The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
1) The first problem is that you don't understand what "inspiration" is.
2) Your second problem is that you have made an assertion that there were two separate KJVOnly groups, with different positions, and you have no idea what those positions are, and cannot give any differentiating points of doctrine between them.
3) Your only argument is a poison the water [fallacy] that has no bearing on the topic at hand.
4) The examples provided show words being "added" to the English text. Unfortunately, this bears witness of the fact that someone, somewhere has taught you that adding, subtracting, or rearranging the words in the target language is not permitted. This however is the necessity that is involved with translating from the source language to the target language, and meeting the syntax rules of the target language.

I think I'll let you digest that prior to making any further statements.

All this is in avoidance of the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Ephesians

Why can't Jesus simply be saying that He will give them "Himself", the bright and morning star?

Because He said "morning star'. After all, the planet venus is often called the morning star. I believe Jesus meant something else besides Himself, Satan, ot Venus. Exactly WHAT, I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
if you are giving a morning star to satan, he therefore would not be the morning star. Secondly, this happens in revelation the last book of the Bible. Our passage in question is thousands of years before hand. Satan had not yet been given the morning star. So why did NIV translators call satan the morning star (before he was given that authority)?

Satan was never given a morning star. The Isaiah passage uses the hebrew term "helel", which actually means "light bringer" or "light bearer". The AV 1611 has a marginal note for "Lucifer" here that reads, "Or, O day starre".
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I will answer your question if you answer my questions. Does God make spelling mistakes? Does God leave out sections of scripture? And does God paraphrase earlier copies of His word, basically admitting He created the first copy in error and was too hard to understand, so after repenting of making the bible too literal the first time, He made the second paraphrased for easier learning? Then later made other copies even more paraphrased than the earlier copies? Please answer these questions first, all of them fully, then I will answer yours.
1) Does God make spelling mistakes? No. 2) Does God leave out sections of scripture? No. 3) And does God paraphrase earlier copies of His word, basically admitting He created the first copy in error and was too hard to understand, so after repenting of making the bible too literal the first time, He made the second paraphrased for easier learning? No. 4) Then later made other copies even more paraphrased than the earlier copies? No. Please answer these questions first, all of them fully, then I will answer yours. Now let's see how much integrity you have; I have answered each of your questions directly, as they were asked. If you are a man with any integrity, to will now answer this one multiple choice question: Now here is my question for you: (A)Are the words that God spoke inspired, or, (B) is the paper and ink of the original manuscript inspired? A or B?
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Because He said "morning star'. After all, the planet venus is often called the morning star. I believe Jesus meant something else besides Himself, Satan, ot Venus. Exactly WHAT, I don't know.
You're entitled to believe anything you want to, but that doesn't mean it is true.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
All this is in avoidance of the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.
First, I am aware that Scripture does not contain the words, "The King James Bible is God's perfectly preserved word in English, for English speaking people". However, we also know that nowhere in Scripture is the word "trinity", but I'm quite sure no one here denies the trinity. (It's called a 'word concept' fallacy.) It occurs when a teaching like the rapture or the trinity, oh yes, and the preservation of Scripture are clearly presented it Scripture, without using a particular 'title', 'name' or 'word' to precisely attach a doctrine to.

The following are Scripture references that teach the preservation of Scripture.

12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm
119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm
40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
First, I am aware that Scripture does not contain the words, "The King James Bible is God's perfectly preserved word in English, for English speaking people". However, we also know that nowhere in Scripture is the word "trinity", but I'm quite sure no one here denies the trinity. (It's called a 'word concept' fallacy.) It occurs when a teaching like the rapture or the trinity, oh yes, and the preservation of Scripture are clearly presented it Scripture, without using a particular 'title', 'name' or 'word' to precisely attach a doctrine to.

The following are Scripture references that teach the preservation of Scripture.

12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm
119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm
40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew

Same verses are found in every valid Bible version, so who can truthfully deny their validity?

And, the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is false for KJVO purposes as well. That idea was made popular in the foundational boox for the current KJVO myth. The AV men themselves didn't believe it, either! They places this marginal note in the AV 1611 for the 2nd "them" in V7 - "Heb. him, I. euery one of them.". Those men knew V7 is about PEOPLE, and, as the Hebrew is singular, they subbed "them" for "him", but indicated the literal translation in their note.

Now, not for one nanosecond do I argue against God's preserving of His word. What I argue against is the false doctrine that in English He's caused it to be translated only in the KJV.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clearly implied in Scripture, especially in the story of Jesus' baptism, but NOWHERE in Scripture is there one quark of implication that the KJVO myth (or any other "one-version-only" myth) is true. So, you're right back on Square One - NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, therefore automatically making it false.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Same verses are found in every valid Bible version, so who can truthfully deny their validity?

And, the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is false for KJVO purposes as well. That idea was made popular in the foundational boox for the current KJVO myth. The AV men themselves didn't believe it, either! They places this marginal note in the AV 1611 for the 2nd "them" in V7 - "Heb. him, I. euery one of them.". Those men knew V7 is about PEOPLE, and, as the Hebrew is singular, they subbed "them" for "him", but indicated the literal translation in their note.

Now, not for one nanosecond do I argue against God's preserving of His word. What I argue against is the false doctrine that in English He's caused it to be translated only in the KJV.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clearly implied in Scripture, especially in the story of Jesus' baptism, but NOWHERE in Scripture is there one quark of implication that the KJVO myth (or any other "one-version-only" myth) is true. So, you're right back on Square One - NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, therefore automatically making it false.
Your answer begs the very question that James White never answers:

SInce every word of God is pure, where exactly is a copy of the "pure" words of God so that I may hold them in my hands?

(Oh, by the way, I have some other questions to ask you about the legitimacy of "copies" but I would like you to answer the above question prior to my proceeding.)
 
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
Satan was never given a morning star. The Isaiah passage uses the hebrew term "helel", which actually means "light bringer" or "light bearer". The AV 1611 has a marginal note for "Lucifer" here that reads, "Or, O day starre".
day star is not morning star different hebrew words. And yes, in the revelation passage he was given the morning star. You even quoted it: "In Rev. 2:28, Jesus said, "and I will give him the morning star".
 
Last edited:
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
Your answer begs the very question that James White never answers:

SInce every word of God is pure, where exactly is a copy of the "pure" words of God so that I may hold them in my hands?
Either the ancient Scriptural manuscripts, or any valid translation of them.

(Oh, by the way, I have some other questions to ask you about the legitimacy of "copies" but I would like you to answer the above question prior to my proceeding.)

Please ask away; I'll answer best I can.

BTW... If you're KJVO & believe it's 100% pure & perfect, where was the perfect copy of God's word in Eng;lish before 1611?
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
day star is not morning star different hebrew words. And yes, in the revelation passage he was given the morning star. You even quoted it: "In Rev. 2:28, Jesus said, "and I will give him the morning star".

I'll trust the AV makers' definition they placed in their work.

Jesus gave Himself as the be-all, end-all sacrifice for OUR sins, so He has given Himself as much as He ever will. And what believer in his right mind would want Satan? So, the MS of Rev. 2:28 is something else besides either Jesus or Satan.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Either the ancient Scriptural manuscripts, or any valid translation of them.



Please ask away; I'll answer best I can.

BTW... If you're KJVO & believe it's 100% pure & perfect, where was the perfect copy of God's word in Eng;lish before 1611?
I need some points of clarification: 1) by "Either the ancient Scriptural manuscripts", are you saying the autographs themselves, or autographs and copies that have been produced under the guiding hand of God? 2) When you say, "any valid translation of them", could you please define "valid", and give the parameters or rules used to determine "validity".

As per your question, "where was the perfect copy of God's word in Eng;lish before 1611"? I'm not saying there was a monolithic text that was perfect prior to 1611. That is a strawman. The Bible was NOT given as a monolithic text. God guided men throughout history as to what writings were to be considered Scripture. God also guided them to place these SEPARATE writings together as a single volume. I have written extensively on this process, (which is far too large to post here). The purpose of God giving man the ability to both print, and bind books was to present His words to the world. I believe He starting with Erasmus God brought the Greek MSS together to form a pure Greek text, and the culmination of this process is the 1769 KJ. For the record, when the the text went to the printer in 1611 the text was pure, but because of the conditions, and mechanics of the printing process, printing mistakes of various kinds were made in the publication of 1611. The later "editions" of the KJ were only done to 1) correct printing errors; and 2) adjust things like the standardization of spelling, and font use, such as going from a gothic typeface to a Roman typeface.

I have seen people post the text of the 1611 with the unstandardized spelling (of that day), along with the gothic typeface, (where an "s" looks like an "f", and so forth), and claim that these were "valid" differences (making them errors) in the KJ. That's like saying if I switch from a Roman font to a Formal Script font, (to bring emphasis), then later simply use italics to do the same thing, the former would be an error.

We need to stay on a truthful, and professional course, to examine the history of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I need some points of clarification: 1) by "Either the ancient Scriptural manuscripts", are you saying the autographs themselves, or autographs and copies that have been produced under the guiding hand of God?
I'm referring to the copies that are extant & available. Far as I know, no "autographa" are extant.

2) When you say, "any valid translation of them", could you please define "valid", and give the parameters or rules used to determine "validity".
"Valid" means " having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, officially acceptable" And a valid Bible translation is one that follows its sources closely. (As to the validity of the sources, that's been an ongoing discussion among "scholars" that started long ago, & is no more-close to being settled than it was when it first began.)

As per your question, "where was the perfect copy of God's word in Eng;lish before 1611"? I'm not saying there was a monolithic text that was perfect prior to 1611. That is a strawman. The Bible was NOT given as a monolithic text. God guided men throughout history as to what writings were to be considered Scripture. God also guided them to place these SEPARATE writings together as a single volume. I have written extensively on this process, (which is far too large to post here). The purpose of God giving man the ability to both print, and bind books was to present His words to the world. I believe He starting with Erasmus God brought the Greek MSS together to form a pure Greek text, and the culmination of this process is the 1769 KJ. For the record, when the the text went to the printer in 1611 the text was pure, but because of the conditions, and mechanics of the printing process, printing mistakes of various kinds were made in the publication of 1611. The later "editions" of the KJ were only done to 1) correct printing errors; and 2) adjust things like the standardization of spelling, and font use, such as going from a gothic typeface to a Roman typeface.[/qyote]
There were complete English Bibles printed before the KJV, such as the "Great Bible", Geneva, & Bishop's.

I have seen people post the text of the 1611 with the unstandardized spelling (of that day), along with the gothic typeface, (where an "s" looks like an "f", and so forth), and claim that these were "valid" differences (making them errors) in the KJ. That's like saying if I switch from a Roman font to a Formal Script font, (to bring emphasis), then later simply use italics to do the same thing, the former would be an error.

We need to stay on a truthful, and professional course, to examine the history of the Bible.
I don't go for such nonsense as saying the KJV goofed by mentioning singing turtles in Song of Solomon 2:12, as I know "turtle" was a handle for "turtledove" back in the day, as well as referring to the shelled reptile, depending on context. I point out REAL goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 or "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10.
And again & again I shall keep pointing out the FACT that the KJVO myth is entirely man-made, & doesn't have any Scriptural support, by the least quark of the slightest implication. NO doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture at least by clear implication, such as is the "Holy Trinity" doctrine, can be true.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm referring to the copies that are extant & available. Far as I know, no "autographa" are extant.


"Valid" means " having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, officially acceptable" And a valid Bible translation is one that follows its sources closely. (As to the validity of the sources, that's been an ongoing discussion among "scholars" that started long ago, & is no more-close to being settled than it was when it first began.)
First let's deal with Easter in Acts 12:4. "Pascha" is a polyseme, a word with multiple meanings. In certain contexts it refers to the Jewish Passover (celebration of the Exodus). In other contexts it refers to the Christian Easter. When used by Jews in a context prior to Christ’s resurrection, the word always refers to the Jewish Passover. However, when used by Greek Christians in a context after Christ’s resurrection (as Luke, the narrator of Acts, did in Acts 12:4), the word refers to Easter. Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)".

You say that "Πάσχα" did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4. This is not true. In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian Πάσχα and the Jewish Πάσχα. One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων" (Passover of the Jews). We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:

John 2:13: "And the Jews' passover was at hand...." (και εγγυς ην το πασχα των ιουδαιων)
John 11:55: "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand...." (ην δε εγγυς το πασχα των ιουδαιων)

The fact that John writes, "Jews’ Pascha (πασχα των ιουδαιων)" indicates that there was a need to qualify the word "Pascha" for the immediate audience of John's Gospel. Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a "Jew's" Pascha and "another" Pascha. Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word "Pascha" to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

In Acts 12:4 Luke is narrating the events of his time. Whether "Πάσχα" should be Passover or Easter at Acts 12:4 must be determined by discerning who is using the word in this instance. If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover. If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology). Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4. It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers in the latter first century, many of whom were Gentile Christians. At the time of Luke's writing, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover but Easter. When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers. This is evident because he uses the word "church" (εκκλησία) at Acts 12:1 to refer to Christians. This is a dignifying Christian word to refer to the congregation of those who are called out by God. Neither Herod nor the Jews would have referred to these rebels as "the called-out ones". However, when coming from a Christian narrator for a Christian audience, the word "εκκλησία" carries a Christian meaning. The same goes for the word "πασχα". It may well be that Herod and the Jews had no concern or knowledge about Easter. Although Herod and the Jews were waiting for the Jewish Passover, Luke uses "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers. That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.


As per your comment on 1 Timothy 610:
And I believe πάντων can mean "some of all kinds" or "all sorts/kinds". After all, that's the TRUTH. The love of $ is not THE root of ALL evil. There are many sins/crimes committed that have nothing to do with money. Did Charles Manson & crew kill for money?

The problem is, you must add the Greek τις (an infliction of it is used later in the verse της rendered "some" [coveted after]) to get the Greek text to support what you want the English to say, or mean. The word πάντων is the genitive plural masculine and neuter of πας, which means "all". Hence, it means what it says, (and it says πάντων which is properly rendered "of all" in the KJ. Hence, if you desire to have a Scriptural position, you must follow exactly what the Scripture says. (Which in this case is "of all".)
 
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

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
I'll trust the AV makers' definition they placed in their work.

Jesus gave Himself as the be-all, end-all sacrifice for OUR sins, so He has given Himself as much as He ever will. And what believer in his right mind would want Satan? So, the MS of Rev. 2:28 is something else besides either Jesus or Satan.
I believe it just means Satan will be given authority in the last days. See in the millenium people will not have a free will not to sin, because Jesus will reign with an iron rod the bible says. So there must be a time where satan is let loose to tempt those who have never known temptation, and many will fall. This may be where he is given the morning star, I really don't know.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
First let's deal with Easter in Acts 12:4. "Pascha" is a polyseme, a word with multiple meanings. In certain contexts it refers to the Jewish Passover (celebration of the Exodus). In other contexts it refers to the Christian Easter. When used by Jews in a context prior to Christ’s resurrection, the word always refers to the Jewish Passover. However, when used by Greek Christians in a context after Christ’s resurrection (as Luke, the narrator of Acts, did in Acts 12:4), the word refers to Easter. Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)".

You say that "Πάσχα" did not mean Easter until centuries after the composition of Acts 12:4. This is not true. In the Gospel of John there is already a distinction being made between the Christian Πάσχα and the Jewish Πάσχα. One of the words for Passover in modern Greek is "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων" (Passover of the Jews). We see this same phrase already in the time of John the Apostle:

John 2:13: "And the Jews' passover was at hand...." (και εγγυς ην το πασχα των ιουδαιων)
John 11:55: "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand...." (ην δε εγγυς το πασχα των ιουδαιων)

The fact that John writes, "Jews’ Pascha (πασχα των ιουδαιων)" indicates that there was a need to qualify the word "Pascha" for the immediate audience of John's Gospel. Such a phrase would be redundant unless there were already a distinction between a "Jew's" Pascha and "another" Pascha. Apparently within the first century, Christians had already appropriated the word "Pascha" to refer to the Christian celebration of the resurrection.

In Acts 12:4 Luke is narrating the events of his time. Whether "Πάσχα" should be Passover or Easter at Acts 12:4 must be determined by discerning who is using the word in this instance. If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover. If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology). Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4. It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers in the latter first century, many of whom were Gentile Christians. At the time of Luke's writing, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover but Easter. When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers. This is evident because he uses the word "church" (εκκλησία) at Acts 12:1 to refer to Christians. This is a dignifying Christian word to refer to the congregation of those who are called out by God. Neither Herod nor the Jews would have referred to these rebels as "the called-out ones". However, when coming from a Christian narrator for a Christian audience, the word "εκκλησία" carries a Christian meaning. The same goes for the word "πασχα". It may well be that Herod and the Jews had no concern or knowledge about Easter. Although Herod and the Jews were waiting for the Jewish Passover, Luke uses "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers. That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.


As per your comment on 1 Timothy 610:

The problem is, you must add the Greek τις (an infliction of it is used later in the verse της rendered "some" [coveted after]) to get the Greek text to support what you want the English to say, or mean. The word πάντων is the genitive plural masculine and neuter of πας, which means "all". Hence, it means what it says, (and it says πάντων which is properly rendered "of all" in the KJ. Hence, if you desire to have a Scriptural position, you must follow exactly what the Scripture says. (Which in this case is "of all".)

First, lemme give you credit for the best attempt I've seen in some 40 years of KJVOs' trying to justify "Easter" in the KJV.
However, the fact remains Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts", and if it had existed then, neither Herod nor the Orthodox Jews he was trying to please would've observed it, as they didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected. And plainly, Herod intended to hold Peter in jail til PASSOVER was done, as proven by Verse 3 and Ezekiel 45:21, then, turn him over to those Jews to do with as they wished. So, even if easter had existed when Luke WROTE "Acts", it didn't exist at the time of the EVENT he was describing. (And yes, I'm aware that in MODERN Greek, pascha can mean either easter or passover, depending on the context it's used in.)

And several sources have πάσχα for pascha throughout the New Testament, in all 29 appearances. (I suppose it depends upon which ms. they're citing.)

Since the translation should indicate the original author's intent & not those of the translators, then 'passover' is the correct word in Acts 12:4. (Again, if the AV men had used "Easter" for pascha in several, or all, places where pascha appears, we could accept it as an archaism of 400 years ago. But the ONE appearance of easter, especially as pascha's two appearances after Acts are rendered 'passover', "Easter" still stands as a goof.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I believe it just means Satan will be given authority in the last days. See in the millenium people will not have a free will not to sin, because Jesus will reign with an iron rod the bible says. So there must be a time where satan is let loose to tempt those who have never known temptation, and many will fall. This may be where he is given the morning star, I really don't know.

The "iron rod" will be necessary as people will still have free will. However, Satan will be banished, unable to deceive anyone til the millenium is up, when he will be loosed to work his evil deceptions again & incite a rebellion against Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

danbuter

Active Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2017
251
236
Harrisburg
✟209,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1) Does God make spelling mistakes? No. 2) Does God leave out sections of scripture? No. 3) And does God paraphrase earlier copies of His word, basically admitting He created the first copy in error and was too hard to understand, so after repenting of making the bible too literal the first time, He made the second paraphrased for easier learning? No. 4) Then later made other copies even more paraphrased than the earlier copies? No. Please answer these questions first, all of them fully, then I will answer yours. Now let's see how much integrity you have; I have answered each of your questions directly, as they were asked. If you are a man with any integrity, to will now answer this one multiple choice question: Now here is my question for you: (A)Are the words that God spoke inspired, or, (B) is the paper and ink of the original manuscript inspired? A or B?

So, are you reading the Bible in the orignal Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? If not, your own argument shows how the KJV is only a paraphrase of the original languages...
 
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

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
So, are you reading the Bible in the orignal Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? If not, your own argument shows how the KJV is only a paraphrase of the original languages...
That is a false dichotomy. There is no absolute word for word translation due to syntax of different languages, which includes idioms and so forth. What there is however are methods of translation that weighs more towards a Formal Equivalence, and methods that weigh more towards a Dynamic Equivalence. I think you are aware of this, and know the KJ translators chose a more Formal Equivalence, while the translators of say the NIV chose more of a Dynamic Equivalence, which you also know is more like a paraphrase.

To answer your question, I tend to read mostly Scriveners 1894 Greek Text. You may have whatever opinion of it you wish, it doesn't bother me. Furthermore, I have never seen a text in which the KJ translators did not translate it within the rules, or possible usage of words they could choose from. God has not called me to translate Scripture (that was their calling); therefore, by faith I stand on the truth of God's word that has indeed preserved His words.


Furthermore, the London Baptist Confession of 1689 is evidence that that they believed at that time that God had kept His words pure throughout the ages. They further believed that God had given man guidance from the HS to translate His words perfectly into other languages. Their position is neither believed, nor taught in most Seminaries today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan61861
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.