God's_Servant
New Member
Could you post the original answers to the questions?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dr. Gipp's "Wrong Answer Book"...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
franklinmonroe
Active Member
God's_Servant
New Member
WOW. :BangHead:
dwmoeller1
New Member
Ack!!
Elementary logic should be taught to all pastors. At least elementary informal logic. Clearly a Th.D. does not represent the ability to think critically.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
* Haven't there been several revisions of the KJV?
Robycop3: // Yes. Anyone thinking otherwise need only to sit down with an AV 1611 & 1769 Blayney's Edition, the most-commonly-used KJV edition of today, and compare them. \\
I have access to eleven different KJV editions. Well, actually only 10. My Grandmother's old 1850 American Bible Society (ABS) KJV is missing the end of the story in Revelation. I peaked back there once while it was still there -- the Lord and His saints (us) wins! So it is to fragile to use. But it is different from every other KJV i ever checked it against.
Robycop3: // Yes. Anyone thinking otherwise need only to sit down with an AV 1611 & 1769 Blayney's Edition, the most-commonly-used KJV edition of today, and compare them. \\
I have access to eleven different KJV editions. Well, actually only 10. My Grandmother's old 1850 American Bible Society (ABS) KJV is missing the end of the story in Revelation. I peaked back there once while it was still there -- the Lord and His saints (us) wins! So it is to fragile to use. But it is different from every other KJV i ever checked it against.
Point is, Dr. Gipp's "Answer Book" contains many WRONG answers.
And I still believe a revision of an existing version should be labeled as such.
The main fault I find with the NKJV is its NAME. It is NOT a revision of the KJV, but is an entirely-new translation which uses mostly the same sources the AV1611 used. There have been some 5K mss or fragments of mss discovered since 1611, and no translator wishing to make the most-accurate Bible translation possible can simply ignore them. Thus, the NKJV doesn't stick strictly to the KJV's sources.
And I still believe a revision of an existing version should be labeled as such.
The main fault I find with the NKJV is its NAME. It is NOT a revision of the KJV, but is an entirely-new translation which uses mostly the same sources the AV1611 used. There have been some 5K mss or fragments of mss discovered since 1611, and no translator wishing to make the most-accurate Bible translation possible can simply ignore them. Thus, the NKJV doesn't stick strictly to the KJV's sources.
Dishonesty in the Answers
Gipp is a prime example of the dishonesty that gets moved around the extreme kjvo camps. Again, I say extreme because there are some that are "kjvo" but I have respect for.
In the 2nd question, "Is Easter in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation?", Gipp uses a few dishonest terms and phrases in his attempt to prove the KJV to be correct in its rendering of "easter."
1. Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect.
There are two errors here. First, the KJV isn't God's authorized Bible. It was authorized by the King of England. Second, when people say that "easter" in the KJV isn't correct, it isn't about the Bible not being perfect, but the translation of the KJV. Here we see an example of trying to make those that don't believe the KJV to be perfect = not believing the Bible to be perfect. James White said it best with "The King James Bible Alone = the Word of God Alone."
Also, in regards to the actual question, he makes his error towards the bottom of the page. He has the following two points:
The problem is with his statement, "no event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover." That is not an accurate statement.
Eze 45:21 (KJV) "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."
Luke 22:1 (KJV) "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
Mar 14:12 (KJV) "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"
Here are two examples of the Bible calling the entire week the passover. The term passover could be referred to the whole week, so the argument that passover had already passed isn't correct.
Now, Gipp says this statement:
Mat 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
The feast of unleavend bread started on day 15 and went for seven days, We have now NT passages calling it passover.
Proof that the unleavened bread started on the 15th day for seven days
Lev 23:5-6 (KJV) "In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread."
Num 28:16-17 (KJV) "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. [17] And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
2 Chron 35:17 (KJV) "And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days."
So the argument that the passover had already passed isn't true. The passover day had passed, but not the week. Here I think Gipp is just incorrect and not trying to be dishonest. (I'm given him an undeserved benefit of the doubt.) However, his start was dishonest which is my biggest problem with a lot of extreme kjv only writings.
Gipp is a prime example of the dishonesty that gets moved around the extreme kjvo camps. Again, I say extreme because there are some that are "kjvo" but I have respect for.
In the 2nd question, "Is Easter in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation?", Gipp uses a few dishonest terms and phrases in his attempt to prove the KJV to be correct in its rendering of "easter."
1. Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect.
There are two errors here. First, the KJV isn't God's authorized Bible. It was authorized by the King of England. Second, when people say that "easter" in the KJV isn't correct, it isn't about the Bible not being perfect, but the translation of the KJV. Here we see an example of trying to make those that don't believe the KJV to be perfect = not believing the Bible to be perfect. James White said it best with "The King James Bible Alone = the Word of God Alone."
Also, in regards to the actual question, he makes his error towards the bottom of the page. He has the following two points:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
The problem is with his statement, "no event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover." That is not an accurate statement.
Eze 45:21 (KJV) "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."
Luke 22:1 (KJV) "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
Mar 14:12 (KJV) "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"
Here are two examples of the Bible calling the entire week the passover. The term passover could be referred to the whole week, so the argument that passover had already passed isn't correct.
Now, Gipp says this statement:
"It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row."
Mat 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
The feast of unleavend bread started on day 15 and went for seven days, We have now NT passages calling it passover.
Proof that the unleavened bread started on the 15th day for seven days
Lev 23:5-6 (KJV) "In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread."
Num 28:16-17 (KJV) "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. [17] And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
2 Chron 35:17 (KJV) "And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days."
So the argument that the passover had already passed isn't true. The passover day had passed, but not the week. Here I think Gipp is just incorrect and not trying to be dishonest. (I'm given him an undeserved benefit of the doubt.) However, his start was dishonest which is my biggest problem with a lot of extreme kjv only writings.
Here's an article pertaining to the "Wrong Answer Book" I posted in 2004:
THE GIPPER SHOULDA STUCK TO FOOTBALL!
Let's tear apart The Gipper's "research" right now with some FACTS. The Gipper has an agenda to push, and some books to sell, & he doesn't mind embellishing his "facts" with imagination to make either point.
Feel free to look up the facts I'm presenting in any reputable reference book on earth. In fact, I encourage you to do so since I'm an unknown & you don't have any reason to believe me.
First, Gipp says,"Coming to the word "Easter" in God's authorized Bible,
The AV was authorized by KING JAMES. Nowhere does it say GOD authorized it. So Gipp's misleading people from the gitgo.
Dr. Gipp:It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the N.T., the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.)
THIS IS GROSSLY INCORRECT! THE GIPPER COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I shall PROVE it to you, straight from the KJV!
Ezekiel 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."(Remember, Zeke is quoting GOD!)
Here, we see the days of unleavened bread being called the passover by GOD HIMSELF! Whom do you believe...Gipp...or GOD?
John 18:28, KJV - "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might EAT THE PASSOVER."
Now, we know Jesus had eaten the paschal lamb w/his disciples THE PREVIOUS EVENING, as the law required - AS EVERY OTHER JEW HAD DONE! There weren't TWO paschal meals, so John can ONLY be referring to a meal with unleavened bread which was part of the Passover observance, here called "the passover" by John.
JUST ASK ANY RABBI or other person knowledgeable about Judaism if the WHOLE WEEK is called Passover or not!
Who do you believe? - Gipp?....or SCRIPTURE.......along with those to whom God gave the Passover?
This alone proves The Gipper's "research" wrong. But let's look deeper.
Dr. Gipp:But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven." He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinkings.
Yes, there ARE two grievous lines of thinking here-AND GIPP IS THE "THINKER" OF BOTH OF THEM!
First, the Easter observance did not exist in Herod's time. You may read any encyclopedia, Jewish history, or other reference book you wish, and you will NOT find any observance of Easter in that part of the world at that time! Go ahead...Try to find any!
Again...If there were some pagan rite called Easter being observed in that time/place, Luke certainly would NOT have called it pascha!
The line of Herods began with Antipater, a friend of Julius Caesar, of Babylonian or possibly of Idumean(Edomite) descent. His grandson was Herod the Great, the one who sought Jesus' life. He wisely persuaded Augustus Caesar to grant the Jews freedom from the state religion, thus pleasing the Jews greatly enough that they overlooked some of his "little murders" of Jews-and pleased Augustus, who didn't hafta worry about any rebellion in the district. To further please the Jews, he had the temple rebuilt into the most magnificent structure in Jerusalem, & reinstated the Sanhedrin(thus relieving himself of the everyday ruling duties)...and it worked! The Jews obeyed him & paid their taxes without much dissent!
However, Herod became a madman, murdering most of his own family, including a son named Aristobulus. This was of little concern to the Jews, however. And...during this time he'd caused the Temple heirarchy to become very corrupt, leading to their having the Romans crucify Jesus.
His son Archelaus was detested by the Jews, & Augustus replaced him with his brother Herod Antipas, the Herod who executed John The Baptist, and was called "that fox" by Jesus. Antipas was banished in 39 AD by Caligula, who replaced him with Aristobulus' son Herod Agrippa I.
This is the Herod who slew James & arrested Peter! And by every account, especially by that of Josephus, he sought to PLEASE THE JEWS, especially the popular but corrupt temple leadership, the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees. If this man practiced anything but the state religion of the worship of Caesar, it would've been the worship of the Hellenistic pantheon of gods...but he was well-acquainted with the Jewish law! He absolutely did NOT observe any pagan nor Christian holy days, as this would've destroyed his popularity with the Jews. You may search any library on earth to try to prove this wrong!
He was the same Herod smitten by God with worms in his innards, killing him in 44 AD, age 54, in the 7th year of his reign.
Sometimes scripture calls him Herod; at other places it calls him Agrippa - but there's no doubt of his identity.
His son Herod Agrippa II was the Agrippa before whom Paul appeared.
Thus, you see once again how faulty Gipp's "research" is!
Dr. Gipp:First,Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
Totally irrelevant! In fact, the Jews had to have been pleased, although Scripture doesn't mention it. And Peter NEVER denied his Jewish ancestry. Infact, paul rebuked him for flexing his Jewishness by refusing to sit at the same table as Gentiles were sitting at.
The Jewish leadership DETESTED Christians! They considered Peter one of the worst HERETICS of all time! Only Roman rule prevented their killing him sooner! (The Romans had cracked down after Stephen was killed without a trial)
If Herod had simply whacked Peter as he'd done James, the Jewish religious leaders would've been pleased. But Herod wanted THEM to do it, for their greater satisfaction. But the Jews themselves would NOT have fooled with Peter during Passover.
Dr. Gipp:Second, he could not have been waiting until after the Passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matt. 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
Totally irrelevant. Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish religious leadership, BUT BY THE ROMANS,while Herod killed James by his own will. He wanted to deliver Peter to the Jews, for them to do with as they wished, while it was the Jews who delivered Jesus to the Romans & had them crucify Him.(They did NOT kill Him; He gave up His life of his own accord when all had been fulfilled. Thus, no one person or group can be "blamed" for Jesus' death, but certainly for trying to kill Him.)
Dr.Gipp:The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21 st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavneed bread simply because he wanted to wait until EAster.
There's not one scintilla of Scriptural or historical evidence that this Herod observed ANYTHING called Easter! If he followed the hellenistic religion, any worship of Venus would've been the worship of PALLAS ATHENE to the Greex, MINERVA to the Romans!(The "queena hevvin" was Hera to the Greex, Juno to the Romans.) And, search as you may, you will NOT find any evidence that Asherah/ Ishtar was worshipped anywhere in that time and place!
Anyone not believing what I've written here, please check it out for yourself before you dismiss my writing as incorrect. You may start by reading Flavius Josephus' accounts of the Herod dynasty, from where I obtained much of my info. Unlike The Gipper, I deal in FACT, while HE deals in OPINION & GUESSWORK!
THE GIPPER SHOULDA STUCK TO FOOTBALL!
Let's tear apart The Gipper's "research" right now with some FACTS. The Gipper has an agenda to push, and some books to sell, & he doesn't mind embellishing his "facts" with imagination to make either point.
Feel free to look up the facts I'm presenting in any reputable reference book on earth. In fact, I encourage you to do so since I'm an unknown & you don't have any reason to believe me.
First, Gipp says,"Coming to the word "Easter" in God's authorized Bible,
The AV was authorized by KING JAMES. Nowhere does it say GOD authorized it. So Gipp's misleading people from the gitgo.
Dr. Gipp:It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the N.T., the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.)
THIS IS GROSSLY INCORRECT! THE GIPPER COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I shall PROVE it to you, straight from the KJV!
Ezekiel 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."(Remember, Zeke is quoting GOD!)
Here, we see the days of unleavened bread being called the passover by GOD HIMSELF! Whom do you believe...Gipp...or GOD?
John 18:28, KJV - "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might EAT THE PASSOVER."
Now, we know Jesus had eaten the paschal lamb w/his disciples THE PREVIOUS EVENING, as the law required - AS EVERY OTHER JEW HAD DONE! There weren't TWO paschal meals, so John can ONLY be referring to a meal with unleavened bread which was part of the Passover observance, here called "the passover" by John.
JUST ASK ANY RABBI or other person knowledgeable about Judaism if the WHOLE WEEK is called Passover or not!
Who do you believe? - Gipp?....or SCRIPTURE.......along with those to whom God gave the Passover?
This alone proves The Gipper's "research" wrong. But let's look deeper.
Dr. Gipp:But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven." He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinkings.
Yes, there ARE two grievous lines of thinking here-AND GIPP IS THE "THINKER" OF BOTH OF THEM!
First, the Easter observance did not exist in Herod's time. You may read any encyclopedia, Jewish history, or other reference book you wish, and you will NOT find any observance of Easter in that part of the world at that time! Go ahead...Try to find any!
Again...If there were some pagan rite called Easter being observed in that time/place, Luke certainly would NOT have called it pascha!
The line of Herods began with Antipater, a friend of Julius Caesar, of Babylonian or possibly of Idumean(Edomite) descent. His grandson was Herod the Great, the one who sought Jesus' life. He wisely persuaded Augustus Caesar to grant the Jews freedom from the state religion, thus pleasing the Jews greatly enough that they overlooked some of his "little murders" of Jews-and pleased Augustus, who didn't hafta worry about any rebellion in the district. To further please the Jews, he had the temple rebuilt into the most magnificent structure in Jerusalem, & reinstated the Sanhedrin(thus relieving himself of the everyday ruling duties)...and it worked! The Jews obeyed him & paid their taxes without much dissent!
However, Herod became a madman, murdering most of his own family, including a son named Aristobulus. This was of little concern to the Jews, however. And...during this time he'd caused the Temple heirarchy to become very corrupt, leading to their having the Romans crucify Jesus.
His son Archelaus was detested by the Jews, & Augustus replaced him with his brother Herod Antipas, the Herod who executed John The Baptist, and was called "that fox" by Jesus. Antipas was banished in 39 AD by Caligula, who replaced him with Aristobulus' son Herod Agrippa I.
This is the Herod who slew James & arrested Peter! And by every account, especially by that of Josephus, he sought to PLEASE THE JEWS, especially the popular but corrupt temple leadership, the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees. If this man practiced anything but the state religion of the worship of Caesar, it would've been the worship of the Hellenistic pantheon of gods...but he was well-acquainted with the Jewish law! He absolutely did NOT observe any pagan nor Christian holy days, as this would've destroyed his popularity with the Jews. You may search any library on earth to try to prove this wrong!
He was the same Herod smitten by God with worms in his innards, killing him in 44 AD, age 54, in the 7th year of his reign.
Sometimes scripture calls him Herod; at other places it calls him Agrippa - but there's no doubt of his identity.
His son Herod Agrippa II was the Agrippa before whom Paul appeared.
Thus, you see once again how faulty Gipp's "research" is!
Dr. Gipp:First,Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
Totally irrelevant! In fact, the Jews had to have been pleased, although Scripture doesn't mention it. And Peter NEVER denied his Jewish ancestry. Infact, paul rebuked him for flexing his Jewishness by refusing to sit at the same table as Gentiles were sitting at.
The Jewish leadership DETESTED Christians! They considered Peter one of the worst HERETICS of all time! Only Roman rule prevented their killing him sooner! (The Romans had cracked down after Stephen was killed without a trial)
If Herod had simply whacked Peter as he'd done James, the Jewish religious leaders would've been pleased. But Herod wanted THEM to do it, for their greater satisfaction. But the Jews themselves would NOT have fooled with Peter during Passover.
Dr. Gipp:Second, he could not have been waiting until after the Passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matt. 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
Totally irrelevant. Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish religious leadership, BUT BY THE ROMANS,while Herod killed James by his own will. He wanted to deliver Peter to the Jews, for them to do with as they wished, while it was the Jews who delivered Jesus to the Romans & had them crucify Him.(They did NOT kill Him; He gave up His life of his own accord when all had been fulfilled. Thus, no one person or group can be "blamed" for Jesus' death, but certainly for trying to kill Him.)
Dr.Gipp:The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21 st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavneed bread simply because he wanted to wait until EAster.
There's not one scintilla of Scriptural or historical evidence that this Herod observed ANYTHING called Easter! If he followed the hellenistic religion, any worship of Venus would've been the worship of PALLAS ATHENE to the Greex, MINERVA to the Romans!(The "queena hevvin" was Hera to the Greex, Juno to the Romans.) And, search as you may, you will NOT find any evidence that Asherah/ Ishtar was worshipped anywhere in that time and place!
Anyone not believing what I've written here, please check it out for yourself before you dismiss my writing as incorrect. You may start by reading Flavius Josephus' accounts of the Herod dynasty, from where I obtained much of my info. Unlike The Gipper, I deal in FACT, while HE deals in OPINION & GUESSWORK!
Your answers were clear to me robycop.
The only one I have an issue with is "Is a Bible a true Word of God if it is used to "save" someone." or something to that effect. That is a stretch because a tract can be used to save someone and it cannot be considered a Bible; but, I do get your point and pretty much agree with it.
I think Rippon describes the "getting saved" process a little better than I could.
I went to the website and read the actual questions and answers. First, I notice that for someone who claims to be a "writer" his answers are not gramaticallly correct; as if that means anything.
His answers are typical propaganda to push his belief-system; no more, no less.
There seems to be some confusion about "upgrading" the KJV. I think in reality we should keep each version of the KJV in our libraries just the way they are so people can go back and do research. We have the 1611 and as noted earlier the popular 1769 and those should be kept by those people who wish to keep those versions for posterity, research or just for fun.
The true questions are:
Is it wrong to make a new translation either with other manuscripts?
Is it wrong to make a new translation with the TR which is typically a reverse-engineered document (depending on what manuscripts you want to use)?
Is it wrong to make a new translation using the KJV as a baseline and update the language?
Those are the true questions.
Personally, I do not have a problem with any of them as long as the company makes their method of deriving their "Bible" open to the public and be clear and honest about its origins.
I like the way many of the modern Bibles have a forward that goes into a lot of detail about how it was translated; what documents were used in the translation process; and finally; what method of translation was used (just how literal and were certain books translated more literal than others, etc.).
His answers are typical propaganda to push his belief-system; no more, no less.
There seems to be some confusion about "upgrading" the KJV. I think in reality we should keep each version of the KJV in our libraries just the way they are so people can go back and do research. We have the 1611 and as noted earlier the popular 1769 and those should be kept by those people who wish to keep those versions for posterity, research or just for fun.
The true questions are:
Is it wrong to make a new translation either with other manuscripts?
Is it wrong to make a new translation with the TR which is typically a reverse-engineered document (depending on what manuscripts you want to use)?
Is it wrong to make a new translation using the KJV as a baseline and update the language?
Those are the true questions.
Personally, I do not have a problem with any of them as long as the company makes their method of deriving their "Bible" open to the public and be clear and honest about its origins.
I like the way many of the modern Bibles have a forward that goes into a lot of detail about how it was translated; what documents were used in the translation process; and finally; what method of translation was used (just how literal and were certain books translated more literal than others, etc.).
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Actually, recently I have discovered some information that may indicate that there were TWO paschal meals: one on the 14th and one on the 15th in Jerusalem. It is unclear to me at this time whether the observance was divided geographically (Galilean and Judean) or sectarian (Sadducee and Pharisee). One explanation* given for this 'dual Passover' situation was pragmatic: to make it possible for about half the Jews to bring their sacrifices to the Temple on each day (otherwise there would not be enough time/space/priests to get them all sacrificed in a single day). If this was indeed the case, then Jesus could have had a legitimate paschal meal with His Galilean disciples the night before His crucifixion and still have been sacrificed simultaneously with paschal lambs the following day (when those Judean Pharisees were going to observe Passover). It accounts for two "preparation" days as Mark and John describe (note to Bart Ehrman: you were wrong about this being an irresolvable discrepancy in your book).
Read MacArthur on it here--
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/2382.htm
*Other explanitary theories exist for this phenomena: that perhaps one of the Jewish groups kept a calendar that had slipped behind one day, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
GFlanagan3
Member
mcdirector
Active Member
Am I reading this right? unsurpassable? by all scholars? This is not to get into a KJVO debate, but that's an amazingly unilateral statement.
source: http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=15.htm
I must agree and as moderator of this thread, let's don't go down that path please. MC, you definitely have a right to ask that question, I am just trying to keep this from becoming a typical KJVO fight from the hardliner KJVO's who tend to look for this type of bait.
I just want the discussion to remain civil and stick to the facts.
This is a typical KJVO argument that I have actually seen in a lot of Riplinger and others who are in that arena. Somehow, they tend to think the KJV translators were blessed more than other English translators. . . Its another "faith";without facts- thing.
Have a good day!
Last edited by a moderator:
mcdirector
Active Member
It certainly wasn't my intent to bait any one. I am so sorry that it appeared that way. Perhaps my post should be deleted if it will be viewed in that light.
This is where you are in error. Jesus and the disciples did not eat the passover lamb. Show me anywhere in scripture where it shows they ate meat at the last supper, you won't find it. They ate unleavened bread and wine only.
The 14th started at sundown. This is when Jesus and the disciples ate unleavened bread and wine as the scriptures command. The passover lamb was to be killed in the evening (afternoon) of the 14th. Jesus died on the cross at 3 PM, the time the passover lamb was traditionally slain. It was after sunset which is the beginning of the 15th that the passover lamb was eaten. The remains of the lamb were not allowed to remain and had to be burned before sunrise on the 15th. After this they ate unleavened bread until the 21st day of the month.
This is where folks make a mistake. The people started eating unleavened bread and wine at sunset on the beginning of the 14th day. This is the last supper Jesus ate with his disciples. You will find not one word about eating meat.
Although the Jews started eating unleaved bread at sunset starting the 14th day, they did not kill the passover lamb until evening (3 PM) on the 14th approximately 21 hours later. This is when Jesus died. They ate the lamb after sunset which was the start of the 15th day.
Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
Exo 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
The reason for the confusion is we have difficulty understanding days that start at sundown. The Jewish day starts around 6 PM our time, not midnight.
Last edited by a moderator:
From the KJV:Matthew 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.Matthew 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. # Luke 22:8
And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.Luke 22:11And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?Luke 22:13And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.Luke 22:15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:<br><br> This is a short list of passages indicating JESUS ATE THE PASSOVER at the "Last Supper". Remember, He did not have to be baptized, but He said that He had to do "all that is good". And passover had been given by God to Israel FOR EVER, so Jesus certainly followed all the statutes pertaining to passover. However, by His authority, He added the "Lord's Supper" to the observance, which was to be observed by ALL Christians, including the non-Jewish ones who did not observe passover.<br><br> Winman, those Scriptures plainly showed you to be WRONG. Not only do they call the meal "passover", but they state it was the time when the paschal lamb was to be killed. And that lamb was to be immediately prepared to be eaten after it was killed, and eaten that very same eve.<br><br>Conclusion:Scripture PROVES Jesus' "Last Supper" was the paschal lamb of passover along with other food/drink consumed as part of that meal.(The paschal meal was more than just the lamb!) From those other items, Jesus instituted the "Lord's Supper".<br>
Another point to remember is that the KJV itself was based largely upon TYNDALE'S work. Its makers saw no reason to change anything that Tyndale had "gotten right" except to update the language style or spellings. I see nothing wrong with using the KJV as a baseline, or, for that matter, ANY older valid version such as Tyndale's or the Geneva.
I do not believe the TR should be used exclusively in making a new translation of the NT. The KJVOs' poster-boy Dean Burgon pointed out a number of goofs in the TR & said that was but a short list. I believe that GOD has preserved all the ancient Scriptural mss available today & for that reason they should ALL be considered by translators, who now have the tools such as these PCs to make'em all available to any given translator almost anywhere on earth.