100% or 95-98%?

Dont understand your question, my brother.

Unless a thread is totally out of hand we normally give a warning time before closure. However, as you are the author if you would like the thread closed please let me know and I can close it.

 

Frank...Feel free to start a new thread from an old one any time...Roger has made this clear. Just be sure to give it a heading indicating whatcha wanna talk about.

As for Easter...TCassidy has given the only plausible reason for its being in the KJV, besides its simply being a booboo-that its use was a leftover from the days when Easter was commonly used for Passover. While he can't prove and I can't disprove it, all the other "reasons" have been quite easily shown wrong by the facts that easter didn't exist in Luke's day and also in his day the Greek 'pascha' meant only PASSOVER.

Frank Betz: Luke was a Christian, writing from the Christian perspective. I believe the physician was eloquent and intelligent enough to know that the Passover had no significance any longer, so did the KJB translators. Why don't you?

Because he was writing about JEWS, to whom Passover had(& still HAS) GREAT significance.

To force the Greek to be limited to only say that "pascha" means ONLY Passover is Biblically INCORRECT!!, and any version that states the same is also INCORRECT!

Horse Feathers!

The writer was LUKE. The English translators, to be correct as possible must translate only, leaving out their opinions. And every translator knows that when Luke wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts of the Apostles, that 'pascha' meant Passover, and PASSOVER ONLY. The meaning of Easter wasn't added till much later. How could LUKE have been writing about Easter when IT DIDN'T YET EXIST?

 

C4K, I really do think it's time to put this rabid dog out of its misery.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

After due warning this thread is closed .