Great Read

The name of this book is

WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?

by FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.

other info:
1999
Seventeenth Edition
Revised and Enlarged
(First Edition 1989)

It is 296 pages long. (just so you know you won't be reading it in a sit down - there is long and there is LONG )

 

I do have it open to read later. We have a company pagan holiday ritual to go to in a bit :tongue3:

 

I can't get the link to open.

 

Jones' claims concerning Acts 12:4 considered

Floyd Jones claimed that “the King James translators realized that to render ‘pascha’ as ‘Passover’ in this instance [Acts 12:4] was both impossible and erroneous” (Which Version, p. 51). Is that claim correct?


Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it will become clear that Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). Along with Luke 22:1, many KJV-only authors seem to ignore Ezekiel 45:21 where the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days.” In Ezekiel 45:21, the name “Passover” was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was used for a time described as “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.” After Jesus and his disciples had already observed the feast of Passover (Luke 22:14-15; John 13:1), the same Greek word was still used for a time when the feast of unleavened bread was in progress (John 18:28).


KJV-only author Jack Moorman declared: “As the Passover had already been observed, and the days of unleavened bread were in progress, and yet Herod was still waiting for ‘after pascha;’ we can only conclude that the word must be taken in a broader sense” (Conies, p. 14). Is that the only valid conclusion? In his tract entitled “Easter or Passover,” Raymond Blanton wrote: “Herod did not intend to bring Peter forth to the people after the days of unleavened bread but after ’pascha’” (p. 2). Jones, Moorman, and Blanton’s statements are based on their incorrect assumption that the Greek word pascha could not be used to include or as a name for the days of unleavened bread. In Acts 12:3, Luke stated: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” In the context and considering Luke 22:1, there is no problem with understanding Luke to be using “pascha” in Acts 12:4 as a name for or including the feast of unleavened bread. Thus, Herod could have been waiting for the end of the days or feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1). On the other hand, concerning “after Easter” in the KJV, Edmunds and Bell wrote: “Neither Herod nor Peter nor any other man in Judea could have told when that would be” (Discussion, p. 33). KJV-only author Charles Turner wrote: “There was no such holiday as Easter at the time of the writing of the book of Acts. The translators have introduced a meaning into the text which was not intended by Luke the author” (Biblical Bible Translating, Assignment 26, p. 4).


In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177).


Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews? It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Therefore, the context supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha instead of the view that Herod was keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he was keeping and not some pagan festival. Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1.

 

Thanks for the 'heads-up' Dr. Bob. Clearly, you're absolutely correct in your appraisal. For example, immediately following the Table of Contents & Abreviations (pages i - vi), Dr. Jones begins with To the Reader - A Sounding of An Alarm (page vii) which his argument in favor of the KJV rendering of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 and cites a Gail Riplinger book within the first few lines! I cannot fathom a Th.D. & Ph.D. scholar giving credence to New Age Bible Versions.

BYW, inexplicably this ...Sounding of Alarm as well as the pages that include the A Biblical Credibility Crisis & Forward (vii - xiv) are not listed in the the immediately preceding TOC.

 

I did keep the link up and I did look at it.

As Dr. Bob mentioned, you can tell immediately that it's KJV PRO. (I did figure the title and the poster would infer that.) Reading through the TOC is also an indication. G.A. Riplinger is referenced immediately, but I did look at it with as open a mind as I could not wanting to shut things down.

Not my cup of tea however. I do believe that other versions are valid, so it's hard to keep reading why they aren't.

As a matter of fact, my preferred version has been the NASB. I am NOW reading through the TNIV.

Thanks for the link though.

 

You meant to say that you are now reading through the TNIV.

 

*batting eyes*

Of course I did

 

Rippon, you better believe it! :thumbs:

 

Hi everyone

As soon as I opened up this pdf, I immediately searched for the word “Warfiled”, so as to find out where it's author was coming from.
This search took me right to Page 127, and after reading these four paragraphs, I saw that he had the courage to tell it like it is, so I copied the whole file to my desk top.

Thanks Baptist4life
--------------------------------------------------
By the way, all those who HATE the KJV, won’t want this information getting out, but that’s okey.

 

What about those that HATE MV's?

 

Hi Mexdeaf

I have only recently, been seeing a lot of people use this abbreviation, and have been paying close attention to it’s context, and my best guess is “MV’s” stands for “multi-versions”??

If this is indeed the case, than “no”, I don’t hate MV’s, or the people that use them.
--------------------------------------------------
But I do have a problem understanding anyone who can change Bibles, the way that I change shirts.

I go to my closet, and pick a shirt that looks good and is appropriate for that days weather.

Choosing a Bible, should not depend upon, what makes us feel good, nor which way the wind is blowing.
--------------------------------------------------
God’s Word, is settled. Both for ever in heaven, and for ever in print.

God’s Word, is for ever settled(in it’s original languages), within the accurate copies of the original autographs.

And unfortunately, God’s Word is for ever settled(in English), within the pages of the KJV. (I say unfortunate, because the KJV uses words that are not generally used any more.)

But we can’t do anything about that.

For all the people like me, who only read English, we are stuck with the KJV, because of what people like B.B.Warfiled did.
--------------------------------------------------
Some have accused me of saying, that God stopped working after 1611. This is not the case. What has actually happened, is an attack was launched against the Bible in the late 1800's, that continues to deceive people.

Oh, by the way, this attack was very cleaver, because it wasn’t launched directly at the KJV, but at the accurate copies of the original autographs, that the KJV was based upon.

And because it was a scholarly attack, then anyone and everyone that spoke against it, was(and is), accused of being anti-intellectual.

This accusation(of being anti-intellectual), has nothing to do with a persons education at all. Which was recently proven on this thread, when a man with the credentials of Dr. Floyd Jones, was called a crack pot, because he dared to support the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
I have seen these same kinds of attacks before, upon myself and others, for taking a stand on “Creation”, and daring to call Darwinism a lie.

This is the exact same thing.
Just as Darwinism has been scientifically debunked, yet it’s supporters continue to prop it up as a proven conclusion.

In the same way, the despicable works of BB Warfield, Wescott & Hort and others, has been throughly exposed, yet there supporters continue to prop them up, as great men, who did great things.
--------------------------------------------------
I know, that I make myself look like a fool, by supporting the KJV(and the accurate copies of the original autographs). But I think that it is important, to take a stand, in defense of God’s Word.

 

"This is the exact same thing."
Those bible-bashing intellectual scholars Copernicus and Galileo launched an attack against the Bible tarnishing its reputation to this very day!

Come take a stand with me against those that believe in a sun-centered solar system.

Rob

 

For example, this is the kind of twisted and skewed "interesting reads" that I find consistently in KJV-O materials. Notice the bizarre misuse of the word "scholars" (requiring quotes!), instead of simply copyists or scribes, clearly intended to 'frame' early any "scholars" into being heretics --

But this is outrageous --

First, a critical text is always a compilation of many texts. Second, how this any different for the Textus Receptus? It is difficult to determine if the subject matter is just grossly misunderstood or deliberately being misrepresented (double-standard); one is just as bad as the other.