scriptural case for or against KJV-only

[jbh28]

That's your argument? I am right because I am right?

That's a foolish statement that screams you didn't read what I wrote. Nobody on the planet denies that Pascha means passover. (oh, an I love the irony of this phrase)

Anything is POSSIBLE, but that doesn't make it likely. It is possible a large group of renowned scholars ALL overlooked this word, or mistranslated it, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.

1)That's not an argument for this being correct as it begs the question that it would be "highly unlikely." 2) We already have evidence of where the groups were inconsistent in translation. So no, not highly unlikely with evidence it already happened. You surly don't think that having a group means no errors are possible do you? You do realize that groups of renowned scholars also disagree....

No, it is far more likely that these scholars recognized this verse was not speaking of the Jewish passover, but the pagan Easter which was indeed celebrated at this time. Where do you think we got Easter with bunny rabbits, and Easter eggs?

But saying you are right because you are right is not an argument.

You didn't address anything I said. In face you showed you didn't even actually read it. It doesn't matter why they did what they did because nobody knows why. They are not around to tell us.

Now, address the argument presented. You have provided no sound evidence that it should be Easter instead of Passover. Please show us from the text that the word "pascha" should be interpreted as a pagan holiday instead of the Passover which is being spoken about in the context.

 

[jbh28]

I have read that Luke 22:1 is an EXCEPTION, it is the only time that all 8 days are referred to as the passover. You cannot use one exception (if it indeed is an exception) to argue that Acts 12:4 should say passover.

Of course not. We have to interpret Acts 12:4 by what is meant there. What it does prove is that referring to all the days as Passover is correct(as you have admitted). So the argument that Passover had already happened is not moot.

 

[jbh28]

Clearly Easter is another word for Passover.

Was..not is. We didn't have the word passover. Once we did, we used the word Passover. Of course with any language, words take time to change in meanings. Think of all the words the KJV used that mean something different today like "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15. Study used to mean diligent. It no longer does. The KJV is not in any error by using a word that meant diligent in 1611 for that verse. Any translation today however would be since it no longer means that.


As far as the KJV using Easter here, the definition of Easter and Passover had been separated. Even the 1755 dictionary(the oldest I can find online) doesn't mention Passover as a meaning in Easter.

As I told Winman though, it doesn't matter really what the KJV translators meant here as it does with what Luke meant when he wrote it. All evidence points to Luke meaning Passover and not Easter. The KJV translators are inconsistent at least on this point.

 

[Rippon]

Why does anyone care what I and other KJO folks believe?

Because as professing believers you are propogating error which needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

10 pages +

Samo samo

Genug ist genug