New King James Version (NKJV)

[George Antonios]

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

Right. So you answered yourself. The two "persons" in v.1 is not any more wrong than the two "persons" in v.2.
Peter himself answered it for you.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Manuscripts first please.

have you not got as Greek NT?

 

[Logos1560]

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

In his 1671 book based partially on an earlier manuscript by Henry Jessey, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,” Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38).

Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? In his volume on Acts in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, B. H. Carroll observed: “Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the A. V. to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter” (p. 184). James Woolsey asserted: “To support, from the Scripture, the idea of Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, they suppress the original word which the Holy Ghost moved the inspired penman to use, and employed the Saxon word Easter” (Doctrine, p. 93). Concerning “Easter” at Acts 12:4, James Edmunds and T. S. Bell commented: “The excuse is, that by this utter disregard of what the Holy Spirit really said, the solemn feasts of the Church are sustained” (Discussion, p. 33).

The historic evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Right. So you answered yourself. The two "persons" in v.1 is not any more wrong than the two "persons" in v.2.

dude, PLEASE! In verse one there is only the ONE article in the Greek with the two nouns, meaning ONE PERSON.

In verse 2 each noun has the definite article, meaning TWO PERSONS!

I thought you were Greek?

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV itself affirmed that "our God and Saviour" is accurate and faithful to the Greek NT by its own rendering "our Lord and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:11. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the KJV is inaccurate in its rendering of 2 Peter 1:11?

At its note for 2 Peter 1:1, the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible noted: “Literally, ‘our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,‘ describing one divine person--the same Greek phrase appears in v. 11, but with ‘Lord” in place of ‘God.‘ Christ is Lord and God (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5)“ (p. 1829). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

Do KJV-only advocates oppose the same measures and principles being applied to 2 Peter 1:1 as would be applied to 2 Peter 1:11?

 

[SavedByGrace]

The KJV itself affirmed that "our God and Saviour" is accurate and faithful to the Greek NT by its own rendering "our Lord and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:11. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the KJV is inaccurate in its rendering of 2 Peter 1:11?

At its note for 2 Peter 1:1, the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible noted: “Literally, ‘our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,‘ describing one divine person--the same Greek phrase appears in v. 11, but with ‘Lord” in place of ‘God.‘ Christ is Lord and God (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5)“ (p. 1829). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

Do KJV-only advocates oppose the same measures and principles being applied to 2 Peter 1:1 as would be applied to 2 Peter 1:11?

also 2:20; 3:18

 

[George Antonios]

dude, PLEASE! In verse one there is only the ONE article in the Greek with the two nouns, meaning ONE PERSON.

In verse 2 each noun has the definite article, meaning TWO PERSONS!

I thought you were Greek?

I got that. Maybe if you slowed down a whit and tried to understand the other's point.
I'm saying that, by adding the articles in v.2, Peter told you how to understand v.1.
Just look at the parallel construction of both verses:

v.1 through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
v.2 through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord

You are quick to scorn before even understanding the other's point.
You can disagree, but try to understand it first please.

 

[George Antonios]

The KJV itself affirmed that "our God and Saviour" is accurate and faithful to the Greek NT by its own rendering "our Lord and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:11. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the KJV is inaccurate in its rendering of 2 Peter 1:11?

At its note for 2 Peter 1:1, the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible noted: “Literally, ‘our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,‘ describing one divine person--the same Greek phrase appears in v. 11, but with ‘Lord” in place of ‘God.‘ Christ is Lord and God (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5)“ (p. 1829). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

Do KJV-only advocates oppose the same measures and principles being applied to 2 Peter 1:1 as would be applied to 2 Peter 1:11?

See post #67.

 

[Logos1560]

You are quick to scorn before even understanding the other's point.
You can disagree, but try to understand it first please.

You do not practice what you preach since you do not seem to try to understand the points of the posters with which you disagree.
In the phrases being discussed, you ignored how verse 2 differs from the construction of verse one while verse 11 has the same construction as verse 1. Perhaps you jump to wrong conclusions based on the English while you ignore the Greek.

 

[George Antonios]

In his 1671 book based partially on an earlier manuscript by Henry Jessey, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,” Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38).

Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? In his volume on Acts in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, B. H. Carroll observed: “Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the A. V. to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter” (p. 184). James Woolsey asserted: “To support, from the Scripture, the idea of Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, they suppress the original word which the Holy Ghost moved the inspired penman to use, and employed the Saxon word Easter” (Doctrine, p. 93). Concerning “Easter” at Acts 12:4, James Edmunds and T. S. Bell commented: “The excuse is, that by this utter disregard of what the Holy Spirit really said, the solemn feasts of the Church are sustained” (Discussion, p. 33).

The historic evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

I always appreciate a well researched point. Not having researched that particular aspect myself, I am willing to go along with you.
But first, a nuance:

Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning?

Don't forget "or to use words familiar to the people?" Surely, the motives were many and mingled.

This is as with the word "church". Many claim it was kept as "church" to bolster the position of state-churches. But it was also because the word "church" was the common word.

So I will go along with you. A prelate changed it back from "passover" to "easter".
There being factions in the KJB translators, part of the motive may have been to bolster some position, as with the word "church".

In the end, that's what we got, and God, who ultimately presides over the prelates and his word, blessed.

It's not a mistake/error.
And I'll be wishing you happy Easter soon, Lord willing

 

[George Antonios]

You do not practice what you preach since you do not seem to try to understand the points of the posters with which you disagree.

That's it? I'll take it.

 

[robycop3]

That's a canard if I ever heard one.

Easter is the proper word. At the very least you can check the pro arguments:

Easter in Tyndale's Bible Before KJV


Easter | Origin, History, Name, Facts, & Dates


Is the Name “Easter” of Pagan Origin?

I've checked them many times.

First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke worte "Acts". And even if it had, neither Herod nor the Jewish religious leaders he was trying to please would've left off from dealing with Peter to have observed it.

Next, the Greek word used there is 'pascha', which, in Luke's time, meant only 'passover'. Pascha is the same word JESUS is quoted as using for passover. (Unless one believes Jesus observed Easter ! LOL)

Acts 12:3 makes it plain passover was ongoing at that time.

I fully recognize that Easter & "pask, etc." were interchangeable "back in the day.' (At the same time, the F-bomb was an everyday English word meanint 'to pierce. The common kestrel was called the 'windf***er'. And I know pascha can mean either Easter or passover in modern Greek, depending upon the context. But again, in Luke's time there was no Easter. Even Hillebrand's article you cite says there was no Easter observance til the 2nd century.

Remember, when Herod's men whacked James at herod's order, it pleased those Jews. So Herod sought to please them further by letting THEM whack Peter. And Herod knew those Jews wouldn't so much as touch Peter's robe during passover, lest they become ceremonially defiled. (in their own eyes) Thus, Herod captured Peter before he could leave his bailiwick, intending to let the Jews have him after passover was through.

 

[George Antonios]

I've checked them many times.

First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke worte "Acts". And even if it had, neither Herod nor the Jewish religious leaders he was trying to please would've left off from dealing with Peter to have observed it.

Next, the Greek word used there is 'pascha', which, in Luke's time, meant only 'passover'. Pascha is the same word JESUS is quoted as using for passover. (Unless one believes Jesus observed Easter ! LOL)

Acts 12:3 makes it plain passover was ongoing at that time.

I fully recognize that Easter & "pask, etc." were interchangeable "back in the day.' (At the same time, the F-bomb was an everyday English word meanint 'to pierce. The common kestrel was called the 'windf***er'. And I know pascha can mean either Easter or passover in modern Greek, depending upon the context. But again, in Luke's time there was no Easter.

So, I don't disagree with your points, and you don't disagree with mine. Great.
I even agreed with @Logos1560 yesterday.
We're all making progress in establishing that there is not true mistake/error in the KJB.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I got that. Maybe if you slowed down a whit and tried to understand the other's point.
I'm saying that, by adding the articles in v.2, Peter told you how to understand v.1.
Just look at the parallel construction of both verses:

v.1 through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
v.2 through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord

You are quick to scorn before even understanding the other's point.
You can disagree, but try to understand it first please.

Verse 1 is wrong English

 

[Logos1560]

We're all making progress in establishing that there is not true mistake/error in the KJB.

Incorrect conclusion. You have not at all established that there is no true mistake/error in the 1611 KJV.
There were true actual mistakes/errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV and in later editions of the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

So, I don't disagree with your points, and you don't disagree with mine. Great.
I even agreed with @Logos1560 yesterday.
We're all making progress in establishing that there is not true mistake/error in the KJB.

What's a "KJB"? A new model Jaguar sportster?

There are PLENTY of goofs in the KJV. "Easter" is just one of them.

Can you show us an ancient Greek manuscript of Revelation that has the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5?

The KJV's Ex. 20:13 says "Thou shalt not KILL" but Ex. 21 prescribes the DEATH PENALTY for certain offenses. It can't be both ways? The PROPER translation is "You shall not MURDER".

I can go on all day with KJV goofs & booboos, but I only need one to show it's not perfect.

 

[Logos1560]

That may be the case, maybe, and clearly, God blessed the choice.

Because a rendering is found in one edition or many editions of the KJV does not mean that God blessed and approved of it. The rendering "the passover" is found in the 1560 Geneva Bible at Acts 12:4, and use of that English translation was blessed by God.

Does your erroneous reasoning suggest that God blessed and approved the name of the wrong king [Jehoiachin] at 2 Kings 24:19 in the 1611 edition kept uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the BIshops' Bible or the name of the wrong group of people [Amorites] at 1 Kings 11:5 in the 1611 edition kept uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible?

Does your incorrect opinion suggest that God approved the name of the wrong person [Zithri] at Exodus 6:21 [likely introduced by the printer from the last word of Exodus 6:22] in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions for over 100 years?

 

[robycop3]

I always appreciate a well researched point. Not having researched that particular aspect myself, I am willing to go along with you.
But first, a nuance:


Don't forget "or to use words familiar to the people?" Surely, the motives were many and mingled.

This is as with the word "church". Many claim it was kept as "church" to bolster the position of state-churches. But it was also because the word "church" was the common word.

So I will go along with you. A prelate changed it back from "passover" to "easter".
There being factions in the KJB translators, part of the motive may have been to bolster some position, as with the word "church".

In the end, that's what we got, and God, who ultimately presides over the prelates and his word, blessed.

It's not a mistake/error.
And I'll be wishing you happy Easter soon, Lord willing

Yes, "Easter" in the KJV's is a glaring error, no matter who inserted it there.

The translation is supposed to reflect the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S written thoughts, & Luke was certainly not thinking about Easter, as it didn't then exist. And also remember that Tyndale coined 'passover' in C. 1534 to differentiate between passover & Easter. And by the time the AV was made, passover had come into general use.(Remember, it was used in Acts 12:4 in the 1560 Geneva.) And we see that pascha appears 29 times in the Greek, & is rendered 'passover' 28 times in the KJV. There's simply NO actual justification for Easter being in that verse.

 

[George Antonios]

The rendering "the passover" is found in the 1560 Geneva Bible at Acts 12:4, and use of that English translation was blessed by God.

I didn't say it wasn't. I don't think "passover" is a mistake/error either.

You're often debating things I'm not debating.

 

[George Antonios]

Yes, "Easter" in the KJV's is a glaring error, no matter who inserted it there. The translation is supposed to reflect the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S written thoughts, & Luke was certainly not thinking about Easter, as it didn't then exist. And also remember that Tyndale coined 'passover' in C. 1534 to differentiate between passover & Easter. And by the time the AV was made, passover had come into general use.(Remember, it was used in Acts 12:4 in the 1560 Geneva.) And we see that pascha appears 29 times in the Greek, & is rendered 'passover' 28 times in the KJV. There's simply NO actual justification for Easter being in that verse.

If you believe (the dubious claim) that the Lord and the apostles were quoting the Septuagint, how do you explain this?
Occasions where The Septuagint Is Supposedly Quoted in the New Testament differently than the sense of the Hebrew text
Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gen 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16
Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21
Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28
My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17
A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9
The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8
Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13
Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10
Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6
Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26
Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13
Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14
They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12
Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28
Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18
I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6
That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4
They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12
Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10
He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31
Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7
Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11
And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12
I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13
The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6
The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6
God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr 3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5
And if the righteous is scarcely saved,
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18
If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20
Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
we should have been as Sodom