Featured scriptural case for or against KJV-only

So we have gone over the issue yet again. No one with an objective mind would accept all these obviously phony perversions of truth.

You have folks claiming the KJV is based on superior Greek text, yet the WEB does not contain all those bogus sections found in the KJV. So if you take away the bogus, in my opinion Byzantine text type support, what you have left is irrational arguments in favor of the TR corruptions.

Using these say shuck and jive, run from the truth, tactics, Calvinism has been defended for 400 years. Hopefully the KJVO perversion will not enjoy such a long and bogus life.

 

I don't know where you have been Van, but the version of choice for Calvinists is the ESV.

 

Your whole theory is built on assuming that either the King James translators did not know they were translating a word that should be translated passover (a ridiculous idea considering the number of renowned scholars involved) as Easter, or that they purposely perverted the interpretation, which I think is just as ridiculous.

The more likely explanation is that the KJB translators knew this was not the Jewish passover and so drew a distinction here. They had already translated the word as passover 28 times, so they knew the word.

 

There's the "C" word again in a thread that has nothing to do with it. :laugh:

 

Here is what Sam Gipp wrote of Acts 12:3-4 and the issue we are discussing;

 

Winman calls up the heavy artillery. From the other side we hear the cry "Not fair!, not fair!" :tongue3:

 

Laugh if you wish, I am simply showing that many scholars believe Easter in Acts 12:4 referred to the pagan celebration.

 

Implying that Gipp is a "scholar" almost made me vomit on my keyboard.

 

That article itself is proof that he is not a scholar. He uses assumptions as facts.

 

One of you hates, detests, and despises those who are KJBO, you want to vomit, I would say you folks have some serious issues.

Maybe need to chill a little.

 

Would that ALL true believers would hate, detest, despise and want to vomit at FALSE DOCTRINE, amen?

 

Again, your theory is that the King James translators made a mistake and incorrectly translated this word as Easter, or that they purposely perverted the word of God. Both theories are equally ridiculous.

Here is a very detailed argument on the matter, I would copy and paste but it is quite long. It addresses your argument directly.

http://landmarkbiblebaptist.net/after-easter.html

Now, your mind is made up, I don't expect you to agree, but I have provided evidence for those with an open mind to see that the King James translators knew exactly what they were doing when they translated pascha as "Easter" at this one place (the other 28 times they translated it as "passover").

The KJB translators knew exactly what they were doing, this was the pagan festival, and that is why they translated it as Easter at this one place.

 

I don't doubt they knew what they were doing. I just don't know why. Why didn't Luke know it was a pagan festival? If he did know, why didn't he use a different word instead of pascha? The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write pascha, so again why??? if he was referring to a pagan festival called Easter?

 

Amazing the length of conjecture people will go to to defend error- just amazing.

From the link:

If Herod was himself a devotee of Astarte the text does not say, although he may well have been. But as a politician just as he wanted to please the Jews (Acts 12:3), he would have likewise have wanted to please the pagans of his kingdom. Ecumenicalism and religious duplicity has long been a common political tactic. This is probably what the Lord Jesus meant when He said, "Take heed, beware ... of the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). Herod Agrippa I pleased the Jews using the pretense of their religion, while at the same time showing favor to the pagan religious rites of Ishtar / Astarte. It was his political expertise, not Judaism, that led him to "vex certain of the church" and "to take Peter" (Acts 12:1-3). It was "because he saw it pleased the Jews" (Acts 12:3). This phrase, "he saw it pleased the Jews," itself implies that Herod was not himself a Jew. One thing is certain, no religious Jew would accept praise as a god as he did (Acts 12:21-23).

Some assert that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is synonymous with "Passover" in English, but Herod could not have been waiting till after "the LORD'S Passover" (Ex 12:11, 27; Lev 23:5) to "bring [Peter] forth to the people" (Acts 12:4), because Passover had already passed and they were already in "the days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3). The feast of unleavened bread is the second, after Passover, of the seven annual feasts of Israel. Even though the days of unleavened bread follow directly after Passover they are still two distinct feasts, and nowhere in the King James Bible is that second feast called Passover. Both the whole tenor of Scriptures and the context of the passage forbid it being the Hebrew Passover. Therefore, Herod was waiting until "after Easter," not till after the Hebrew Passover, to bring Peter forth to the people (Acts 12:4).

Circular arguments and conjecture.

 

You could read the article I provided a link for, it answers many of your questions.

http://landmarkbiblebaptist.net/after-easter.html

You see, Logos theory is that either an entire group of the world's greatest scholars on these ancient languages completely overlooked the word "pascha" at this one place, or that they all conspired together to pervert the word of God.

No, they understood that this was not the Jewish Passover, and so translated it Easter, a pagan festival that was practiced at this time by Rome.

Logos theory is not credible.

 

More conjecture.

How many of those scholars actually worked on Acts 12?

Did they even look at the original language manuscripts for Acts 12?

It is at least as credible to believe Logos as it is to believe your sources.

 

Why do you suppose the Geneva bible used the word passover? In fact, the word Easter never appears at all in the GB.

 

Well, I have no idea exactly how many of these scholars examined Acts 12:4, perhaps all of them. But it is not credible to believe these renowned scholars overlooked this word in this one single place, and it is not credible to believe they conspired together to corrupt the word of God.

It comes down to practicality and common sense, why would they translate pascha differently in this one single place?

Well, if you know the history you know they celebrated the pagan Easter, and this is the answer. Obviously this is what they concluded.

The whole problem arose because there was no Greek word for the passover. The word pascha came to have several meanings, it came to mean the Jewish passover, the Christian resurrection, and the pagan Easter.

It took time to sort out the correct application of pascha, in Acts 12:4 it is referring to the pagan festival.

But you are correct, Logos' theory is possible (not very credible though).

That makes it a draw. :thumbsup: