correctly rendered "pascha" in Acts 12:4 as PASSOVER, correcting the KJV's "Easter" goof. They correctly rendered Ex. 20:13 as "You shall not MURDER." They correctly rendered 1Tim.6:10 as: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." those were three glaring KJV goofs they corrected.

Now, we must remember that God said He'd preserve His word for all generations. The KJV was the preservation in English for the British of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period. But that time is past, & the language has vastly changed. Thus, it came time for English users to move on to translations in contemporary language. The KJVO seex to LIMIT GOD by casting aspersions upon translations HE has caused to be made in recent years. Those people want to remain in the past. OK, let'em travel by horse-n-buggy as the Amish do, give up utilities such as electricity, gas, & running water, & "cure" headaches by trepanning, that is, cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "bad humours" to escape, using the anesthesia of having a strong cigar inserted where the sun doesn't shine. If they wanna live in the past, let it be COMPLETE!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Concord1968
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, actually, Sir, the NKJV IS a new translation, using the same mss. the old KJV used. And ACCURACY is more-important than making a translation read smoothly. The KJV contains its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

God causes His word to appear in CURRENT languages. After all, 'tis HE who created all languages & who causes/allows all changes in a language.
I would disagree that God allows all changes in a language. His permissive will allows it of course. But I feel that God would not touch many modern translations with a 10 foot pole. They are so loosely translated that it's very sloppy. NKJV updates the KJV very well, but many feel they took too many liberties in the translation, what they should do, instead with a newer new king james, is go back to the original KJV, and update it again, without taking the liberties. That would take many of the grammatical errors out of the KJV, and make it more readable as well.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Howard Beale

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
41
19
74
Baltimore MD
✟22,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dear robycop3, I have some thoughts and questions on your most recent post.
Aactually, Sir, the NKJV IS another translation.
That is not accurate. Please look again at the Preface to the NKJ. I posted also what a new translation preface would state when I posted from the preface to the ESV.
Its makers did not sit down with a KJV..."
Please cite your source for this statement.
While theh mighta consulted the KJV some, they mostly re-translated the mss. used to make the KJV, correcting many of the KJV's goofs & booboos in the process.
Please give your source for the statement, “they mostly re-translated…”

For instance, they correctly rendered "pascha" in Acts 12:4 as PASSOVER, correcting the KJV's "Easter" goof.
Please see the following:
“…notice of Easter as a festival occurs in the middle of the second century, but that festivals commemorating the resurrection of Messiah were presumably observed by at least some Christians from much earlier times.” [A History of Christianity, Volume 1: Beginnings to 1500 (p. 137) by Kenneth Scott Latourette]
Also
Phillip Schaff dates “the beginning of the Easter festival to the middle of the second century...
the Christian Passover naturally grew out of the Jewish Passover, as the Lord’s Day (Sunday) grew out of the Sabbath... It is based on the view that Christ crucified and risen is the centre of faith. The Jewish Christians would very naturally from the beginning continue to celebrate the legal Passover, but in the light of its fulfillment by the sacrifice of Christ, and would dwell chiefly on the aspect of the crucifixion. The Gentile Christians, for whom the Jewish Passover had no meaning except through reflection on the cross, would chiefly celebrate the Lord’s resurrection as they did on every Sunday of the week...
the early Christians commemorated the entire period between the death and resurrection of Yeshua with vigils, fasting, special devotions, meetings culminating in a resurrection feast celebrating the whole work of redemption. The feast of the resurrection gradually became the most prominent aspect of the Christian Passover (Easter celebration), but the crucifixion continued to be celebrated on Good Friday”

[History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (p. 207-208) by Philip Schaff]
So the purposeful rendering of the term פֶּסַח [Passover] as Easter in the KJV may very well be an accurate description of the meaning of פֶּסַח to a follower of Jesus after his crucifixion, burial, and resurrection . According to Gesenius the Hebrew term פֶּסַח also connotes “immunity” which is in keeping with Biblical teachings and Jesus dying for our sins.
The question is: In 44 AD were the Apostles commemorating Hebrew Passover or were they celebrating the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as taught “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”?

NOTE: Murder or Kill is too intricate an issue to address here but the change from KJV to NKJV is questionable. Other early translators of the Scriptures (such as Tyndale) rendered the Hebrew as kill.

They correctly rendered 1Tim.6:10 as: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." those were three glaring KJV goofs they corrected.
Please address the following:

ῥίζα -- root

γὰρ -- for

πάντων -- of all

τῶν -- of the

κακῶν -- evils

ἐστιν -- is

ἡ -- the

φιλαργυρία -- fondness for money


Please let me know which Greek term should be rendered as “kinds of”.

Finally, there is a difference between living in the past and acknowledging the past. Only one of your citations might have some validity. So let’s not be victims of the times. We need read and understand before we change and discard. Jesus revered those who came before him. Perhaps we need follow His example.

With love,
Howard
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.