Please explain KJV

[robycop3]

I believe God is able to perserve his word in any translation or language. After all at the Tower of Babel he is the one that seperated the languages. I personally use KJV, NKJV, and NIV.

The NIV bible I use lists the verse it omitted at the bottom. That way I can still read it and be true to God's Word.

I used to be a KJV Only guy until I finally sat down and prayed and realized God is able to do ALL things. That also includes if he wants to perserve his word through another language, who am I to question that? God can do all things. We need to stop putting limits on him.

I have felt the Holy Spirit use me when preaching out of everyone of those translations. Jesus has saved many people in the church I serve at no matter what translation I was using.

Jesus is awesome! :thumbs:

But of course. GOD'S REAL TRUTH is that He may present His word to us in ANY MANNER HE JOLLY WELL CHOOSES. Can He not take care of His own word? No bogus version is gonna triumph over His LEGITIMATE renderings of His word.

One-Versionism is entirely man-made & is NOT found-let alone SUPPORTED-in Scripture whatsoever.

 

[Keith M]

Was using Easter wrong? Not in the strict sense, because readers might have understood that Passover and Easter were interchangeable.

I must disagree with you there, rsr. Although Passover and Easter may have been interchangable in the minds of readers, it was not always so. When the NT was written, and to the readers of that time, there was no Easter. The translation should have been an accurate reflection of what was intended by the original writers of the NT. Passover was readily understood by 17th century readers or the KJV translators would not have used it elsewhere in the KJV. Since Easter did not exist at the time the NT was written then Easter could have been at best a "dumbing down" of what was originally written. This "dumbing down" is something KJVO supporters accuse the translators of MVs of doing, and it is strongly condemned in the MVs. Yet here is a "dumbing down" found in the KJV and KJVO supporters will bend over backward to defend it. This is yet another good example of the double standards held by onlyists.

Was it the best choice? It seems unlikely from our perspective, and it was seen as problematic long before modern versions appeared, so this is far from a new issue. John Gill simply identifies Easter with the Passover in his commentary, while Adam Clarke 200 years ago said "Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd."

Clarke had his eggs in the right basket. Since the English word "Passover" was commonly used in the 17th century, use of the word "Easter" was a "gross impropriety" and "palpably absurd."

I wish defenders of the modern versions would desist from calling it an outright error or mistranslation. The only result of that, it seems, is to foster construction of wildly conjectural and convoluted arguments from those who believe that the KJV translators never made any questionable decisions, let alone outright errors.

If it wasn't en error in translation, then it certainly was a "dumbing down" of what had originally been written. This "dumbing down" is condemned by onlyists in the MVs. It is no less condemnable in the KJV. The use of Easter in Acts 12:4 was definitely a questionable decision since there was a better and more accurate term readily available and elsewhere used by KJV translators. It was definitely an error in judgment if not an error in translation. Why call an error anything but an error? We call a fish a fish don't we?

 

[Keith M]

Despite the errant claims of some folks, the KJV, like any other Bible translated by mankind, does have some errors.

Such as?....

Uh, Peter, since some of these errors are part of the discussion in this thread why don't you try reading the thread before you post such ridiculous questions? Errors in the KJVs have been documented in this and various other threads over and over again. Even though some folks refuse to accept the truth that the KJVs have errors the errors are still there. Try reading with an open mind and not the mindset that onlyism is right and that anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic who cannot possibly be right. Onlyism certainly isn't right - it is the product of man which has not an ounce of scriptural support in any Bible version.

 

[Hawaiiski]

Your comparison is not valid. Any translating then would have been part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. God had not finished giving new revelation, the miracle of direct inspiration was still being given, and the New Testament was not completed. Thus, Paul and other authors of N. T. books translated Old Testament passages as they were moved by the Holy Spirit or as it was revealed to them by the Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, Eph. 3:5).
QUOTE]

My comparison is valid. The fact that these translations in the originals occurred under inspiration of the Holy Spirit demonstrates that God's words remained flawless, even though translated into another language. This supports my point that a translation doesn't automatically render the words impure. You are contending that only an act of inspiration could allow God's words to be accurately translated into a pure form.

 

[Hawaiiski]

Was not every word and doctrine necessary to salvation already delivered by God to the prophets and apostles before A. D. 100 so why was additional revelation needed in 1611?

No more revelation and inspired Scripture have been given since the giving of the book of Revelation to the Apostle John (Rev. 22:18 ). The giving and writing of the Scriptures were finished with the completion of the New Testament (Rev. 22:18, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31). After the New Testament was completed, no further need for the gift of apostles and prophets existed (Rev. 22:18, 1 Cor. 13:10, Eph. 2:20, Eph. 3:5). KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer confirmed: “Obviously once the foundation was completed, there was no further need for the offices of apostle or prophet” (One Book Rightly Divided, p. 145).

I agree w/ your position of the canon of scripture & office of apostles, prophets, etc. I never stated that the KJV was additional revelation.

 

[Hawaiiski]

There are around 2,000 differences that affect the sound of words between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. There are around 4,000 differences between the present 2005 Cambridge KJV edition and the present Oxford KJV edition.

What are your sources for this info.?

 

[Hawaiiski]

Hawaiiski:In view of the differences between the TR & Alexandrian texts, both cannot be trustworthy. That much is logical. If you believe these verses were added to the Majority Text, why then do you recommend versions based upon this text in view of Deut. 4:2 & Prov. 30:6? This is inconsistent.

Sorry, but saying one or the other is corrupt WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE IT is incorrect.

The Four Gospels all differ among themselves, as do Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles. According to your logic about different 'families' of mss, only ONE of the Gospels and only ONE of the OT boox I named can be right. WHICH ONES?

Wrong. Your argument is equating canonical books w/ MS copies of those books. Big difference. I think all of us would agree that differences between the gospels existed in the inerrant originals. These legitimate differences aren't corruptions, but different narrative accounts, each providing unique details. However, textual variants among MS copies of a particular book would constitute a different category of differences. These differences would indicate some degree of corruption in at least some of the MSS.

 

[Keith M]

With all do respect Hank, the comments by Keith were dishonest in light of the facts, and then he tried to turn this back to a KJVO argument, which I never alluded to. I was only addressing whether this is an incorrect translation or not.

You can not base your opinion of the translation on a 21st century understanding of the word.

In the 17th century...Easter = Passover

And that is also verified by the fact that the man who created the word "Passover" (Tyndale) also used the word "Easter" when translating pashca.

(Tyndale's NT 1 Cor. 5:7)
7 Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs.

These are the facts.

You may not like the word choice (which is your right) but it is dishonest to say it is an error.

Understand that I do not hold to the wacky views of some KJVo on this matter, but we need to play fair an not throw around falsehoods as though they are fact.

Max

Max, the dishonesty is not on my part but on your own part and I would appreciate if you would stop making these false accusations. Your argument is invalid and therefore dishonest. The Tyndale NT (1526) does not have the word Passover in it at all. That is simply because the word was not in wide use. Had Tyndale used the word in his NT he would have been using a word the average reader would not have understood. Therefore at the time Tyndale's NT was translated "ester" (Easter) would have been a better and more understandable term. However, by the time the KJV was translated in the 17th century the word Passover was in common use and the average reader would have known what was meant by the word. This is shown by the widespread use of the word in the KJV except in Acts 12:4.

The argument has been made that Passover was not an accurate description of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is easily refuted by Strong's definition of pascha.

Pascha
1. the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt)
2. the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
3. the paschal supper
4.the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan
KJV (29) - Easter, 1; Passover, 28
NAS (29) - Passover, 29

- Strong's information obtained from http://www.studylight.org

That Passover was also used to indicate the feast accompanying the observance of the day of Passover itself totally negates the erroneous argument that the use of the word would not have been proper in Acts 12:4.

 

[Hawaiiski]

BUT...

Can you name a translation that doesn't have some goof somewhere? Newp!

If we had the original autographs, undoubtedly there would still be passages with which we would intellectually stumble. The fact that our finite minds can't comprehend everything doesn't dictate textual error.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What are your sources for this info.?

Logos' statements are well documented. He has authored a book showing all the differences.

 

[Hawaiiski]

In the Masoretic Text, Chronicles gives Jehoiachin's age as eitht when he began to reign, while Kings gives his age as eighTEEN when he began to reign. Only ONE can be right. Careta choose?

Even if I did conclude that one of these ages was in error (which I don't), this doesn't address my post to which you're responding. Your proposed contradiction would only be valid if you presented discrepancies between MSS of the same verse, not different books of the OT. You're repeating the same argument about differences in the gospels. My post dealt w/ entire verses omitted, not single word differences between different books.

 

[Keith M]

Many onlyists argue that the KJVs have no errors in them and that they are perfect in every way. When one book gives one age and another book gives another age for the same person at a particular point in time, both ages cannot possibly be correct - therefore one or both of them is an error. So while it is easy enough for various writers to have different viewpoints in their accounts, the age of an individual at a specific point in time is not a matter of interpretation. The 8/18 and 22/42 discrepancies in the KJVs are just two examples of places where one or both accounts must be wrong. Just these two examples totally refute the onlyist claim that the KJVs have absolutely no errors of any kind.

 

[HankD]

I believe we have lost sight of the fact that the original mss (autograph) and the accurate copies (apographs) of those originals alone can be called the "inspired" Word of God (that is God-breathed).

While a translation of the Word of God may be called inspired by derivation, to say that the 17th century words developed by the AV translators (or any other) are "God-breathed" can only be true if 1) those translators held the office of apostle/prophet and 2) The Holy Spirit moved them to do the work of translation and 3) The Holy Spirit supplied the very words Himself.

Of course everyone understands that God does what He wants when He wants with whomsoever He chooses. For the most part however and for our sakes He has rules and the AV translators (IMO) do not fulfill the rules of the pro-creation of the written Word of God as apostles/prophets moved by the Holy Spirit.

Now I suppose that one may claim that they do fulfill these requirements but then you would of necessity have to believe that dogma of the Church of England; that these men (well at least one of them) were recipients of the apostolic office by the laying on of hands (which they claim of the office of Bishop - then what does that make the Church of England but the true Church of Jesus Christ on planet earth).

There are other serious implications with this theory. Some KJVO authors claim that the Greek/Hebrew therefore has been done away and that the English Jacobean-Elizabethan period English not only is THE language of heaven but should be the basis of EVERY translation.

Not only that but the "so-called errors" are none other than "advanced revelation", revelation which could not be understood at the time by either the translators or the readers but special information to be revealed later.

In fact one such author has written a book defining at least 200 of these "advanced revelation" items of which he alone has had special revelation/insight.

This is exactly where this issue of "easter" in Acts 12 leads.

Is "easter" God-breathed or "passover"?

My view is that "pascha" is the God-breathed word and that the context of Acts 12 along with a comparison of like passages in the New Testament that "passover" would have/should have been the best word to use to represent the word which would have been God-breathed if English were the language of the human author of Acts.

In support of "easter": To be honest there is some support as to why they (AV translators) might have chosen the word "easter" in this place and this place only (Acts 12) for "pascha".

Acts is an historical book: In this place and this place only (Acts 12) of the historical books of the Bible is the mention of "pascha" post-resurrection of Christ.

If that was indeed the reason, I still believe they were being "ecclisiastic" in their choice and wrong to use the word "easter. Even today those who support "easter" cannot tell us for sure which "easter" is meant here, either the so-called misnomered Christian Resurrection Day or the Pagan fertility day.

BTW this was the complaint of Baptists and dissenters of the KJV, that the AV was an "ecclesiatic" version of the Bible produced by the King to displace the Geneva Bible. Another BTW: They also objected to the word "bishop" since it implied (to them) the self-proclaimed apostolic successionist view of the Church of England. A view which some KJVO Baptist seem (by implication) to support.


HankD

 

[Eliyahu]

The argument has been made that Passover was not an accurate description of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is easily refuted by Strong's definition of pascha.



- Strong's information obtained from http://www.studylight.org

That Passover was also used to indicate the feast accompanying the observance of the day of Passover itself totally negates the erroneous argument that the use of the word would not have been proper in Acts 12:4.

Does a dictionary or a Lexicon have the authority over the Bible itself?
I already found the limit of the Lexicon.
Does Strong indicate what was Greek word for Pasahu ( Ishtar Festival) ?

 

[robycop3]

Even if I did conclude that one of these ages was in error (which I don't), this doesn't address my post to which you're responding. Your proposed contradiction would only be valid if you presented discrepancies between MSS of the same verse, not different books of the OT. You're repeating the same argument about differences in the gospels. My post dealt w/ entire verses omitted, not single word differences between different books.

I'm merely giving you an example within the same groups of mss. This is tangible evidence, while you have no way to prove a given verse was OMITTED in one ms or ADDED in another. It's either a guessing game(which KJVOs love to play) or the game of"MY scholar kin whup YER scholar".

 

[robycop3]

HankD:

The ONLY possible valid explanation for the use of "Easter" here is that it was a throwback to the day when Easter = Passover before Tyndale coined "Passover" I it came into general use. This is the explanation Dr. cassidy offered a while back.

It stands to reason that if Herod didn'r wishta turn Peter over to the Jewish leadership because he, Herod, was observing some pagan feast, he woulda not busted peter to begin with. I believe V3 included the fact that the DULB were going on to give a reason for Herod's not immediately giving Peter to the Jews.

As for the "preparation of the passover", this was the prep day for the first of the two Holy Convocations of the week, a day where as much mundane work as possible was done to keep such work to a minimum on Convocation Day.

All these special observation days were called "High Sabbaths" whether or not they fell on a regular weekly Sabbath or not, with all the rules for a regular Sabbath observed, plus those rules that applied to the specific observance.

And the paschal lamb meal, the Holy Convocations, the preparation days, all the DULBs were all parta PASSOVER WEEK.

The explanation for Acts 12:3-4's events is very simple...the Jews simply wouldn'ta dealt with Peter during that week. so Herod intended to hold him till that week was over.

Now, before anyone says, "JESUS was crucified during Passover Week", please remember the Jews gave Him over to the Romans to deal with. Sure, they coulda taken Him out & stoned Him, but again they didn't wanna be ceremonially defiled during Passover. It was the ROMANS who actually inflictrd the abuse upon Jesus at the demand of the Jews.

 

[HankD]

Yes, Roby I agree and that seems the logical sense of the passage.

Still, I would like to know the reason the AV translators chose "easter" for "pascha" in Acts 4:12 when in every other place they used "passover".

There used to be an account that the KJV translators had originally included the word as "passover" in Acts 12:4 previous to the archetype going to press.

However the king was displeased that although mention had been made of "easter" in the Common Book of Prayer, it was not to be found in the AV New Testament as in other English versions and therefore Acts 12:4 was chosen by the translators as the most likely place to use it.

I have not had anyone able to document this.

HankD

 

[Eliyahu]

My defense is not based on Easter=Passover, but based on the assertion that Easter is different from Passover. The word Pascha itself can accomodate 2 or more meanings, it doesn't need necessarily to mean only Passover, but Ishtar Festival as well.
If you have B-D-B-G Hebrew Lexicon, you can find 6453 Pesach on p820, indicating Assyrian Pasahu. soothe, placate (deity)...
We cannot conclude so quickly, because some more archaeological discovery may prove it.

There are huge number of articles about Ishtar, Istar like followings:

It is quite probable that the non-Semitic name Agade may mean "crown (ago) of fire (de)"4 in allusion to Istar, "the brilliant goddess," the tutelar deity of the morning and evening star and the goddess of war and love, whose cult was observed in very early times in Agade.
(http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Akkad)

which was recited
by Ishtar and her maidens during the “month of wailings”, c_ UZuZu. ....

February-March, and that these wailings culminated in a festival of joy, which celebrated
the happy “reuniting of Dumuzi and Ishtar”, and which was observed at the time of the
vernal equinox, it is not at all difficult to see in the Sumerian season of wailing the prototype
of our Christian lenten season and in the union of Dumuzi and Ishtar the reuniting
of Christ

http://www.case.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/RADAU.SUMER30pt1/RADAU.SUMER30pt1intro.pdf

*************
Dumuzi while in the netherworld is “bewailed” by his “Bride” Ishtar, especially
during the month February-March (Ululu); but this is exactly the season of the Christian
lent, during which the church, the “Bride of the Lamb”, mourns over the death of her
“bridegroom”, Christ.
http://www.case.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/RADAU.SUMER30pt1/RADAU.SUMER30pt1intro.pdf

According as the one or the other aspect of such a power is brought into the foreground, Ishtar becomes the mother of mankind, the fertile earth, the goddess of sexual love, and the creative force among animals, while at times she appears in hymns and myths as the general personification of nature.



the god of heaven, andIshtar, the great mother-goddess, who symbolized fertility and vitality in general
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonian_and_Assyrian_religion


The /r?e/ of mother of mankind was also shared, as we have seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. And though the old Sumerian goddess, Ninkharsagga, the "Lady of the Mountains",

http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/ebmyth/ch3.html



We need some more study since there were several Chaldean language and culture specialists among KJV translators.
I believe that the original meaning of Pascha was the Ishtar or Istar Festival, and Passover or Pesach was translated into Pascha, borrowing the Greek word for Ishtar festival ( Pasahu). Therefore KJV translated 28 times as Passover, then once into Easter( Ishtar) as the context doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Does a dictionary or a Lexicon have the authority over the Bible itself?

Is this question worded in an insidious manner, or simply the wrong question altogether?

We recoil as an immediate reaction to any threat to the authority of the Bible, but bringing a dictionary to bear upon the meaning of an uncertain term is not an attack upon the authority of the Word of God. The authority of God's Word is over such things as the gospel presentation, and doctrines regulating the life of the believer and congregational worship. No one has suggested that we defer to an extrabiblical resource to establish our theology. The Bible does not address itself to the meaning of the language units of which it is composed. Bible interpretation is not diminished by fair use of a proper dictionary or a scholarly lexicon.

Perhaps the question truly was: "Does a lexicon have authority over the definitions of Greek words"... and the answer is: Yes, it does. This is precisely the means by which we have received our English translation; whether indirectly applied (through translators formally trained in Greek), or directly applied (the translators referring to resource material) during the act of translating.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Franklinmonroe: //"Does a lexicon have authority over the definitions of Greek words"... and the answer is: Yes,//

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Yes, or perchance the choice is:
Does your lexicon have authority over my definition of a Greek word?
Yes. But still there will be some who don't really know they
are demanding:
My misunderstanding of the English has priority & authority
over the Lexicon you are using. Sad.

My list of frequently misunderstood English passages
(as found in the KJVs) continues. Yes, my English dictionary
does trump folks misunderstanding of the term.

One of my favorites is the Tribulation Period,
the 7-year long 'day' of Daniel 9:27
which is called 'one week'.
Or how about the 1,000 year 'day' of 2 Peter 3:10 (see also
2 Peter 3:8)?
And I even write the prophetic equation:
1 year = 1 day = 7-years = 1,000-years
year = the appropriate time
day = the appropriate time
7-years = = the appropriate time for the Tribulation period
1,000 years = the appropriate time for the Millinnial Messanic Kingdom