Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

[Johnv]

To attack the translators as you have seems to be lower than your before expressed abilities until now.

And here we see the first example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for a KJVOist to attack translators of other versions, but it's not okay for someone to attach the translators of the KJV.

Acts is a transitional book and the KJV translators used very highly and estimable scrutiny in using Easter in Acts 12:4 to show this transition and the importance of it.

And here we see the second example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to modify or add to scripture, but it's not okay for any other translators to do so.

This use is exactly why the KJV has proven to be the best translation of the Bible in English.:sleep:

And here we see the third example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJVOists to make claims without the need to support them with evidentiary support, yet when anyone else makes a claim contrary to the KJVO position, that claim is dismissed, even if there evidentiary support is readily evident.

Your type DEMANDS a current Bible in today's language, but when it's something you use to attack the KJV you deny the very thing you DEMAND.

And here we see the fourth example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to change a word due to the meaning of that word changing, but translators of any other versions are forbidden from changing words when the meaning has changed.

 

[Trotter]

To attack the translators as you have seems to be lower than your before expressed abilities until now.

No attacks, mate. A screw up is a screw up. Everyone makes them but ours don't get put into a translation of the bible... or used to try to correct the Greek.

Acts is a transitional book and the KJV translators used very highly and estimable scrutiny in using Easter in Acts 12:4 to show this transition and the importance of it.

And yet they still bowed to the Catholic/Anglican church's use of the pagan festival's name. To expound/understand the bible you have to go back to when it was written. "Easter' did not exist, and the verse in question is talking about the Jewish feast and not the resurrection. I can't help if you choose to stop your ears and yell, "La-la-la-la" instead of actually listening to anyone else besides yourself. Agrippa didn't care one whit about the followers of Christ and only wanted to play politics with the timing of giving Peter over to be killed.

To use the term "passover" as referencing the O.T. practice goes directly against everything called "Christ".

That makes no sense, mate. Passover comes straight out of the OT and does picture Christ.

This use is exactly why the KJV has proven to be the best translation of the Bible in English.

If a mistake makes it best I would hate to see your worst then.

Maybe you should stop practicing it then.

This doesn't even deserve a response.

 

[annsni]

And here we see the first example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for a KJVOist to attack translators of other versions, but it's not okay for someone to attach the translators of the KJV.

And here we see the second example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to modify or add to scripture, but it's not okay for any other translators to do so.

And here we see the third example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJVOists to make claims without the need to support them with evidentiary support, yet when anyone else makes a claim contrary to the KJVO position, that claim is dismissed, even if there evidentiary support is readily evident.

And here we see the fourth example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to change a word due to the meaning of that word changing, but translators of any other versions are forbidden from changing words when the meaning has changed.

You read my mind. Exactly the issue here. :thumbs:

 

[Harold Garvey]

And here we see the first example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for a KJVOist to attack translators of other versions, but it's not okay for someone to attach the translators of the KJV.

When the topic is about their sexuality I suppose it is warranted, but whemn says they "screwed up" it's not exactly the same, huh?

And here we see the second example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to modify or add to scripture, but it's not okay for any other translators to do so.

And here we see the third example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJVOists to make claims without the need to support them with evidentiary support, yet when anyone else makes a claim contrary to the KJVO position, that claim is dismissed, even if there evidentiary support is readily evident.

And here we see the fourth example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to change a word due to the meaning of that word changing, but translators of any other versions are forbidden from changing words when the meaning has changed.

maybe you're still carrying on another conversation from your distant past.

God changed the meaning of passover, I didn't, neither did anyone else!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

No attacks, mate. A screw up is a screw up. Everyone makes them but ours don't get put into a translation of the bible... or used to try to correct the Greek.

God changed the meaning of passover and He never screws up.

And yet they still bowed to the Catholic/Anglican church's use of the pagan festival's name. To expound/understand the bible you have to go back to when it was written. "Easter' did not exist, and the verse in question is talking about the Jewish feast and not the resurrection. I can't help if you choose to stop your ears and yell, "La-la-la-la" instead of actually listening to anyone else besides yourself. Agrippa didn't care one whit about the followers of Christ and only wanted to play politics with the timing of giving Peter over to be killed.

That makes no sense, mate. Passover comes straight out of the OT and does picture Christ.

Nope, only a shadow. A picture is much clearer. Passover is merely the negative from which we get the actual picture.

If a mistake makes it best I would hate to see your worst then.

This doesn't even deserve a response.

You seem to want to intermingle infallability with human action.

You practice the passover and I'll worship the Lord on Easter and every other day too.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

It's funny to see people respond that are on my IGNORE LIST!:sleeping_2:

 

[Johnv]

When the topic is about their sexuality I suppose it is warranted, but whemn says they "screwed up" it's not exactly the same, huh?

You dont' really want to go there, do you? Because it will be easily shown how much greater the KJVO hypocrisy is, and how much more empty their claim is.

maybe you're still carrying on another conversation from your distant past.

Those were your words, and your arguments, and they're no less hypritical just because you uttered them.

God changed the meaning of passover, I didn't, neither did anyone else!:smilewinkgrin:

Seeing as how many Christians celebrate both Passover and Easter separately, God disagrees with you.

It's funny to see people respond that are on my IGNORE LIST!

That would be pretty much everyone.

God changed the meaning of passover and He never screws up.

Here's a fifth common KJVO hypocrisy: If the KJV changed it, then God changed it. If any other version changed it, they're going against God.

You seem to want to intermingle infallability with human action.

And here's KJVO hypocrisy number six: If it's written in the KJV, it's infallible; if it's in any other translation, it's not.

 

[DHK]

God changed the meaning of passover and He never screws up.

This is blasphemous Harold. Since when are the KJV translators God???
Please explain this blasphemy!

 

[annsni]

God changed the meaning of passover and He never screws up.

God never changed the meaning of Passover. Passover still means the same thing.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You dont' really want to go there, do you? Because it will be easily shown how much greater the KJVO hypocrisy is, and how much more empty their claim is.

Those were your words, and your arguments, and they're no less hypritical just because you uttered them.

Seeing as how many Christians celebrate both Passover and Easter separately, God disagrees with you.

I suppose some would dare to do so, that way
"if" Jesus isn't who He said He is, then they got both sides covered!

That would be pretty much everyone.

Nope, just people like you. I can't quote the ones already there. Don't want to either.

Here's a fifth common KJVO hypocrisy: If the KJV changed it, then God changed it. If any other version changed it, they're going against God.

You like to think God has to have died when the Bible reached the point of becoming canon, but words change and when a former thing is fulfilled it is to no longer be practiced.

O.T. rituals are done away by Christ. Why you haven't understood this is just beyond comprehension.

But why should Iexpect any different from you, all you do is keep making the same old tripe statements about KJVO and cannot get past that obstacle in your life.

Did Christ fulfill the need to practice the ritual or not?

I already know the answer.

Of course if you come back with tripe I won't be able to quote you any more.

 

[Johnv]

Nope, just people like you.

[personal attack] AFIK, I've never once sent you a private message. The only reason you would put me on your ignore list is to boast about it. You've done that rather successfully.

O.T. rituals are done away by Christ. Why you haven't understood this is just beyond comprehension.

Show me scripture where it says Christians are not permitted to practice Jewish customs. I'm sure that passage is in the same chapter that provides support for KJVOism.

But why should Iexpect any different from you, all you do is keep making the same old tripe statements about KJVO and cannot get past that obstacle in your life.

It's actually KJVOists who make the same old arguments, despite the fact that their arguments are so easily exposed as empty and hypocritical.

Did Christ fulfill the need to practice the ritual or not?

Passover commemorates the plague of the death of the firstborn. Nothing in scripture suggests this should no longer be commemorated.

Of course if you come back with tripe I won't be able to quote you any more.

Feel free to quote me all you like. Your rebuttals are so easily refuted, plus your rebuttals serve to damage the KJVO position even further than you have already done, so feel free.

 

[annsni]

I suppose some would dare to do so, that way
"if" Jesus isn't who He said He is, then they got both sides covered!

And how many believers here are saying that we are to celebrate Passover? I don't know about you but I'm not Jewish. It's not part of my culture to celebrate Passover. And since we are not told NOT to celebrate Passover in the New Testament, those who are Jewish by culture certainly can continue to celebrate the fact that God saved the firstborn of all of those in Egypt who trusted in Him and put the blood of the lamb on the doorpost.

Nope, just people like you. I can't quote the ones already there. Don't want to either.

How junior high.

You like to think God has to have died when the Bible reached the point of becoming canon, but words change and when a former thing is fulfilled it is to no longer be practiced.

You say so but how do you know what anyone is thinking?? I believe that the canon of Scripture is closed and we are not to change what the Word says. God wrote it and it is not our place to try to correct His words to make it mean something that He did not intend from the beginning. That is what cults do. Yes, some things are no longer practiced but that doesn't mean we take it out of the Word. Do we remove all of the instructions in the Old Testament law?? Do we decide that we're not going to do something so we'll just remove that part of the Scriptures? How arrogant to be one who believes that we can "correct" God's Word.

O.T. rituals are done away by Christ. Why you haven't understood this is just beyond comprehension.

Show me where anyone here said that the Passover is to be continued to be practiced by believers. The early church did because that was part of their culture but it is not part of ours. YOU don't understand the stance that Scripture takes on this nor any one of us.

But why should Iexpect any different from you, all you do is keep making the same old tripe statements about KJVO and cannot get past that obstacle in your life.

See the mirror?? Yeah, that's you in there.

Did Christ fulfill the need to practice the ritual or not?

Since it's a rememberance of an event, there is no need to fulfill the ritual. Yes, Jesus Christ is our Passover Lamb but that doesn't mean we don't still remember God's mighty hand working in Egypt. Do you ever take communion?? Yeah - it's like that.

I already know the answer.

Of course if you come back with tripe I won't be able to quote you any more.

You act like a complete young adolescent who has no social skills. It's really disgusting to watch, to be completely honest. But I'm sure you already have me on your ignore list or some such infantile thing.

 

[franklinmonroe]

"Brethren, how fine a thing it is to move from festival to festival, from prayer to prayer, from holy day to holy day. The time is now at hand when we enter on a new beginning: the proclamation of the blessed Passover, in which the Lord was sacrificed. We feed as on the food of life, we constantly refresh our souls with his precious blood, as from a fountain. Yet we are always thirsting, burning to be satisfied. But he himself is present for those who thirst and in his goodness invites them to the feast day. Our Savior repeats his words: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." (a translation of a Paschal [Festal] Letter by Athanasius of Alexandria about 340AD)

 

[Harold Garvey]

"Brethren, how fine a thing it is to move from festival to festival, from prayer to prayer, from holy day to holy day. The time is now at hand when we enter on a new beginning: the proclamation of the blessed Passover, in which the Lord was sacrificed. We feed as on the food of life, we constantly refresh our souls with his precious blood, as from a fountain. Yet we are always thirsting, burning to be satisfied. But he himself is present for those who thirst and in his goodness invites them to the feast day. Our Savior repeats his words: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." (a translation of a Paschal [Festal] Letter by Athanasius of Alexandria about 340AD)

Yes, this is the root of what we today call "Easter".

 

[DHK]

Yes, this is the root of what we today call "Easter".

No, that root that you referred to meant paschal, passover, passover lamb, sacrificial lamb, and thus symbolically portraying the sacrifice of Christ. Pascha is more about the death of Christ and could never, never, represent the Resurrection of Christ or Easter. You really ought to admit when you are wrong, or better still when the KJV translators are wrong.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We are not on page 20, but the last 15 pages have been like a mp3 player on replay.