Featured New King James Version (NKJV)

MOOT!

 

Easter is only an acceptable possible rendering at Acts 12:4 if it is understood to mean "the passover", which is the meaning for how the word was used in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

If Easter is advocated to mean a pagan festival or to mean a Christian celebration of the resurrection, it would be an incorrect rendering at Acts 12:4 according to the context. Herod proceeded to take a further action to please the Jews by waiting until after the Jewish passover which included the seven days of unleavened bread.

Passover is the better rendering since it does not leave open the possibility of the incorrect understandings advocated by some KJV-only advocates.

 

Geroge, the problem you you and the other KJVO folk, is that you can never bring yourselves to admit, that your beloved Bible Version, DOES have textual and grammatical errors. Though I still believe that it is probably the best English translation that the Church has ever had. Remember that the KKV is a HUMAN translation, and not θεόπνευστος.

 

So I'm glad you agree that Easter is not a mistake. See, we can agree sometimes.

 

Well yes, but maybe if you slowed down a bit you would hear me.
What I'm saying is that the KJB translators, as other translators before them, chose to stick with Easter, the Old Germanic for resurrection, because that's what the people were familiar with while being doctrinally accurate.

You may not like it, but you can't say it's a mistake/error.

First show us one, hot shot.

 

You may say it, but you do not prove it to be true. There is historical evidence from the 1600's that indicated that the KJV translators choose to stick with the 1560 Geneva Bible's accurate rendering "the passover" at Acts 12:4, but that a Church of England prelate changed the choice of the KJV translators to Easter. You merely assume or presume that you are supposedly defending the choice of the KJV translators, but you do not prove it to be their actual choice.

It is not faithful and accurate to the context to say that king Herod who proceeded to take an additional action that would please the Jews would supposedly honor a Christian celebration of the resurrection for the Christians whom he was persecuting.

 

2 Peter 1:1

KJV, "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Greek, "του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου"

Correct English, "Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"

One Person and not two!

 

Exact same thing, just worded differently. UGH!

 

you know Greek grammar?

 

The later editors of important standard editions of the KJV did not think that they meant the exact same thing as they put them into a marginal note to suggest a different meaning than what was in the text.
At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.

Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611.

 

in verse 11, the Greek is, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the KJV reads, "of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". the only difference between this verse and 1, is that here it has "κυρίου", and verse 1, "θεοῦ". Yet in verse 11 the KJV rightly has One Person, though in verse 1, Two.? Exact same Greek construction in both verses. the KJV is wrong in verse 1, but right in 11. same issue in Titus 2:13, where the KJV has the wrong English for the Greek "τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ".

 

I didn't say that. There was no Christian celebration then the way we understand it now. Of course it was the Jewish passover then.
We are saying that the Christian name was placed in the text in lieu of the Hebrew designation.
And yes, I understand you may disagree with that, but disagreeing with the choice of the translators aiming to be understood (a line of thought that is congenial to us both) and saying it's an error/mistake are two very different things.

That may be the case, maybe, and clearly, God blessed the choice.
Nevertheless, what are your sources for that particular claim?

 

Some...and i also know you're playing a game of semantics!

 

A) Pray tell, how does v.2 read in the Greek?
B) Which Greek are you quoting? Please provide a source if you're going to preside as judge.
C) Why are you only quoting the Greek and not another language manuscript?

 

read #51 and then show that I am wrong

 

It's strange to me that Christians seem to argue over the dumbest things. Just sayin'

 

Ron Rhodes wrote: “The New King James Version (NKJV) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) in modern English” (Complete Guide, p. 113). Ron Rhodes added: “The NKJV significantly updates the KJV, making it a much more accurate translation” (p. 114). Estus Pirkle wrote: “In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers. It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators” (The 1611 KJB, p. 177).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183).

 

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

you will notice in verse 2, that it reads, "τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν", shows that "God", and "our Lord Jesus Christ" are TWO distinct Persons. in verse 1, there is only the one Greek article, which governs both nouns

 

whats up with you??? HOW can getting the right meaning of what the Bible says, dumb???

Christians do say the DUMBEST things some times

 

Manuscripts first please.