scriptural case for or against KJV-only

[Logos1560]

You have not refuted me, but actually support my argument.

Your lack of understanding is amazing. You continue to skip over what Luke 22:1 stated. You close your eyes to the truth.

And to say the Jews did not celebrate pagan festivals is absurd, God condemned the Jews for pouring out drink offerings to the "Queen of Heaven" This was Astarte, from where we get "Easter".

Jer 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

What the Jews did before the Babylonian captivity is not evidence that they still did the same thing afterwards.

While the Jews in New Testament times had their sins, the New Testament does not assert that the Jews were doing what you suggest. Your appeal to that Old Testament verse does not support your suggestion that the same was happening in the New Testament. If your claim was correct, it would be suggesting that all the references to the Jews' observing passover in the New Testament should be understood to refer to them observing some pagan festival. Are you again trying to claim that the KJV is wrong at Luke 22:1?

You say the king would not do this, the word of God says different.

No, the word of God does not say different. Your assertion is bogus since the word of God does not say that Herod was observing any pagan festival or any festival at all. The word of God does not actually say that Herod was the one doing the observing. The Scriptures merely notes that Herod was waiting until after pascha [passover], but it does not say that he was observing it as you incorrectly claimed. Herod may possibly have been observing the Jewish Passover, but the Scripture does not say whether he was or not. Your comments reveal that you must be trying to read your incorrect assumptions or opinions into the passage.

It is the known historical evidence that asserts that this king Herod would observe Jewish customs, and what the Scripture actually stated does not contradict or conflict with that evidence.

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).


You continue to dodge the facts as you throw out your mere speculations.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[Winman]

Your lack of understanding is amazing. You continue to skip over what Luke 22:1 stated. You close your eyes to the truth.



What the Jews did before the Babylonian captivity is not evidence that they still did the same thing afterwards.

While the Jews in New Testament times had their sins, the New Testament does not assert that the Jews were doing what you suggest. Your appeal to that Old Testament verse does not support your suggestion that the same was happening in the New Testament. If your claim was correct, it would be suggesting that all the references to the Jews' observing passover in the New Testament should be understood to refer to them observing some pagan festival. Are you again trying to claim that the KJV is wrong at Luke 22:1?



No, the word of God does not say different. Your assertion is bogus since the word of God does not say that Herod was observing any pagan festival or any festival at all. The word of God does not actually say that Herod was the one doing the observing. The Scriptures merely notes that Herod was waiting until after pascha [passover], but it does not say that he was observing it as you incorrectly claimed. Herod may possibly have been observing the Jewish Passover, but the Scripture does not say whether he was or not. Your comments reveal that you must be trying to read your incorrect assumptions or opinions into the passage.

It is the known historical evidence that asserts that this king Herod would observe Jewish customs, and what the Scripture actually stated does not contradict or conflict with that evidence.

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).


You continue to dodge the facts as you throw out your mere speculations.

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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

 

[Winman]

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

Now let us look at Acts 12:3, 4:

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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."

Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.

Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

 

[thomas15]

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:

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

 

[Winman]

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

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.

 

[Logos1560]

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

One non-objective, biased KJV-only author does not equal "many scholars."

Samuel Gipp is just as wrong as you have been in this thread, incorrectly trying to claim that it was not possible that the Greek word pascha at Acts 12:4 could refer to the Jewish passover. You both contradict what Luke 22:1 states.

As pointed out several times although you close your eyes to this scriptural truth stated at Luke 22:1, the feast of unleavened bread was called passover in New Testament times.

Luke 22:1 in the KJV
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is called the Passover.

Luke 22:1 in the 1539 Great Bible
The feast of sweet bread drew nigh, which is called Easter.

Luke 22:1 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible
The feast of sweet bread (which is called Easter) drew nigh.

Ezekiel 45:21a in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible
Upon the xiii day of the first month ye shall keep Easter. Seven days shall the feast continue


Winman, you close your eyes to the facts from the 1500's and 1600's that demonstrate that the pre-1611 English Bibles used "Easter" to refer to the Jewish Passover, that the feast of unleavened bread was called Passover, that the godly translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible correctly translated the Greek word as "Passover" at Acts 12:4 with no one claiming in that day or in the 1600's that they were supposedly wrong, and that Bible scholars [including several that knew the KJV translators] after 1611 at the Westminster Assembly Divines maintained that the Passover was referred to at Acts 12:4.

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.”

At Acts 12:4, an edition of the KJV printed at London in 1660 has this marginal note: “Gr. The Passover.“

In their 1818 Oxford edition of the KJV, George D’Oyly and Richard Mant have this note for “Easter” at Acts 12:4: “’After the passover,‘ that is, after the days of unleavened bread, mentioned at verse 3” (Vol. 3).

 

[Mexdeaf]

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?

 

[Winman]

Winman, you close your eyes to the facts from the 1500's and 1600's that demonstrate that the pre-1611 English Bibles used "Easter" to refer to the Jewish Passover,

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.

 

[Amy.G]

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?

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

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.

 

[Winman]

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?

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

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

CONCLUSION :

In 1526 William Tyndale translated "pascha" into English by using the word "ester," because it was the ancient name of the month in which Passover fell. About a thousand years before that this name of a Saxon / Teutonic / Roman goddess had been adopted by the Roman Catholics and forced on the believers in Britain as having something to do with the resurrection of Christ. Nonetheless, in Tyndale's day it was a term accepted for the time of Passover. Tyndale, however, clearly differentiated the Pagan Easter from the Lord's Passover in his translation with phrases like "esterlambe" (Matt 26:19) and "the Iewes ester" (John 11:55), etc., and kept "paschall lambe" (Matt 26:17; John 18:28) as a reference point. It is important to note that he later coined a new word, "passover," for his translation of the Old Testament, although he never got around to revising the word in his New Testament. He most likely invented this new word because he saw the pagan connotation of the word "ester" which only designated the season.

In Tyndale's time he could legitimately use "ester" while God was preparing the English language for the 1611 translators, and then the word was expunged everywhere except in Acts 12:4 were it belongs. Thanks to God and his servant William Tyndale we now have in the English language both the word "Passover" and an etymological link to the true meaning of the word "Easter" found in Acts 12:4. He first used the word "ester" for Pashca in 1526 in his New Testament. Then in 1530 he coined the literal translation, "Passover," for his Old Testament using it in every place Pashca occurred. Then only 85 years later the only place "easter" was left was in Acts 12:4. Tyndale's work paved the way for our perfect King James Bible.

At least some of the 46 King James translators recognized the dilemma of making the Pashca of Acts 12:4 mean "the LORD'S Passover" (Ex 12:11, 27; Lev 23:5) because the context shows that they were already in "the days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3) which come after Passover. Realizing that it could not be the Passover prescribed in Exodus 12 they let Easter stand in that one place.

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

 

[Amy.G]

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.

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

 

[Winman]

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.

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: