The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[Dr. Jack]

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.

Jesus ruling with a rod of iron doesn't take away free will, it means that unlike today's judicial systems, (allowing injustice to flourish), during the millennial reign Jesus will rule in a manner in which true justice will be served. To take away "free will" would be a sort of equivalence Calvinistic doctrine saying we have can only choose to do evil because we are unregenate, (while we are lost).

So there must be a time where satan is let loose to tempt those who have never known temptation, and many will fall.

There is a time when Satan will be let loose, but you must remember what the Scripture says,

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

First, I need to establish the fact that I am NOT a hyper-dispensationalist. I do believe in dispensationalism; but I also believe salvation has been, and will always be by grace, through faith. As man passes through each of the dispensations, God reveals more of Himself to man. What this means is that man started in an innocent state, and yet, he was indeed drawn away by his own lust. From conscious, through human government, promise, the law, and the Church, God has increasingly revealed Himself to mankind, yet, man still chooses his own lust. Finally, even with God here on Earth reigning perfectly for 1000 years, Satan will still be able to tempt man by his own lust. This proves man's need for God, and no matter what his environment; he will follow his own lust.

A brief word concerning Revelation

2:28: 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.2:28 And I will give him the morning star.2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.2:28 And I will give him the morning star. Revelation

As you can see, beginning in verse 24 the message of the angel is positive, not negative. Can you give me a single reference in Scripture where God has included the 'giving of Satan' to someone as part of a positive message? (Do you see where I am coming from?)

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.

Once again, remember

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

It a way their will will be bent toward holiness. Without temptation by satan, life is much easier. One third of our temptation would be gone. Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Papal household, speaks of our battle being against a triple alliance: the world (‘the enemy around us’), the flesh (‘the enemy within us’), and the devil (‘the enemy above us’).

 

[createdtoworship]

Jesus ruling with a rod of iron doesn't take away free will, it means that unlike today's judicial systems, (allowing injustice to flourish), during the millennial reign Jesus will rule in a manner in which true justice will be served. To take away "free will" would be a sort of equivalence Calvinistic doctrine saying we have can only choose to do evil because we are unregenate, (while we are lost).



There is a time when Satan will be let loose, but you must remember what the Scripture says,

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

First, I need to establish the fact that I am NOT a hyper-dispensationalist. I do believe in dispensationalism; but I also believe salvation has been, and will always be by grace, through faith. As man passes through each of the dispensations, God reveals more of Himself to man. What this means is that man started in an innocent state, and yet, he was indeed drawn away by his own lust. From conscious, through human government, promise, the law, and the Church, God has increasingly revealed Himself to mankind, yet, man still chooses his own lust. Finally, even with God here on Earth reigning perfectly for 1000 years, Satan will still be able to tempt man by his own lust. This proves man's need for God, and no matter what his environment; he will follow his own lust.

A brief word concerning Revelation

2:28: 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.2:28 And I will give him the morning star.2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.2:28 And I will give him the morning star. Revelation

As you can see, beginning in verse 24 the message of the angel is positive, not negative. Can you give me a single reference in Scripture where God has included the 'giving of Satan' to someone as part of a positive message? (Do you see where I am coming from?)



Once again, remember

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

Adam and eve had a free will to eat the fruit before satan tempted them, true. But they did not fail until he did tempt them. In that situation satan was at fault as well. So much in fact that satan was cursed at that point. So do not underestimate his power, nor overestimate it. There is not a demon of adultery or a demon of drug use. But there is a satan that will mention in our ears that a little adultery is ok, or a little drugs never hurt no one. In the millenium there will not be that little voice anymore, the same voice that caused the original sin.

 

[Dr. Jack]

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.

I think you should do a word study on the "passover". The OT Scriptures tell us repeatedly that the Passover is one "day", followed by 7 days of eating unleavened bread.

45:21 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. Ezekiel

Now let's look at Exodus:

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.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. Exodus

Now if you do the math, your position takes a little hit. On the 14th at even the Jews observed the Passover, (one day). Now as part of the "Passover" they also did not eat unleavened bread ... BUT THEN for the next 7 days was the feast of "unleavened bread". (Until day 21)

Observe:

Day Date Event
1 14 Passover
2 15 Unleavened bread
3 16 Unleavened bread
4 17 Unleavened bread
5 18 Unleavened bread
6 19 Unleavened bread
7 20 Unleavened bread
8 21 Unleavened bread


Now if the feast of Passover is to be understood as you are understanding Ezekiel, it isn't a 7 day feast, it's an 8 day feast. The proper understanding is that the Passover is one day, (in which you also don't eat unleavened bread), followed by 7 additional days in which you don't eat unleavened bread. Hence, the feast Ezekiel is referring to as being 7 days cannot be the Passover, and must be limited to the 7 days of unleavened bread, otherwise you must account for the 8th day of eating unleavened bread.

Furthermore, that is precisely why Luke writes:

12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) Acts


The parentheses "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" tells us clearly that the Passover had ended, and they were now in the "days of unleavened bread".

The following is a link which will explain in details of the Passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

The passover had already passed, and that is why my previous comment showing how even John specified what "passover" he was referring to.

 

[robycop3]

I think you should do a word study on the "passover". The OT Scriptures tell us repeatedly that the Passover is one "day", followed by 7 days of eating unleavened bread.

45:21 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. Ezekiel

Now let's look at Exodus:

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.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. Exodus

Now if you do the math, your position takes a little hit. On the 14th at even the Jews observed the Passover, (one day). Now as part of the "Passover" they also did not eat unleavened bread ... BUT THEN for the next 7 days was the feast of "unleavened bread". (Until day 21)

Observe:

Day Date Event
1 14 Passover
2 15 Unleavened bread
3 16 Unleavened bread
4 17 Unleavened bread
5 18 Unleavened bread
6 19 Unleavened bread
7 20 Unleavened bread
8 21 Unleavened bread


Now if the feast of Passover is to be understood as you are understanding Ezekiel, it isn't a 7 day feast, it's an 8 day feast. The proper understanding is that the Passover is one day, (in which you also don't eat unleavened bread), followed by 7 additional days in which you don't eat unleavened bread. Hence, the feast Ezekiel is referring to as being 7 days cannot be the Passover, and must be limited to the 7 days of unleavened bread, otherwise you must account for the 8th day of eating unleavened bread.

Furthermore, that is precisely why Luke writes:

12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) Acts


The parentheses "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" tells us clearly that the Passover had ended, and they were now in the "days of unleavened bread".

The following is a link which will explain in details of the Passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

The passover had already passed, and that is why my previous comment showing how even John specified what "passover" he was referring to.

Sorry; the link didn't appear. But here are Scriptural proofs that passover is SEVEN DAYS LONG, & so was ongoing when Herod busted Peter:
Ezekiel 45:21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

John 18:28 Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

Now, we know the paschal lambs had been eaten the previous eve, so the "passover" herein mentioned is the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week.

Sorry, Sir, "Easter" in the KJV remains a goof.[/COLOR]

 

[Dr. Jack]

Sorry; the link didn't appear. But here are Scriptural proofs that passover is SEVEN DAYS LONG, & so was ongoing when Herod busted Peter:
Ezekiel 45:21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

John 18:28 Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

Now, we know the paschal lambs had been eaten the previous eve, so the "passover" herein mentioned is the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week.

Sorry, Sir, "Easter" in the KJV remains a goof.[/COLOR]

Feasts of the Lord - The Feast of Unleavened Bread - Leviticus 23:6-8: Berean Bible Church

 

[robycop3]

Feasts of the Lord - The Feast of Unleavened Bread - Leviticus 23:6-8: Berean Bible Church

I believe Scripture over a man-made tale. And Scripture says "pascha" in Acts 12:4; God says passover is 7 days long in Eze. 45:21. Bottom line.

And the KJVO myth is totally without Scriptural support.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I believe Scripture over a man-made tale. And Scripture says "pascha" in Acts 12:4; God says passover is 7 days long in Eze. 45:21. Bottom line.

And the KJVO myth is totally without Scriptural support.

No, the bottom line is that you simply refuse to look at the initial text in which the passover, and the feast of unleavened bread were first introduced, (which sets the precedent for the rest of Scripture on the subject). You simply refuse to accept the idea that God preserved His word perfectly, (which was still believed in 1689 by the London Baptist Confession). You refuse to believe that Easter existed in the days of Luke, although you cannot prove it didn't.

Luke was written to a Gentile audience. Luke as you know was a companion of Paul during his missionary journeys. Hence, Luke was writing to Gentile believers, who would be celebrating the resurrection. The comment ἦσαν δὲ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων· "Then were the days of unleavened bread" mark the separation of the Passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

Now you insist that the KJ translators "goofed"; how then do you explain the following?
William Tyndale 1524
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

Coverdale 1535
Acts 12:4 Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people.

Matthew's Bible 1537
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson, & deliuered hym to .iiij. quaternions of soudyers to be kept, entendynge after Easter to bryng hym forth to the people.

The Great Bible 1539
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put him in preson also, & delyuered him to .iiij. quaternions of soudiers to be kepte, entendynge after Ester to bringe him forth to the people.

Bishops Bible 1568
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

Now I will admit that the Geneva Bible translated Πασχα as Passover, but they also translated several other words in their own way as well.

So five Bibles were translated the same way in Acts 12:4 in regards to Acts 12:4 and the word Πασχα to Easter. From 1524 to 1611, the only MAJOR Bible to not translate Πασχα to Easter was the Geneva Bible, (Calvinists), who, as far as I 'm concerned, have other serious doctrinal problems as well.

What did all of these translators know that our modern translators do not? (Now please don't make me post the credentials of some of the KJ translators. They were beyond any scholarship known today.)

 

[Dr. Jack]

Adam and eve had a free will to eat the fruit before satan tempted them, true. But they did not fail until he did tempt them. In that situation satan was at fault as well. So much in fact that satan was cursed at that point. So do not underestimate his power, nor overestimate it. There is not a demon of adultery or a demon of drug use. But there is a satan that will mention in our ears that a little adultery is ok, or a little drugs never hurt no one. In the millenium there will not be that little voice anymore, the same voice that caused the original sin.

On that sir, we agree wholeheartedly.
1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

 

[createdtoworship]

On that sir, we agree wholeheartedly.
1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

Yes but that verse does not really apply to what we are saying. The context is how satan lures away people after him. When he is released for 1000 years.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Yes but that verse does not really apply to what we are saying. The context is how satan lures away people after him. When he is released for 1000 years.

1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

Actually, the verse is prefaced with the prior verse which tells us we cannot blame God for our tempting us. The word "but" is a conjunction that joins, but also alerts us of a comparison of two statements. We don't need to be tempted by any external source, because our own lust cause us to go astray from righteousness. That is why Satan is bound for 1000 years; it shows us that men will sin all by themselves, without any external source of temptation; like Satan. During the Millennial reign people will NOT be able to blame any external source for their temptations, or their sins.

 

[createdtoworship]

1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

Actually, the verse is prefaced with the prior verse which tells us we cannot blame God for our tempting us. The word "but" is a conjunction that joins, but also alerts us of a comparison of two statements. We don't need to be tempted by any external source, because our own lust cause us to go astray from righteousness. That is why Satan is bound for 1000 years; it shows us that men will sin all by themselves, without any external source of temptation; like Satan. During the Millennial reign people will NOT be able to blame any external source for their temptations, or their sins.

so at this point you would need to find a reason why you are joining two different concepts into one. One is satan, as a deceiver, and one is our flesh which is a separate enemy. Are you quoting the one, our flesh as responsible for satans deception in the millenium? And if you are not, I am unsure why you are conflating the two as one. At this point I believe you are committing the fallacy of non sequitur.

Non Sequitur: (it does not follow)
When one thing follows another in a predictable sequence, it gives us a way of creating a valid argument. However, when we make the assumption that there is a 'Y follows X' relationship, yet this is not proven (even though it may be 'common sense'), then we are making a Non-sequitur fallacies (literally 'it does not follow'

 

[robycop3]

No, the bottom line is that you simply refuse to look at the initial text in which the passover, and the feast of unleavened bread were first introduced, (which sets the precedent for the rest of Scripture on the subject).

God told Ezekiel later that passover was a feast of 7 days. No disputing that fact. And John 18:28 shows the Jews still considered it a feast of 7 days.

You simply refuse to accept the idea that God preserved His word perfectly, (which was still believed in 1689 by the London Baptist Confession).

Please show me where I've ever said otherwise. What I don't believe is the man-made KJVO myth.

You refuse to believe that Easter existed in the days of Luke, although you cannot prove it didn't.

Ya can't prove it DID, either. But even if it did, neither Herod nor the Jewish religious leadership would've observed it, as they didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected.

Luke was written to a Gentile audience. Luke as you know was a companion of Paul during his missionary journeys. Hence, Luke was writing to Gentile believers, who would be celebrating the resurrection. The comment ἦσαν δὲ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων· "Then were the days of unleavened bread" mark the separation of the Passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

Well, ACTUALLY, it showed the paschal lamb meal, the first event of passover, was past, but the 7-day fest was still ongoing.

Now you insist that the KJ translators "goofed"; how then do you explain the following?
William Tyndale 1524
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

Coverdale 1535
Acts 12:4 Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people.

Matthew's Bible 1537
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson, & deliuered hym to .iiij. quaternions of soudyers to be kept, entendynge after Easter to bryng hym forth to the people.

The Great Bible 1539
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put him in preson also, & delyuered him to .iiij. quaternions of soudiers to be kepte, entendynge after Ester to bringe him forth to the people.

Bishops Bible 1568
Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

Tyndale's new word for the p'sach(pascha) hadn't caught completely on yet, but the AV makers plainly knew the difference between passover & Easter, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" within the AV 1611's extratextual material, calling Easter one of the 2 holiest days of the year, along with Christmas. No way would they have purposely confused passover with Easter. (Remember, Judaism was not very popular in Britain at the time.)

Now I will admit that the Geneva Bible translated Πασχα as Passover, but they also translated several other words in their own way as well.

As has every other English Bible translation, old or new.

So five Bibles were translated the same way in Acts 12:4 in regards to Acts 12:4 and the word Πασχα to Easter. From 1524 to 1611, the only MAJOR Bible to not translate Πασχα to Easter was the Geneva Bible, (Calvinists), who, as far as I 'm concerned, have other serious doctrinal problems as well.

I readily admit that English-users USED to use passover, or pasch, or pask interchangeably with Easter, but again 'tis plain the AV makers knew the difference! (And I also readily admit that MODERN Greek uses pascha for either Easter or passover, depending upon the context.

What did all of these translators know that our modern translators do not? (Now please don't make me post the credentials of some of the KJ translators. They were beyond any scholarship known today.)

What did the translators of old know? The style of English THEY used, & the definitions of words in THEIR times! But by the time the AV was made, "passover" had come into regular use. Had they rendered pascha as Easter regularly in their work, we could chalk it up as an archaism, but the ONE TIME must be considered a GOOF, as there was no reason to not call it 'passover', as that was clearly what Luke was referring to.

 

[robycop3]

1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James

Actually, the verse is prefaced with the prior verse which tells us we cannot blame God for our tempting us. The word "but" is a conjunction that joins, but also alerts us of a comparison of two statements. We don't need to be tempted by any external source, because our own lust cause us to go astray from righteousness. That is why Satan is bound for 1000 years; it shows us that men will sin all by themselves, without any external source of temptation; like Satan. During the Millennial reign people will NOT be able to blame any external source for their temptations, or their sins.

And, of course, Jesus will rule with a "rod of iron" during the millenium, and He will be aware of any sin that occurs, & will take steps to correct it, I believe, as part of that rod of iron. And only a complete dolt wouldn't believe in & on Jesus during that time.

 

[Dr. Jack]

so at this point you would need to find a reason why you are joining two different concepts into one. One is satan, as a deceiver, and one is our flesh which is a separate enemy. Are you quoting the one, our flesh as responsible for satans deception in the millenium? And if you are not, I am unsure why you are conflating the two as one. At this point I believe you are committing the fallacy of non sequitur.

Non Sequitur: (it does not follow)
When one thing follows another in a predictable sequence, it gives us a way of creating a valid argument. However, when we make the assumption that there is a 'Y follows X' relationship, yet this is not proven (even though it may be 'common sense'), then we are making a Non-sequitur fallacies (literally 'it does not follow'

That isn't what I'm saying at all.
1) In the Garden of Eden Adam was innocent, with no sin nature. In order for Adam to willfully choose to believe God, a choice had to be available; that choice was Satan.
2) Because Adam listened to Satan, and transgressed the command of God, Adam lost his innocence, and his nature became sinful. Hence, all of Adam's seed inherited Adam's sinful nature, and we (his seed), no longer need to have an external influence to make us desire to sin.

17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah

My point then, is that while Satan does add additional influence to get us to commit sin, he can only use the lists that are already present in our hearts.
3) During the Millennial reign of Christ, God removes Satan from the equation on order to show man, just how sinful he is.

Conclusion:
Satan did initiate the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden, but man continues to sin of his own free will due to his own sin nature. Hence, it is NOT a sequence from Satan to man with us, but rather, it is only Satan acting as a 'catalyst' of sorts, to magnify that which we already possess. But we are sinful, without the continual influence of Satan.

 

[createdtoworship]

That isn't what I'm saying at all.
1) In the Garden of Eden Adam was innocent, with no sin nature. In order for Adam to willfully choose to believe God, a choice had to be available; that choice was Satan.
2) Because Adam listened to Satan, and transgressed the command of God, Adam lost his innocence, and his nature became sinful. Hence, all of Adam's seed inherited Adam's sinful nature, and we (his seed), no longer need to have an external influence to make us desire to sin.

17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah

My point then, is that while Satan does add additional influence to get us to commit sin, he can only use the lists that are already present in our hearts.
3) During the Millennial reign of Christ, God removes Satan from the equation on order to show man, just how sinful he is.

Conclusion:
Satan did initiate the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden, but man continues to sin of his own free will due to his own sin nature. Hence, it is NOT a sequence from Satan to man with us, but rather, it is only Satan acting as a 'catalyst' of sorts, to magnify that which we already possess. But we are sinful, without the continual influence of Satan.

That is fine, I actually agree with this. But originally you didn't say this. You kept quoting james over and over again implying man was the cause of his sin alone. Which is wrong. I agree with your new take on the matter and am happy I was able to help you form a complete statement about it. Good talk.

 

[Dr. Jack]

That is fine, I actually agree with this. But originally you didn't say this. You kept quoting james over and over again implying man was the cause of his sin alone. Which is wrong. I agree with your new take on the matter and am happy I was able to help you form a complete statement about it. Good talk.

My position didn't change, I was originally referring to man in the Millennial reign. James is a reference to man sinning because of his "own" lust; and not dependent on Satan. You assumed I meant otherwise: I did not.

 

[createdtoworship]

My position didn't change, I was originally referring to man in the Millennial reign. James is a reference to man sinning because of his "own" lust; and not dependent on Satan. You assumed I meant otherwise: I did not.

then why did you not mention satan played a part in our sin? Why did you only mention it after I corrected you? I don't want to appear rude, but you have obviously changed your stance. And that is ok. I am not saying that it's bad. But we must accept it for what it is. If some of my posts appear cold and to the point, don't take it personally. That is sort of the dynamic of debate. I am not angry or sad, it's just a factual thing. Here is more on the topic: Jesus knows all about temptation. Jesus was tempted for forty days (luke 4:2). Although it was the devil doing the tempting (v.3), God allowed it

 

[Dr. Jack]

God told Ezekiel later that passover was a feast of 7 days. No disputing that fact. And John 18:28 shows the Jews still considered it a feast of 7 days.



Please show me where I've ever said otherwise. What I don't believe is the man-made KJVO myth.



Ya can't prove it DID, either. But even if it did, neither Herod nor the Jewish religious leadership would've observed it, as they didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected.


Well, ACTUALLY, it showed the paschal lamb meal, the first event of passover, was past, but the 7-day fest was still ongoing.


Tyndale's new word for the p'sach(pascha) hadn't caught completely on yet, but the AV makers plainly knew the difference between passover & Easter, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" within the AV 1611's extratextual material, calling Easter one of the 2 holiest days of the year, along with Christmas. No way would they have purposely confused passover with Easter. (Remember, Judaism was not very popular in Britain at the time.)


As has every other English Bible translation, old or new.


I readily admit that English-users USED to use passover, or pasch, or pask interchangeably with Easter, but again 'tis plain the AV makers knew the difference! (And I also readily admit that MODERN Greek uses pascha for either Easter or passover, depending upon the context.



What did the translators of old know? The style of English THEY used, & the definitions of words in THEIR times! But by the time the AV was made, "passover" had come into regular use. Had they rendered pascha as Easter regularly in their work, we could chalk it up as an archaism, but the ONE TIME must be considered a GOOF, as there was no reason to not call it 'passover', as that was clearly what Luke was referring to.

You need some real lessons in history. Easter was in use long before the days of the KJ.

Truthfully, I don't think you even know what the issue of the KJOnly is about. Modern scholarship is doing their best to make believe man has always had their current belief of preservation; nothing could be farther from the truth. You make it sound like the KJ translators were a bunch of hillbillies with no real understanding of the Greek. You have no idea how wrong that opinion is.

 

[robycop3]

You need some real lessons in history. Easter was in use long before the days of the KJ.

Now, I stated I knew that Easter used to be used interchangeably with pascha/pask, etc. in the days before Tyndale coined 'passover' to differentiate p'sach from Easter, which had been recognized for a good while as the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection.

But the focus here is upon Easter's one appearance in the KJV, not upon its use in earlier versions. You just can't accept the fact it was a goof.

Truthfully, I don't think you even know what the issue of the KJOnly is about.

I bewlieve I'm 'WAY ahead of YOU in that respect. I know that no doctrine of faith/worship can be true if not found in Scripture, either directly or by clear implication. And there's not one word of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. That myth is entirely man-made, with its current edition derived from a cult official's book, as has been pointed out.

Modern scholarship is doing their best to make believe man has always had their current belief of preservation; nothing could be farther from the truth. You make it sound like the KJ translators were a bunch of hillbillies with no real understanding of the Greek. You have no idea how wrong that opinion is.

Those men were as human as we are. With over 700K words in their work, it's inevitable they'd have a few booboos, same as people today. And remember, they worked under what are now primitive conditions, by candle light, with quill pens. Also, they did their work gratis, but they still had to earn a living, so they didn't give all their attention to making a new Bible translation. However, they did a remarkably-good job, given their circumstances.

Keep in mind that all Bible translations are products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.