• 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!

No Conflict In The KJV

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, Roby, tell us once again so everyone not familiar with you can see how crazy your belief is......where did Cain get his wife? Enlighten us all. Tell everyone how you believe God created an entire other human race, and that Cain's wife came from this other race of people. You've posted that belief in the past. That's as phony as a Ford Corvette, as someone likes to say. Explain how and why you don't believe Scripture when it clearly states that Eve was the mother of ALL LIVING.

And, no, I'm not KJVO. I use an ESV at the moment. I've also used an NIV and an NASB. I just call you out for criticizing KJVO only people for their belief, when YOURS is even crazier than theirs! That's pretty hypocritical.
 
Last edited:

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For Cain to marry his sister or any other close relation was not harmful as it is today. There would be few if any genetic disorders at this time. However, as time past, the human race accumulated more and more genetic defects, so by the time of Moses, the laws against incest, as given in ( Leviticus 18:1-20:27 ) , were necessary. These laws helped prevent deformed children... Brother Glen:)

From the writings of John Gill
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
You did not clear it up. William Tyndale used "Easter" for the Jewish passover, not for a claimed pagan festival. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has “Easter” at many verses, especially in the Old Testament (Lev. 23:5, Num. 9:2, Josh. 5:10, . . . Ezek. 45:21), which the KJV changed to “passover.“

You do not demonstrate that Luke claims that King Herod was the one who was observing the passover, and you do not demonstrate that Herod would have been observing some pagan festival.
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). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322). Likewise, the 1645 Westminster Annotations have this note on “the days of unleavened bread” at Acts 12:4: “These words intimate the cause why he deferred Peter’s execution, for reverence of the Passover, which lasted eight days.” In the 1695 second edition of his Paraphrase on the New Testament, Richard Baxter has this note on Acts 12:4: “He set sixteen soldiers to keep him, that after the Passover he might sacrifice him to the people.”

You seem to be ignoring the context at Acts 12:4. The immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “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 Bible verse or context does not directly say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 could be referring to or would be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. In Acts 12:11, it refers to “the expectation of the people of the Jews.” Therefore according to the context, the Jews were clearly the people that Herod wanted to please again by his further action. 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. Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration. Therefore, the clear evidence from the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread in Luke 22:1] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.

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 12:3-4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1.

Perhaps your interpretation of Acts 12:4 would make that verse in the KJV conflict with Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21.
History, precedent, and practice does not support that Jews were reluctant to execute someone on the Passover festival if they thought he needed to be killed. This was the same city and the same Jews that put Jesus Christ to death just a few years before during this festival.

As a matter of fact there is no indication from the text that Herod was honoring any request or desire of the Jews concerning the Passover. Here is what is said:


Acts 12:1-4
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The fact that he was incensed with the keepers of the prisoner and killed them without any urging from the Jews to do so suggests he was carrying out his own agenda.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Luke added a parenthetical statement (then were the days of unleavened bread) to give the reason for Herod to delay putting Peter to death. The city would have been full of those from several nations who had come to the festival and it was a prudent decision to wait until they had departed, for obvious reasons. We don’t know how long after Easter it was until Peter was sent for by Herod.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “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 Bible verse or context does not directly say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 could be referring to or would be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. In Acts 12:11, it refers to “the expectation of the people of the Jews.” Therefore according to the context, the Jews were clearly the people that Herod wanted to please again by his further action. 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. Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration. Therefore, the clear evidence from the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread in Luke 22:1] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.

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 12:3-4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
We are not told why Herod killed James but it must have had something to do with his testimony as a Christian Jew or his preaching. The language certainly makes it clear that Jews were not involved since Luke stated that Herod saw it pleased them after the fact of his killing James. Apparently he had the same grievance against Peter and so he arrested him sometimes later and it was by happenstance during the Jewish festival. Luke could have made mention of the event to explain why Peter was in Jerusalem. Barnabas and Paul were in Jerusalem for this festival and were not arrested. Those Jewish Christians at the prayer meeting were not arrested.

Everything seems to point to a personal grievance that caused Herod to want to kill Peter and not a concerted effort of him and the Jews. It is more than likely that Herod was observing a personal Holiday.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
In the KJV there is a contradictory account of Jesus to Saul between Acts of the Apostles 9:5 and Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15 accounts.
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In the KJV there is a contradictory account of Jesus to Saul between Acts of the Apostles 9:5 and Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15 accounts.

The conflict is in Saul who was a law keeper... He hadn't yet realized that the law he served had already been fulfilled in Christ... He was still serving the God of his forefathers... Touching the law blameless... Who art thou Lord?... He was just about to meet the Lords Christ and when he did everything for him would change... Brother Glen:)
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Acts of the Apostles 9:5-6, And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15, And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Acts of the Apostles 9:5-6, And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15, And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Where is it?
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who knows who the wives of Cain and Abel were but they were not 16 years old when they married and Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters but one thing is sure, all the children of men can trace their genealogy back to Adam, even you and your wife. Two thousand years later, after Cain and Abel married, one of the greatest men who ever lived married his sister. Abraham.
She was his HALF-sister.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, Roby, tell us once again so everyone not familiar with you can see how crazy your belief is......where did Cain get his wife? Enlighten us all. Tell everyone how you believe God created an entire other human race, and that Cain's wife came from this other race of people. You've posted that belief in the past. That's as phony as a Ford Corvette, as someone likes to say. Explain how and why you don't believe Scripture when it clearly states that Eve was the mother of ALL LIVING.

And, no, I'm not KJVO. I use an ESV at the moment. I've also used an NIV and an NASB. I just call you out for criticizing KJVO only people for their belief, when YOURS is even crazier than theirs! That's pretty hypocritical.
God has always looked down on marrying one's full sibling, so YOU tell os where Cain got his wife. YOU brought this jive up in this thread, not I, so YOU explain it.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Simple, Cain married a sister or niece. God did not condemn marrying close relatives until much later because the gene pool had not been corrupted yet. Now, you explain why you don't believe Eve was the mother of all living as Scripture says. Could it be you don't want others to know because that will destroy your credibility? That's the only reason I brought this up. To show your hypocrisy in calling out people for their KJVOnlyism, when you're just as bad with your belief that God created another race of people apart from Adam and Eve. You get so upset when I call you out on this, I wonder why? I'll back off now before you bust a blood vessel or something!
 
Last edited:

MrW

Well-Known Member
Very simple. Luke used pascha in Acts 12:4, the same word he used for passover in other passages. In his time, pascha meant only passover. And EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST ! No such thing as a pagan Easter! Remember, Caesar sent Herod to PLEASE the Jews. Whcacing James pleased them, so se sought to please them more by letting them dom as they wished with Peter. He knew the Jews wouldn't handle him during Passover Week, so he intended to detain Peter til passover ended. No Easter had anything to do with it !

"Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a goof in the KJV that KJVOs won't admit to !

It’s not a goof. The translators knew the English were familiar with Easter, Passover not so much.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It’s not a goof. The translators knew the English were familiar with Easter, Passover not so much.
Yes, it IS. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts" and if it had, neither Herod nor the Jews would've observed it. There are several articles in this forum dealing with that issue.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Simple, Cain married a sister or niece. God did not condemn marrying close relatives until much later because the gene pool had not been corrupted yet. Now, you explain why you don't believe Eve was the mother of all living as Scripture says. Could it be you don't want others to know because that will destroy your credibility? That's the only reason I brought this up. To show your hypocrisy in calling out people for their KJVOnlyism, when you're just as bad with your belief that God created another race of people apart from Adam and Eve. You get so upset when I call you out on this, I wonder why? I'll back off now before you bust a blood vessel or something!
For one thing, I'm tired of it. You're not gonna change mi belief, nor will I change yours. God has always condemned marriage between full siblings, & that's THAT !
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Yes, it IS. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts" and if it had, neither Herod nor the Jews would've observed it. There are several articles in this forum dealing with that issue.
Tyndale when he translated the New Testament used ester to translate πασχα. Was not until later when he came to translating the Hebrew הַפָּֽסַח, Tyndale invented our English word passeouer.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
In the KJV there is a contradictory account
of Jesus to Saul
between
Acts of the Apostles 9:5
and Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15 accounts.

I don't see it...

So, I say, THIS:
Who said what first?
Jesus? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

JUST CAME BEFORE THIS:
Or Saul? Who art thou, Lord?

LIKE THIS:
Acts 26:14-15, Acts 9:5-6

Acts of the Apostles 26:14-15/ 9:5-6 Combination;

"And when we were all fallen to the earth,
I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue,"

"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

"And I said, Who art thou, Lord?"
=
(repeat: "And he said, Who art thou, Lord?")

"And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest" =
(repeat: "And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest".)

"but rise, and enter into the city,
and it shall be told thee what thou must do."
 
Top