Supposedly "KJV Only" Refuted At This Link

[robycop3]

I can say that the Passover is designated as the 14th day of the first month followed by the 7 days of unleavened bread. Leviticus 23:5 Numbers 9:5 & Joshua 5:10 & 2 Chronicles 35:1 are confirmations as to that specific day.

However.. Luke 22:1 & Luke 22:7 does associate the first day of the unleavened bread as the Passover for when the Passover must be killed.

Still, the word Greek pascha "of Chaldee origin (compare pecach 6453); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):--Easter, Passover. in comparing to pecach "from 'pacach' (6452); a pretermission, i.e. exemption; used only techically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim):--passover (offering)."

I see that the Greek use of the term Passover is associating the 7 days of the unleavened bread with that specific day of Passover as given the example in Luke. What is confusing is that after the Passover are the 7 days of the unleavened bread.

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. KJV

Since Luke also had written the Book of Acts, Luke seems to be combining the 7 days of the unleavened bread with the Passover. I could understand why the KJV translators switched out Easter for Passover in Acts 12:4, in respect to the O.T. but why is Luke blurring the Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread that follows it? Could it be from being in occupied Israel? Could the Jewish people have been influenced to call the first day of Passover also as the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread in spite of scripture designating the very next day as the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread? Sort of like the non-Jews were the ones that associated Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread & evil communications corrupt good manners ( 1 Corinthians 15:33 ) whereby the Jews began associating Passover as the first day of unleavened bread when really, it started the next day.

Seems like the KJV translators should have gone with "after the 7 days of the unleavened bread" rather than passover or Easter just to be clear in Acts 12:4 but that is how Luke had written in the Greek.

I am not moved to see Easter as an error but He shall help me to defer from what many are claiming it to be the Holiday Easter as if that is what Acts 12:4 was referring to but just being a term meaning after the 7 days of the unleavened bread.

Chaldee transliterated "p'sach", same as the Greex did. The word was first used by GOD HIMSELF. And again, there are NO known usages in the 1st century for pascha other than PASSOVER.

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". It's quite a stretch to say Luke was writing about it, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT WITH VERSE 3.

I can say that the Passover is designated as the 14th day of the first month followed by the 7 days of unleavened bread. Leviticus 23:5 Numbers 9:5 & Joshua 5:10 & 2 Chronicles 35:1 are confirmations as to that specific day.

However.. Luke 22:1 & Luke 22:7 does associate the first day of the unleavened bread as the Passover for when the Passover must be killed.

Still, the word Greek pascha "of Chaldee origin (compare pecach 6453); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):--Easter, Passover. in comparing to pecach "from 'pacach' (6452); a pretermission, i.e. exemption; used only techically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim):--passover (offering)."

I see that the Greek use of the term Passover is associating the 7 days of the unleavened bread with that specific day of Passover as given the example in Luke. What is confusing is that after the Passover are the 7 days of the unleavened bread.

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. KJV

Since Luke also had written the Book of Acts, Luke seems to be combining the 7 days of the unleavened bread with the Passover. I could understand why the KJV translators switched out Easter for Passover in Acts 12:4, in respect to the O.T. but why is Luke blurring the Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread that follows it? Could it be from being in occupied Israel? Could the Jewish people have been influenced to call the first day of Passover also as the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread in spite of scripture designating the very next day as the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread? Sort of like the non-Jews were the ones that associated Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread & evil communications corrupt good manners ( 1 Corinthians 15:33 ) whereby the Jews began associating Passover as the first day of unleavened bread when really, it started the next day.

Seems like the KJV translators should have gone with "after the 7 days of the unleavened bread" rather than passover or Easter just to be clear in Acts 12:4 but that is how Luke had written in the Greek.

I am not moved to see Easter as an error but He shall help me to defer from what many are claiming it to be the Holiday Easter as if that is what Acts 12:4 was referring to but just being a term meaning after the 7 days of the unleavened bread.

Luke wrote that Herod busted Peter, aiming to turn him over to the Jews AFTER PASSOVER. Luke knew the ENTIRE OBSERVANCE was called passover, as per Ez. 45:21.

And again, EASTER DID NOT THEN EXIST! So, Luke couldn't have POSSIBLY been referring to it! Just no getting past that big ole bear of a FACT! And NOWHERE do we see Easter used as a term referring to the post-passover time.

 

[Hark]

Chaldee transliterated "p'sach", same as the Greex did. The word was first used by GOD HIMSELF. And again, there are NO known usages in the 1st century for pascha other than PASSOVER.

The Hebrew word for Passover is pecach.

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". It's quite a stretch to say Luke was writing about it, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT WITH VERSE 3.

At this time, I can agree that Easter should not have been used, but seeing how there were over 50 KJV translators divided into 8 groups all checking each others work within the group & with other groups, I would rather see their reasons for switching it out to Easter because as you say, they left that same word in the Greek N.T. alone as Passover.

Luke wrote that Herod busted Peter, aiming to turn him over to the Jews AFTER PASSOVER. Luke knew the ENTIRE OBSERVANCE was called passover, as per Ez. 45:21.

Let me bolden the verse of your reference;

Ezekiel 45:21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. KJV

Now compare this with the following reference below:

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. KJV

That is how I keep reading Ezekiel 45:21 to mean. Passover & then the 7 days of the unleavened bread staring on the 15th

And again, EASTER DID NOT THEN EXIST! So, Luke couldn't have POSSIBLY been referring to it! Just no getting past that big ole bear of a FACT! And NOWHERE do we see Easter used as a term referring to the post-passover time.

Easter exists, but I agree that at this time the KJV translators should not have used Easter even if it was to defer the 7 days of the unleavened bread from the actual day of the Passover in keeping with Leviticus 23:5-6. They should have just used that generalized term to replace it as saying "after the 7 days of the unleavened bread" in Acts 12:4. As for Luke 22:1 & Luke 22:7 I am not sure why Luke would incorporate passover with it as being the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread when the O.T. has that first day on the 15th f that month whereas the Passover is marked as the 14th of that month other than Luke was using the word that is meant to combine both Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread even though Biblically, the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread is the fifteenth & not the fourteenth.

So we agree to disagree but this issue is not why I rely on the KJV when Easter or Passover is not supporting any heresy that leads believers astray. However most modern Bibles do cause believers t go astray but the truth in discerning that good & evil is found only in the KJV as far as I can see, even though it is still on the Lord Jesus Christ to cause the increase.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Hebrew word for Passover is pecach.



At this time, I can agree that Easter should not have been used, but seeing how there were over 50 KJV translators divided into 8 groups all checking each others work within the group & with other groups, I would rather see their reasons for switching it out to Easter because as you say, they left that same word in the Greek N.T. alone as Passover.



Let me bolden the verse of your reference;

Ezekiel 45:21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. KJV

Now compare this with the following reference below:

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. KJV

That is how I keep reading Ezekiel 45:21 to mean. Passover & then the 7 days of the unleavened bread staring on the 15th



Easter exists, but I agree that at this time the KJV translators should not have used Easter even if it was to defer the 7 days of the unleavened bread from the actual day of the Passover in keeping with Leviticus 23:5-6. They should have just used that generalized term to replace it as saying "after the 7 days of the unleavened bread" in Acts 12:4. As for Luke 22:1 & Luke 22:7 I am not sure why Luke would incorporate passover with it as being the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread when the O.T. has that first day on the 15th f that month whereas the Passover is marked as the 14th of that month other than Luke was using the word that is meant to combine both Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread even though Biblically, the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread is the fifteenth & not the fourteenth.

So we agree to disagree but this issue is not why I rely on the KJV when Easter or Passover is not supporting any heresy that leads believers astray. However most modern Bibles do cause believers t go astray but the truth in discerning that good & evil is found only in the KJV as far as I can see, even though it is still on the Lord Jesus Christ to cause the increase.

You do know that the nas and Esv support the Deity of Jesus even more so then the Kjv?

 

[Hark]

At this link is a thread I had started studying the Passover & the 7 Days of the Unleavened Bread.

Studying Passover & the 7 Days of Unleavened Bread | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

So it looks like Easter has to be done by other research.

Easter... or Passover? Acts 12:4

Quote below from this link above

"The word ‘passover’ was not known until it was used by William Tyndale in his Bible version (1526-31). Until that time no English Bible contained the word, which was left untranslated. Yet, ‘Easter’ was first used in his version. Wycliffe’s version referred to the Latin, pask or paske.

In Tyndale’s Bible, he used ‘Easter’ or ester, 14 times, and its allied words more times than that. However, in the Old Testament he retained ‘passover’. He is said to have interpreted ‘passover’ as ‘Easter’ in Paul’s book, because that is how the Christians (remember – by then including many gentiles/Romans and ex-pagans) in his day recognised the feast-day (pagan and Christian merging because they were about the same time). This, however, is only a partial answer."

To confirm this research I found Tyndale's Bible online.

Luke 22 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools

Luke 22:11 The feaste of swete breed drue nye whiche is called ester Tyndale's Bible

Luke 22:7 Then came ye daye of swete breed when of necessite the esterlambe must be offered. Tyndale's Bible

And most importantly;

Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people. Tyndale's Bible

Interesting. @robycop3 So Easter did exists in Tyndale's bible before the KJV translated pascha as such in Acts 12:4. FYI

 

[Logos1560]

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". It's quite a stretch to say Luke was writing about it, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT WITH VERSE 3.

.

Is this poster being incorrectly accused of suggesting that Easter did not exist in the 1500's or in 1611 when what he claimed was that "Easter simply did not exist when Luke wrote Acts"?

The above statement does not at all ignore or dismiss the fact that Tyndale used the rendering "Easter" in his NT translation.

 

[Hark]

Is this poster being incorrectly accused of suggesting that Easter did not exist in the 1500's or in 1611 when what he claimed was that "Easter simply did not exist when Luke wrote Acts"?

The above statement does not at all ignore or dismiss the fact that Tyndale used the rendering "Easter" in his NT translation.

You quoted only a part of that quote. The other statement above it was how I read or misread what he meant below.

"Chaldee transliterated "p'sach", same as the Greex did. The word was first used by GOD HIMSELF. And again, there are NO known usages in the 1st century for pascha other than PASSOVER.

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". It's quite a stretch to say Luke was writing about it, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT WITH VERSE 3."

Seeing how Passover wasn't being used because pascha was left untranslated, until Tyndale's bible;... I took his meaning that it was always Passover & that Easter did not exist when "Luke" wrote Acts even though when Luke had written Acts, it was left untranslated. as it was neither read as Passover nor Easter

Anyway, more like 2 ships passing each other in the night at that point. Whether I read him or misread him, he came across as testifying that Easter was never used & they ( the KJV translators ) had pulled it out of nowhere in the course of our discussion as if Passover was always used in translation of pascha.

As it turned out by your information, the KJV translators did had it as passover in Acts 12:4 but the prelate changed it to Easter as one of the 14 changes he had done to the KJV. It solved the mystery on how Easter got passed by all those KJV translators when they had used Passover in the rest of the Bible, especially when over 50 translators divided into 8 groups as they were to check the work within the group & then the work of the group was checked by other groups.

 

[Yeshua1]

You quoted only a part of that quote. The other statement above it was how I read or misread what he meant below.

"Chaldee transliterated "p'sach", same as the Greex did. The word was first used by GOD HIMSELF. And again, there are NO known usages in the 1st century for pascha other than PASSOVER.

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". It's quite a stretch to say Luke was writing about it, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT WITH VERSE 3."

Seeing how Passover wasn't being used because pascha was left untranslated, until Tyndale's bible;... I took his meaning that it was always Passover & that Easter did not exist when "Luke" wrote Acts even though when Luke had written Acts, it was left untranslated. as it was neither read as Passover nor Easter

Anyway, more like 2 ships passing each other in the night at that point. Whether I read him or misread him, he came across as testifying that Easter was never used & they ( the KJV translators ) had pulled it out of nowhere in the course of our discussion as if Passover was always used in translation of pascha.

As it turned out by your information, the KJV translators did had it as passover in Acts 12:4 but the prelate changed it to Easter as one of the 14 changes he had done to the KJV. It solved the mystery on how Easter got passed by all those KJV translators when they had used Passover in the rest of the Bible, especially when over 50 translators divided into 8 groups as they were to check the work within the group & then the work of the group was checked by other groups.

Easter wrong word to use, as had it right with passover!

 

[robycop3]

At this link is a thread I had started studying the Passover & the 7 Days of the Unleavened Bread.

Studying Passover & the 7 Days of Unleavened Bread | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

So it looks like Easter has to be done by other research.

Easter... or Passover? Acts 12:4

Quote below from this link above

"The word ‘passover’ was not known until it was used by William Tyndale in his Bible version (1526-31). Until that time no English Bible contained the word, which was left untranslated. Yet, ‘Easter’ was first used in his version. Wycliffe’s version referred to the Latin, pask or paske.

In Tyndale’s Bible, he used ‘Easter’ or ester, 14 times, and its allied words more times than that. However, in the Old Testament he retained ‘passover’. He is said to have interpreted ‘passover’ as ‘Easter’ in Paul’s book, because that is how the Christians (remember – by then including many gentiles/Romans and ex-pagans) in his day recognised the feast-day (pagan and Christian merging because they were about the same time). This, however, is only a partial answer."

To confirm this research I found Tyndale's Bible online.

Luke 22 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools

Luke 22:11 The feaste of swete breed drue nye whiche is called ester Tyndale's Bible

Luke 22:7 Then came ye daye of swete breed when of necessite the esterlambe must be offered. Tyndale's Bible

And most importantly;

Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people. Tyndale's Bible

Interesting. @robycop3 So Easter did exists in Tyndale's bible before the KJV translated pascha as such in Acts 12:4. FYI

Never said otherwise. But by the time the KJV was made, it was nor used for passover any more.

And before you use the angle, "Modern Greek uses pascha for either Easter or passover", it meant ONLY PASSOVER in LUKE'Stime.

 

[robycop3]

The Hebrew word for Passover is pecach.



At this time, I can agree that Easter should not have been used, but seeing how there were over 50 KJV translators divided into 8 groups all checking each others work within the group & with other groups, I would rather see their reasons for switching it out to Easter because as you say, they left that same word in the Greek N.T. alone as Passover.



Let me bolden the verse of your reference;

Ezekiel 45:21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. KJV

Now compare this with the following reference below:

Leviticus 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. KJV

That is how I keep reading Ezekiel 45:21 to mean. Passover & then the 7 days of the unleavened bread staring on the 15th



Easter exists, but I agree that at this time the KJV translators should not have used Easter even if it was to defer the 7 days of the unleavened bread from the actual day of the Passover in keeping with Leviticus 23:5-6. They should have just used that generalized term to replace it as saying "after the 7 days of the unleavened bread" in Acts 12:4. As for Luke 22:1 & Luke 22:7 I am not sure why Luke would incorporate passover with it as being the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread when the O.T. has that first day on the 15th f that month whereas the Passover is marked as the 14th of that month other than Luke was using the word that is meant to combine both Passover with the 7 days of the unleavened bread even though Biblically, the first day of the 7 days of unleavened bread is the fifteenth & not the fourteenth.

So we agree to disagree but this issue is not why I rely on the KJV when Easter or Passover is not supporting any heresy that leads believers astray. However most modern Bibles do cause believers t go astray but the truth in discerning that good & evil is found only in the KJV as far as I can see, even though it is still on the Lord Jesus Christ to cause the increase.

Actually, you rely on the KJV because you're in thrall to the KJVO myth & thus ignore its goofs & booboos.

 

[Hark]

Never said otherwise. But by the time the KJV was made, it was nor used for passover any more.

And before you use the angle, "Modern Greek uses pascha for either Easter or passover", it meant ONLY PASSOVER in LUKE'Stime.

Since it was never translated as Passover, they had used Easter in reference with Passover thus never intending to use it to mean anything else for pascha in the verse.

 

[Hark]

Actually, you rely on the KJV because you're in thrall to the KJVO myth & thus ignore its goofs & booboos.

And your point is to win me over to your side? Knock it off, brother.

I rely on the KJV only for the meat of His words to discern with Him good & evil by in modern Bibles because of the changed message in modern Bibles that sows doubts in His words & thus you cannot correct anyone because of the blatant errors in those changed messages that support false teachings & apostasy in those modern Bibles.

Keeping the faith is the good fight but you are the one coming off as being anti-KJVonlyist is the good fight.

Address how John 16:13 in ALL Bible versions testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak nor utter anything from Himself but seaks what He hears for why Romans 8:26 in most modern bibles imply that He can groan when the KJV & a few modern bibles says He cannot even utter His groanings. Modern day tongue speakers do use that reference to justify using tongues for private use as if the Holy Spirit can turn God's gift of tongues around from speaking unto the people in their native tongue to using it in gibberish nonsense in uttering His intercessions out loud.

And the few that keep that truth in His words like the NKJV, the NKJV do not keep the truth in 1 Corinthians 1:18 as it supports the false teaching that believers are in the process of being saved instead of "are saved" as the KJV & a few other modern bibles has it.

Try correcting anyone by those modern Bibles and they will tell you they still read it as the same in the KJV in complete denial too.

I am talking about keeping the faith which is the good fight. Don't take your eye off the ball in being so driven to be antiKJVer.

 

[rlvaughn]

Easter simply DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts".

Of course "Easter" did not exist when Luke wrote Acts. It's an English word. Luke wrote in Greek. Of course "Passover" did not exist when Luke wrote Acts. It's an English word. Luke wrote in Greek. He wrote πασχα. However, both words have been used in English to mean (and translate) what Luke meant when he wrote πασχα.

 

[robycop3]

Since it was never translated as Passover, they had used Easter in reference with Passover thus never intending to use it to mean anything else for pascha in the verse.

But the AV men translated pascha as passover 28 outta 29 times. They simply blew it that one time, most-likely where they simply copied older translations and overlooked the fact that Easter was no longer used for passover. After all, those men were as human as we are.

Now, try all you like, but you're not gonna succeed in defending the KJUV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.

 

[robycop3]

And your point is to win me over to your side? Knock it off, brother.

Actually, my point is to show others how false the KJVO myth is, so they won't buy into it & become in thrall to it, such as YOU are. I know it takes the HOLY SPIRIT'S power to break that thralldom, but perhaps if I plant a seed for you to think about He will step in & break the spell. Meanwhile, I hope to keep others from succumbing.

I rely on the KJV only for the meat of His words to discern with Him good & evil by in modern Bibles because of the changed message in modern Bibles that sows doubts in His words & thus you cannot correct anyone because of the blatant errors in those changed messages that support false teachings & apostasy in those modern Bibles.

Many of those "changed messages" are corrections of KJV goofs. 1 Tim. 6:10 is an example. Is love of money THE root of ALL evil? OF COURSE NOT! Do ISIS people blow themselves up for love of money? The MVs mostly read "A root of ALL SORTS of evil", which is true.

Keeping the faith is the good fight but you are the one coming off as being anti-KJVonlyist is the good fight.

I AM anti-KJVO, & oppose all such teaching.

Address how John 16:13 in ALL Bible versions testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak nor utter anything from Himself but seaks what He hears for why Romans 8:26 in most modern bibles imply that He can groan when the KJV & a few modern bibles says He cannot even utter His groanings. Modern day tongue speakers do use that reference to justify using tongues for private use as if the Holy Spirit can turn God's gift of tongues around from speaking unto the people in their native tongue to using it in gibberish nonsense in uttering His intercessions out loud.

An old, & long-refuted argument. We don't know what the Holy Spirit's "groanings" actually are. We know He's not in misery. And all valid Bibles point out the process of how tongues are to be used. We don't see that process being followed in too many churches!

And the few that keep that truth in His words like the NKJV, the NKJV do not keep the truth in 1 Corinthians 1:18 as it supports the false teaching that believers are in the process of being saved instead of "are saved" as the KJV & a few other modern bibles has it.

Another old, desperate, & long-refuted argument! "Are being saved" points to the process of more & more Corinthians, upon hearing & believing the Gospel are being saved. Otherwise, Paul is writing to the choir. As I said earlier, many a genuine evangelist has printed billboards reading something like, "Scores ARE BEING SAVED at each night's service!", pointing to a succession of people each service being saved, not an ongoing process in each person.

Try correcting anyone by those modern Bibles and they will tell you they still read it as the same in the KJV in complete denial too.

Then, they're as wrong as you KJVOs are.

I am talking about keeping the faith which is the good fight. Don't take your eye off the ball in being so driven to be antiKJVer.

The ball is the TRUTH, & part of that truth is, THE KJVO MYTH IS MAN-MADE & FALSE!

 

[robycop3]

Of course "Easter" did not exist when Luke wrote Acts. It's an English word. Luke wrote in Greek. Of course "Passover" did not exist when Luke wrote Acts. It's an English word. Luke wrote in Greek. He wrote πασχα. However, both words have been used in English to mean (and translate) what Luke meant when he wrote πασχα.

And, Luke meant the observance we now call "passover" in English. There was nothing then, that we now call "Easter". If there had been, it woulda been called something other than pascha.

 

[rlvaughn]

Now, try all you like, but you're not gonna succeed in defending the KJUV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.

It has been explained numerous times, you just don't care. But even you admitted it wasn't a "total goof" when it fit your agenda.

Third, not even "Easter" in Acts 12:4 can be called a TOTAL goof, as, most likely in the childhoods of the AV translators, some folx still called passover 'Easter'. #46robycop3, Jul 7, 2009

And, Luke meant the observance we now call "passover" in English.

And, Luke meant the observance Tyndale called Ester (Easter) in English.

 

[Hark]

But the AV men translated pascha as passover 28 outta 29 times. They simply blew it that one time, most-likely where they simply copied older translations and overlooked the fact that Easter was no longer used for passover. After all, those men were as human as we are.

Now, try all you like, but you're not gonna succeed in defending the KJUV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.

You may have forgotten but @Logos1560 had shared that it was not one of the KJV translators, but one man, the prelate, that had done 14 alternate changes outside of the KJV translators had done after finishing the work of the KJV; that the prelate had changed what the KJV translators had it as Passover in Acts 12:4 but changed it back to Easter.. So the goof was not on all those KJV translators, but on the prelate, one political religious man. This explains a lot when Passover is in the rest of the N.T.

Plus you keep calling it a goof when Tyndale's Bible had it as Easter in the entire New Testament for that word for Passover in the Old Testament. So in Tyndale's usage, Easter is referring to what he had first translated as Passover in the Old Testament.

Easter is the Passover. Just because believers dropped Easter out of use does not change the fact that Tyndale used it in referring to the Jewish festivity in the N.T. of what he had applied his usage of Passover to mean in the O.T. So regardless of the prelate , it was never a goof in the first place.

It's the same as uncleanness as a work of the flesh. Believers & churches avoid referring masturbation to it, but just because they dropped the meaning of uncleanness, & hardly address it, it does not change the fact that the modern use of masturbation is referring to, but not limiting the application of uncleanness in the Bible, but masturbation is also uncleanness.

 

[Hark]

Actually, my point is to show others how false the KJVO myth is, so they won't buy into it & become in thrall to it, such as YOU are. I know it takes the HOLY SPIRIT'S power to break that thralldom, but perhaps if I plant a seed for you to think about He will step in & break the spell. Meanwhile, I hope to keep others from succumbing.

Just as you are in the thrall of the KJVO myth by dismissing the legitimate claim for why we should only rely on the KJV for the meat of His words. to discern good & evil by it.

Many of those "changed messages" are corrections of KJV goofs. 1 Tim. 6:10 is an example. Is love of money THE root of ALL evil? OF COURSE NOT! Do ISIS people blow themselves up for love of money? The MVs mostly read "A root of ALL SORTS of evil", which is true.

So your anti-KJV contention is the use of the word "the" instead of the proper " a " & the added "sorts" makes all the difference in the message for by which many believers go astray by as opposed to believing the Holy Spirit can utter groans in making His intercessions when the KJV & few other modern Bibles says not even His groanings can be uttered?

Reads to me the same, brother, since a root of all sorts of evil is not actually deferring from all evil for what the love of money is doing. Neither is referring that there is no other evil, but limiting the all evil & all sorts of evil that can stem from the love of money.

I AM anti-KJVO, & oppose all such teaching.

Then you oppose speaking against modern day tongue speakers that insists tongues can be for private use & that the Holy Spirit can utter prayers out loud, even in groanings, Said tongue gained by believing you can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & Isaiah 8:19 ) to get that sign of tongue ( Matthew 12:39 & 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 ) in defiance of scripture that says otherwise;

You also oppose any correction to the heresy that we are in the process of being saved & thus we are not saved yet because of 1 Corinthians 1:18 in some modern Bibles supports that false teaching.

An old, & long-refuted argument. We don't know what the Holy Spirit's "groanings" actually are. We know He's not in misery. And all valid Bibles point out the process of how tongues are to be used. We don't see that process being followed in too many churches!

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. KJV

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. NIV

The NIV of Romans 8:26 is lying because of this scripture in the NIV.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. NIV

Can scripture go against scripture? No.

Another old, desperate, & long-refuted argument! "Are being saved" points to the process of more & more Corinthians, upon hearing & believing the Gospel are being saved. Otherwise, Paul is writing to the choir. As I said earlier, many a genuine evangelist has printed billboards reading something like, "Scores ARE BEING SAVED at each night's service!", pointing to a succession of people each service being saved, not an ongoing process in each person.

Your claims of long disputed refutation is an exaggeration not offered in evidence, even now. You cannot apply this to mean what you say because Paul included himself in with those that are saved so therefore in regards to your misapplication, he is not being saved every time someone else is being saved.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. KJV

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. NIV

Then, they're as wrong as you KJVOs are.

The ball is the TRUTH, & part of that truth is, THE KJVO MYTH IS MAN-MADE & FALSE!

If the Lord cannot show you that you are not rightly dividing the word of truth here, even when reading it plainly, I cannot help you then. I leave you to God since you seem to be more interested in debunking KJVO myths as if lumping relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it with His help when keeping the faith is the good fight is a part of the KJVO myth. That is an oversight on your part that only God can reveal to you.

 

[robycop3]

It has been explained numerous times, you just don't care.

Why? Because many of the "explanations" are OPINIONS, not FACTS.

But even you admitted it wasn't a "total goof" when it fit your agenda.

But , on 2nd thought, I was wrong there. When I was a child, many people still called electric refrigerators "iceboxes", but not now.

And, Luke meant the observance Tyndale called Ester (Easter) in English.

...which was called "pascha" when Luke wrote 'Acts'. Pascha didn't mean anything else then.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just as you are in the thrall of the KJVO myth by dismissing the legitimate claim for why we should only rely on the KJV for the meat of His words. to discern good & evil by it.



So your anti-KJV contention is the use of the word "the" instead of the proper " a " & the added "sorts" makes all the difference in the message for by which many believers go astray by as opposed to believing the Holy Spirit can utter groans in making His intercessions when the KJV & few other modern Bibles says not even His groanings can be uttered?

Reads to me the same, brother, since a root of all sorts of evil is not actually deferring from all evil for what the love of money is doing. Neither is referring that there is no other evil, but limiting the all evil & all sorts of evil that can stem from the love of money.



Then you oppose speaking against modern day tongue speakers that insists tongues can be for private use & that the Holy Spirit can utter prayers out loud, even in groanings, Said tongue gained by believing you can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & Isaiah 8:19 ) to get that sign of tongue ( Matthew 12:39 & 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 ) in defiance of scripture that says otherwise;

You also oppose any correction to the heresy that we are in the process of being saved & thus we are not saved yet because of 1 Corinthians 1:18 in some modern Bibles supports that false teaching.



Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. KJV

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. NIV

The NIV of Romans 8:26 is lying because of this scripture in the NIV.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. NIV

Can scripture go against scripture? No.



Your claims of long disputed refutation is an exaggeration not offered in evidence, even now. You cannot apply this to mean what you say because Paul included himself in with those that are saved so therefore in regards to your misapplication, he is not being saved every time someone else is being saved.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. KJV

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. NIV



If the Lord cannot show you that you are not rightly dividing the word of truth here, even when reading it plainly, I cannot help you then. I leave you to God since you seem to be more interested in debunking KJVO myths as if lumping relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it with His help when keeping the faith is the good fight is a part of the KJVO myth. That is an oversight on your part that only God can reveal to you.

And yet the word of faith heretics to a person seemed to all use the Kjv, correct?