Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

And here we see the first example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for a KJVOist to attack translators of other versions, but it's not okay for someone to attach the translators of the KJV.

And here we see the second example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to modify or add to scripture, but it's not okay for any other translators to do so.

And here we see the third example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJVOists to make claims without the need to support them with evidentiary support, yet when anyone else makes a claim contrary to the KJVO position, that claim is dismissed, even if there evidentiary support is readily evident.

And here we see the fourth example of a common KJVO hypocrisy: It's okay for the KJV translators to change a word due to the meaning of that word changing, but translators of any other versions are forbidden from changing words when the meaning has changed.

 

No attacks, mate. A screw up is a screw up. Everyone makes them but ours don't get put into a translation of the bible... or used to try to correct the Greek.

And yet they still bowed to the Catholic/Anglican church's use of the pagan festival's name. To expound/understand the bible you have to go back to when it was written. "Easter' did not exist, and the verse in question is talking about the Jewish feast and not the resurrection. I can't help if you choose to stop your ears and yell, "La-la-la-la" instead of actually listening to anyone else besides yourself. Agrippa didn't care one whit about the followers of Christ and only wanted to play politics with the timing of giving Peter over to be killed.

That makes no sense, mate. Passover comes straight out of the OT and does picture Christ.

If a mistake makes it best I would hate to see your worst then.

This doesn't even deserve a response.

 

You dont' really want to go there, do you? Because it will be easily shown how much greater the KJVO hypocrisy is, and how much more empty their claim is.

Those were your words, and your arguments, and they're no less hypritical just because you uttered them.

Seeing as how many Christians celebrate both Passover and Easter separately, God disagrees with you.

That would be pretty much everyone.

Here's a fifth common KJVO hypocrisy: If the KJV changed it, then God changed it. If any other version changed it, they're going against God.

And here's KJVO hypocrisy number six: If it's written in the KJV, it's infallible; if it's in any other translation, it's not.

 

This is blasphemous Harold. Since when are the KJV translators God???
Please explain this blasphemy!

 

[personal attack] AFIK, I've never once sent you a private message. The only reason you would put me on your ignore list is to boast about it. You've done that rather successfully.

Show me scripture where it says Christians are not permitted to practice Jewish customs. I'm sure that passage is in the same chapter that provides support for KJVOism.

It's actually KJVOists who make the same old arguments, despite the fact that their arguments are so easily exposed as empty and hypocritical.

Passover commemorates the plague of the death of the firstborn. Nothing in scripture suggests this should no longer be commemorated.

Feel free to quote me all you like. Your rebuttals are so easily refuted, plus your rebuttals serve to damage the KJVO position even further than you have already done, so feel free.

 

"Brethren, how fine a thing it is to move from festival to festival, from prayer to prayer, from holy day to holy day. The time is now at hand when we enter on a new beginning: the proclamation of the blessed Passover, in which the Lord was sacrificed. We feed as on the food of life, we constantly refresh our souls with his precious blood, as from a fountain. Yet we are always thirsting, burning to be satisfied. But he himself is present for those who thirst and in his goodness invites them to the feast day. Our Savior repeats his words: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." (a translation of a Paschal [Festal] Letter by Athanasius of Alexandria about 340AD)

 

No, that root that you referred to meant paschal, passover, passover lamb, sacrificial lamb, and thus symbolically portraying the sacrifice of Christ. Pascha is more about the death of Christ and could never, never, represent the Resurrection of Christ or Easter. You really ought to admit when you are wrong, or better still when the KJV translators are wrong.

 

We are not on page 20, but the last 15 pages have been like a mp3 player on replay.