Please explain KJV

[Eliyahu]

Dear Pastor Max, I disagree. in my estimation using the "easter" example and calling it an "error" is not dishonest.

The reasons being the evidence that follows:

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 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.​

In all other places the days of unleavened bread were always associated with "pascha" or the Passover by the KJV translators.​

If there were no mention of the Days of Unleavened Bread then IMO it would be a subjective call. It would help to know what/where it is used elsewhere in the Scripture and how it was translated in those places by the KJV translators:

Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?​

Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?​

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

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.​

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 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.​

These are the same pairs of koine words as in the Acts 12 passage and if not an error then (IMO), the KJV translators were at least inconsistent and this passage can be confusing. The fact is that they knew exactly what the koine said but for some unknown reason (perhaps "tradition") they, as well as others, chose an English word that is used only in Acts 12 for a word which they consistently translated as "passover" and clearly inconsistent with the context.​

It can open the door to confusion to the babe in Christ studying the Scripture. Mild to be sure but God is not the author of confusion. IMo they should have used "passover" as all the other places where these words are paired.​

True, I don't know their motive (perhaps "tradition"), but you really don't know the motive of others either. I for one am not being "dishonest" by calling it an "error" in translation because of the reasons above.​

Actually I don't call it an error but use the words "inconsistent", "inconsistency".​

HankD​

I wonder why the people on this site have a poor memory on what they discussed a few months ago.

This was discussed on this BB : http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=14&highlight=Easter

If anyone claim that Acts 12:4 should read " Passover", then such argument can stand only when Bible writers do not distinguish between Days of Unleavened Bread and Passover. Otherwise, he or she can never explain why Acts 12:3 says it was already Days of Unleavened Bread, and 12:4 says Herod intended to hand over Peter after the Passover despite the fact that Passover was the first day of the DULB and it was already in the middle of DULB.
Paska was not invented only for Passover, but it must have existed before indicating Pasahu ( Easter-Ishtar Festival) and was also used for Pesach ( Passover) because the season was very close each other. Just imagine the whole USA is celebrating Christmas while only Conneticut is celebrating Hanukah just before Christmas. Even inside Conneticut, the rulers and rich people keep Christmas more important than Hanukah. In such case the Pesach can mean important only to the religious people of the state. KJV people knew about this problem and there were several experts in Mesopotamian culture and history among them. P Jensen's study support that there was the customs of goddess worship for Ishtar ( Easter). Without KJV we can have little understanding about pagan customs involving Easter. KJV had the just reason enough to be inconsistent in translating PASKA in Acts 12:4. Paska appears 29 times and 28 times were always Passover, but in Acts 12:4 they encountered a serious problem and justly translated as Easter because Paska had a dual meaning, they found. If you have a disagreement, please let me know what is Koine Greek for Pasahu ( Ishtar) ?

KJV might have changed several times, but when I compared the versions, I found the changes were 1) correction of printing errors, 2) correction of scribal errors, 3) some language update, 4) a few simple corrections, not the doctrinal errors. If we consider the poor situation of printing and correction processes of the past, they are very much minor errors and corrections. I don't claim that KJV is perfect but notice that no other versions are better or more accurate than KJV and KJV preserves very important lessons on many doctrinal issues. If you debate with anyone based on KJV, one can hardly defend Infant Baptism when you read Acts 8:37 which is omitted in the most modern versions.
If you debate with Jehovah's Witness on the deity of Jesus based on KJV, you can refer to 1 Tim 3:16 which says God was manifest in flesh while MV's translate He appeared.... More than 99% of over 500 manuscpripts support KJV. Where is the famous and oldest manuscript B ( Vatican Text) gone? There is no Timothy in B text! ( maybe because Roman Catholic disliked the verse 1 Tim 3:2 which contradicts the compulsory celebacy of priests ( a husband of one wife!) and therefore destroyed the whole Timothy.


In the above BB, I mentioned the followings already.

****************

The above statement doesn't say Paschal Lamb was killed.
Why does John say this?
Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover ( 18:28)
Why does he record " it was the preparation of Passover about 6th hour " ( 19:14) ?
In your logic, Passover was passed but only DULB is going on, and "eat Passover " means the ULB, but 19:4 says it was Preparation of Passover!

Again, I want to say to you that the most probable interpretation is Essenes or Folks custom was to celebrate Passover Eve with special meals, then the next day was the official Passover, on which Jesus was killed. There is no mentioning that the Passover Lamb was killed, though the statement is "Days of ULB to kill Passover Lamb came" which doesn't necessarily mean that the lamb was killed.
We must go into much more details on this issue.

As for Ezekiel 45:21,
it can be interpretated as " Passover plus 7 days which is the DULB" or Passover which is 7 days of DULB"
There are some passages where Passover and DULB were understood as the same days because Passover represents DULB.
But in most cases, Passover was separated from DULB.
Passover was 14th day of Abib month, DULB starts from 15th day of the same month and ends on 21st day of the same month. ( Read Lev 23)
As for Acts 12:4, MV's can be correct only when Bible consider Passover=Days of Un-Leavened Bread (DULB)
However, throughout the Bible I don't find any 2 verses where they consider Passover is the same as DULB , in the same sentence.

There are plenty of evidence to lead us to doubt that Paska meant Passover. If you read Hebrew Lexicon B-D-G, you can notice Pasahu( Assyrian goddess worship festival) was also represented by Pesach ( p 820, strong 6453). As soon as God set up Pesach, Satan produced the imitation immedately and it was well spread in Middle East. Both Pesach and Pasahu were translated into Paska in Greek because the days were almost the same, only a few days difference.

This may not be sufficient, but I want to let you know that there were so much custom similar to Pesach.

http://www.thunderministries.com/pag...er/ishtar.html

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bi...tem=1105039685


http://www.yhwhisel.com/Easter.html


If we keep in mind that Passover precedes the DULB, Paska in 12:4 cannot be Passover. You can only say Paska is Passover only when Bible writer didn't distinguish between Passover and DULB, intermingling both concepts of festivals.

I think Passover was mainly 14-15 Abib month, and Easter( Ishtar) was focused on Equinox around 22 March.

Whether you believe this or not, it is up to you, but I would stand on Masoretic Text-Textus Receptus - King James Version line, since I don't find any problem with KJV in Acts 12:3-4 while I believe MV's missed such truth.
I will leave this thread. May God bless you in studying this portion of truth.
***********************

 

[HankD]

If we keep in mind that Passover precedes the DULB, Paska in 12:4 cannot be Passover. You can only say Paska is Passover only when Bible writer didn't distinguish between Passover and DULB, intermingling both concepts of festivals.

I think Passover was mainly 14-15 Abib month, and Easter( Ishtar) was focused on Equinox around 22 March

Dear Bro Eliyahu, I am pleased that you said "I think". This is your opinion.

However it is clear to me (IMO) that the text of Acts 12 is saying that Herord wanted to wait until the entire week of the Passover had gone by before he put Peter to death.

The Scriptures shows that they (Passover-Days of Unleavened Bread) were often used as synonyms:

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

The preceding passage is important because Luke wrote Acts as well as his Gospel account.

Ezekiel 45:21 In 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.​

Mark 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.​

HankD​

 

[PASTOR MHG]

Dear Pastor Max, I disagree. in my estimation using the "easter" example and calling it an "error" is not dishonest.

The reasons being the evidence that follows:

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 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.​

In all other places the days of unleavened bread were always associated with "pascha" or the Passover by the KJV translators.​

If there were no mention of the Days of Unleavened Bread then IMO it would be a subjective call. It would help to know what/where it is used elsewhere in the Scripture and how it was translated in those places by the KJV translators:

Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?​

Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?​

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

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.​

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 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.​

These are the same pairs of koine words as in the Acts 12 passage and if not an error then (IMO), the KJV translators were at least inconsistent and this passage can be confusing. The fact is that they knew exactly what the koine said but for some unknown reason (perhaps "tradition") they, as well as others, chose an English word that is used only in Acts 12 for a word which they consistently translated as "passover" and clearly inconsistent with the context.​

It can open the door to confusion to the babe in Christ studying the Scripture. Mild to be sure but God is not the author of confusion. IMo they should have used "passover" as all the other places where these words are paired.​

True, I don't know their motive (perhaps "tradition"), but you really don't know the motive of others either. I for one am not being "dishonest" by calling it an "error" in translation because of the reasons above.​

Actually I don't call it an error but use the words "inconsistent", "inconsistency".​

HankD​

With all do respect Hank, the comments by Keith were dishonest in light of the facts, and then he tried to turn this back to a KJVO argument, which I never alluded to. I was only addressing whether this is an incorrect translation or not.

You can not base your opinion of the translation on a 21st century understanding of the word.

In the 17th century...Easter = Passover

And that is also verified by the fact that the man who created the word "Passover" (Tyndale) also used the word "Easter" when translating pashca.

(Tyndale's NT 1 Cor. 5:7)
7 Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs.

These are the facts.

You may not like the word choice (which is your right) but it is dishonest to say it is an error.

Understand that I do not hold to the wacky views of some KJVo on this matter, but we need to play fair an not throw around falsehoods as though they are fact.

Max

 

[Logos1560]

With all do respect Hank, the comments by Keith were dishonest in light of the facts.

You can not base your opinion of the translation on a 21st century understanding of the word.

In the 17th century...Easter = Passover

Max

In the 16th century [the 1500's] some English translations had used "Easter" with the same intended meaning as "passover." The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even had "Easter" a few times in the Old Testament. By 1560, the Geneva Bible had already changed all the uses of "Easter" to "passover." As a revision of the 1539 Great Bible, the 1568 Bishops' Bible had kept "Easter" only three times [twice at John 11:55 and at Acts 12:4]. While the KJV changed the two uses at John 11:55 to "passover," it might be possible that "Easter" was left from the Bishops' Bible as an unintentional oversight. How the word "Easter" was used and with what intended meaning in the 1611 KJV is somewhat open for debate. I have not seen enough valid evidence to prove that "in the 17th century...Easter = Passover."

There is some evidence available from the 1600's that indicates that "Easter" was not the rendering put in the text at Acts 12:4 by the KJV translators themselves.

Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

The evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter would seem to conflict with what you claimed were the facts for the 17th century.

 

[Hawaiiski]

Legitimate Bible versions are those translated with the intent of translating the underlying text(s) as accurately and completely as possible. Translations that are legitimate include, but are not limited to, the Bible versions that preceded the KJVs, the KJVs themselves, the ASV, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV and others. Bible versions that are not legitimate are those versions "translated" with the intent of making the Bible say what it doesn't say. Such versions include the Clear Word Translation (CWT) of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) also called the Inspired Version of the Mormons, and the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These errant groups had no Bible that taught some of their errors, so they "translated" Bibles which would agree with their errors.

As for the preservation of God's words then we need to get rid of every English Bible version, every Spanish Bible version, etc. The only way to inerrantly preserve the specific words would be to preserve them in the original languages. Since no other language can provide a 100% accurate translation of those original words simply because of the differcnes in languages, then the KJVs or any other English version cannot possibly be the preservation of God's words. And as has been shown in various threads and posts here at BB Psalm 12:7 is not a promise to preserve words as many onlyists would have us believe, but a promise to preserve the poor and needy, which is the subject of the 12th Psalm.

God promised to preserve His word, which is different than the specific words. Onlyists misinterpret God's word to mean specific words. God's word has been preserved in various English Bible translations down through the years. God's word is preserved in the KJVs, the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, etc. If you want preservation of the particular words then forget about English or any other modern language and use only the original Hebrew, Greek ar Aramaic languages. Still the question arises as to which of the original language manuscripts would be the perfect preservation of the original words. Since we do not have the original autographs no one can say with 100% certainy.

Are you contending that both the TR & the Alexandrian Text are legitimate texts? If a version is faithful to a corrupt text, it is a corrupt version, regardless of the translators' faithfulness to its underlying text. In fact, the MV's you listed are not faithful to their "oldest & best" MSS, as these MSS don't contain Jn. 7:53-8:11 & Mk. 16:9-20. Aleph & B also say that Christ's side was pierced in Mt. 26:49, while still alive. The NASB teaches the heresy that Jesus is a begotten God in Jn. 1:18. Even Dr. Frank Logsdon, who wrote the NASB preface, renounced all attachment to the NASB, claiming it was based upon a corrupt text!

As for your preservation/translation argument, if a translation cannot be the equivalent of God's perfect words, then even the original autographs were flawed. Every OT quote in the NT originals was a translation of Hebrew to Greek. Joseph's conversation w/ his brothers was translated into Hebrew (Gen. 42:23) when recorded in the original. Paul's defense was given in Hebrew (Acts 21:40), but Luke translated it to Greek in his original. It is unlikely that every conversation in the Bible was spoken in Hebrew & Greek, but they are recorded in those languages. Many scholars believe that Christ spoke Aramaic, but His words were written in Greek in the originals. Others who are proficient in Hebrew contend that Ps. 12:7 does refer to the words. In any case, we still have the promise in Mt. 24:35.

 

[Hawaiiski]

Hawaiiski: //The NIV has 17 fewer verses than the KJV & NKJV.
Either these verses are genuine & were omitted from the NIV,
or they aren't genuine & were erroneously added
to the KJV & NJKV. Which do you believe?
One or the other has violated the admonitions of adding
to & subtracting from God's word. Both cannot be valid.//

Here the logical error
of 'the false dilemma' has been made because there are
obviously more than two posiblities.
I personally believe the verses were added to the majority
texts.

In view of the differences between the TR & Alexandrian texts, both cannot be trustworthy. That much is logical. If you believe these verses were added to the Majority Text, why then do you recommend versions based upon this text in view of Deut. 4:2 & Prov. 30:6? This is inconsistent.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In the 17th century...Easter = Passover

This may well be so. However, in the 21st century "Easter" and "Passover" do not refer the same event, at least to the vast majority of contemporary readers. Therefore, this would be another example of the reason behind the updating of the Bible by revision.

Understand that I do not hold to the wacky views of some KJVo on this matter, but we need to play fair an not throw around falsehoods as though they are fact.

I concur, Max. Thanks

 

[HankD]

You can not base your opinion of the translation on a 21st century understanding of the word.

I am not, I am basing it on the koine language of Acts 12 and the evidence of the other Scriptures translated in a correct manner by these men. I conclude FWIW that the KJV translators and other English translations/translators were wrong to use the word "easter" based upon the koine and the context which they knew and for some unknown reason chose the wrong word to use apart from "tradition" (perhaps).

BTW, if I cannot base my opinion upon a 21 century understanding of the word then neither can you base your opinion on the 17th century understanding of the word.

Personally, I am not primarily interested in either as the anchor language but what the first century meaning of the koine word in the context of the entire NT means. The original language is the rock bottom basis for those definitions.

These tongues therefore (Greek,Hebrew) the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles.
KJV Translators

I repeat, had the mention of the Days of Unleavened Bread not been in the passage then I would say that there might be a possibility of a so-called Christian holiday (or it's Pagan counterpart) of "easter" being a possibility.

but even then I would search the Scriptures in the original languages to see if it were so or even a possibility which seems not to be the case in the AV as they got it right in so many other instances.

I contend that had they used the word "Passover" this "easter" discussion would have no chance of emerging and remain an unknown seeing that it follows so easily from the context that the Passover is being spoken of here.

Now if someone wants to assign the KJV translators with some sort of prophetic foresight or "advanced revelation" in their choice of "easter" for "pascha" in this place and this place only that other translators did not have then that is another matter altogether and seems to be the only explanation left after examining the other passages which pair these words/phrase "Days of Unleavened Bread" and "Passover", especially in Luke seeing that He wrote (humanly speaking) the Book of Acts as well.

Surely the KJV translators knew all this. Unfortunately their is no explanation left behind by them to explain why they did use "easter" for "pascha" rather than "passover" in this place and this place only.

FWIW, no argument yet has convinced me in the slightest that "pascha" in Acts 12:5 is reference to "Easter" (The Christian Resurrection Day) or "easter' The Pagan Day of Fertility.

HankD

 

[PeterAV]

Gill asked:

I have been studing the KJV and I have been having some questions. Is the KJV without any error ? This whole thing of 1611 is bothering me. As of now I believe it is translated out of the good text (Textus Receptus) but we do not even hold a 1611. In fact it has been revised 12 times. There are two slightly different 1611 editions and six slightly different editions in the 1650s. There are even a few significant differences between the 1611 and the one we hold now. In Matthew 26:36 the 1611 says " Then cometh Judas and todays says Jesus. Also in Phl 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. Why is God with a capitial. This is not bashing the KJV. I am a KJV only. I just want some one to answer this for me.

*******
Examples like God or god are easy to see that it is the type setter's fault.
In the early times of the English language,they predominantly went by sounds,and spelt phonetically.
This is why Tyndale and others would write the same word some five diferent ways.
The truth is in the sounds more than the type of font of capitalization used or not used.
One may think that this is an error,but that does not legitimize error.
Just because there is only one God,does not mean others cannot think what their God is.As these belly acres.
There are no revisions of the AV.
The text is the same as it always was other than the typo errors from the publishers.
And any diferences you see today are solely on the publisher's backs.
*******
There are only some 400 diferences as compared to 1611 in today's Holy Bible.
Many of them are simply because of varient readings or simple typesetter's errors or assumptions.
The AV has not had many revisions,in fact it has had none,
All they did was correct any errors they saw in the printed text.
My 1663 has no Apocrapha,but my 1726 does.
Many were already taking out the Apocrapha even in the early years.
*******
She went into the city has been changed to he went into the city Ruth 3:15
Which contstitute no error!
Why?
Because both of them went into the city.
See?
Pretty simple.

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[PeterAV]

Despite the errant claims of some folks, the KJV, like any other Bible translated by mankind, does have some errors.

*******
Such as?....

 

[Logos1560]

As for your preservation/translation argument, if a translation cannot be the equivalent of God's perfect words, then even the original autographs were flawed. Every OT quote in the NT originals was a translation of Hebrew to Greek.

Your comparison is not valid. Any translating then would have been part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. God had not finished giving new revelation, the miracle of direct inspiration was still being given, and the New Testament was not completed. Thus, Paul and other authors of N. T. books translated Old Testament passages as they were moved by the Holy Spirit or as it was revealed to them by the Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, Eph. 3:5).

God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4) and not to the KJV translators in 1611. God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to these prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:26). Since the entire Old Testament was designated by names such as "Moses and the prophets" and "the law and the prophets," this indicates that all the O. T. authors were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it shows that their writers were considered to be prophets. In addition, individual authors of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). Likewise, the N. T. writers also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:5). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18 ). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Jesus stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47).

William Tyndale noted: "The Scripture is nothing else but that which the Spirit of God hath spoken by the prophets and apostles" (Doctrinal Treatises, p. 88 ). In response to the question (What do you call ‘the Word of God’), Theodore Beza stated: “That which the prophets and apostles recorded in writings, having received it from the Spirit of God, which book we call the Old and New Testaments” (Book of Christian Questions and Responses, p. 5). Has any believer since the death of the Apostle John had the office of apostle or prophet? In Webster's 1828 dictionary, one definition of prophet is as follows: "In Scripture, a person illuminated, inspired or instructed by God to announce future events; as Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, etc." Baxter wrote: "We would stress the fact that prophecy, in the Scripture sense, is the product and expression of a direct and special inspiration from God" (Explore the Book, III, p. 207). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators wrote: “For what ever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand.”

The apostles had to have seen Christ and been eye witnesses of what they testified (John 15:27, Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 9:1, 1 John 1:1, Gal. 1:11-12, Acts 10:39-43, 2 Peter 1:16-19). God bore witness to the inspiration of the words revealed to and recorded by the apostles and prophets by signs, wonders, and miracles (Heb. 2:3-4, 2 Cor. 12:12). The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and not on the KJV translators (Eph. 2:20). Was not every word and doctrine necessary to salvation already delivered by God to the prophets and apostles before A. D. 100 so why was additional revelation needed in 1611?

No more revelation and inspired Scripture have been given since the giving of the book of Revelation to the Apostle John (Rev. 22:18 ). The giving and writing of the Scriptures were finished with the completion of the New Testament (Rev. 22:18, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31). After the New Testament was completed, no further need for the gift of apostles and prophets existed (Rev. 22:18, 1 Cor. 13:10, Eph. 2:20, Eph. 3:5). KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer confirmed: “Obviously once the foundation was completed, there was no further need for the offices of apostle or prophet” (One Book Rightly Divided, p. 145).

 

[Logos1560]

There are no revisions of the AV.
The text is the same as it always was other than the typo errors from the publishers.
*******
There are only some 400 diferences as compared to 1611 in today's Holy Bible.
Many of them are simply because of varient readings or simple typesetter's errors or assumptions.
The AV has not had many revisions,in fact it has had none,
All they did was correct any errors they saw in the printed text.

Your claims are faulty. There are around 2,000 differences that affect the sound of words between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. There are around 4,000 differences between the present 2005 Cambridge KJV edition and the present Oxford KJV edition. While there was a number of printing errors in the 1611 edition, all the changes made by later editors were not just the correction of printing errors or the updating of spelling.

 

[Ed Edwards]

PeterAV: //There are only some 400 diferences as compared
to 1611 in today's Holy Bible.
Many of them are simply because of varient readings
or simple typesetter's errors or assumptions.//

Logos1560: //There are around 2,000 differences that affect
the sound of words between the 1611 edition of the KJV
and the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.//

I note that the information of PeterAV is hearsay; that the information
of Logos1560 was developed by him studying the two versions.

By contrast, it is said at:

http://www.eriding.net/amoore/bible/englishbible.htm

that:

//The 1614 edition has some 400 differences
from the original King James text.//

So the hearsay is in error.
I'm guessing (never having counted) that there are over
400 silent 'e's missing from the latest KJV compared to the
KJV1611 Edition.

 

[Eliyahu]

On this issue many posters have presented very meaningful points, I think, but we are dealing with much more detailed and precise interpretation of the controversial verse which can hardly be checked thru history or any other evidences.

So far, IMO, Hank and Robycop3 presented the most valuable argument against KJV in Acts 12:4. Indeed, Luke's statement and his way of expression of the festival is important. I don't say that the entire Bible has been very strict in distinguishing the two festivals between Passover and DULB. Both brothers brought the verses where the meanings of 2 concepts seem to be intermingled. But Ezekiel 45 and Mark can easily be arguable, and there are dozens of verses where 2 festivals are clearly distinuighed, including the first explanation in Leviticus 23.

1. Mark 14:1 - This is a good example of distinguishing Passover and Feast of ULB. " To Paska kai Ta Azuma " (The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread" Could you see the separate article To and Ta ? Your reference support my argument, eh?

2. Ezekiel 45:21 -

In 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.

Do you know that the whole festival lasts 8 days instead of 7 days?
I would interpret it as Passover plus 7 days of festival. If you say the whole feasts last 7 days, including Passover and FULB, then you will find you are wrong if you read Lev 23. 14th Abib was Passover, 15th-21st was Feast of ULB.

3. Luke 22:1 - Only this may be arguable in fact.

If you compare all the verses where Passover and FULB are mentioned, you will find that
- Passover represent the both feasts; Passover and FULB. Often in the passages, Bible doesn't mention FULB, but only Passover which embraces FULB as well. So, Luke was mentioning this.
However, we must look at the whole verses of Bible. In most cases, they distinguish 2 feasts or let Passover represent FULB.

2Ch 35:17 -And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days
Do the Bible writers contradict each other ? Nope! they wrote in the different senses.

If you apply Luke 22:1 to Acts 12:3-4. We can imagine the followings:
- It was already FULB which was called Passover.
- Herod intended to hand over Peter after Passover.
- Then the question, if the both Azume and Paska indicate Passover, is why does Luke write the different words? In your logic, he should have stated " it was already FULB and Herod wanted to hand over Peter after FULB" In the same passage ( in the consecutive verses) can we see such use of different words for indicating the same feast?

Compare the both key words; Passover and Feast of ULB.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...ion=kjv&word=unleavened bread&st=1&sd=0&new=1

All bible quotes are from Crosswalk.com


You didn't answer my question:
-- What was the Koine Greek word for Ishtar Festival ?
-- Do you believe that the word "Paska" was invented to mean " Pesach" ?
or Was it originated from Pasahu ( Ishtar=Easter Festival) ?
What was the original meaning of PASKA, do you know?

 

[rsr]

Granted, there are some very ridiculous explanations for why the KJV translators chose "Easter," but the incompetence of some of my KJVo brethren in this matter does not negate the fact that IT IS NOT AN ERROR!

"Easter was a perfectly acceptable translation of "pashca" in the language of 17th century England. In fact, Tyndale coined the word "passover" but chose to use Easter himself at times...I believe 1 Cor. 5 is one location in at least one of the editions.

I would have to agree, for the most part. Tyndale's 1526 edition uses ester three times in Matthew, four times in Mark, seven times in Luke, 10 times in John and twice in Acts.

The Geneva Bible did away with Easter entirely; the Bishops' Bible (of which the KJV was supposed to be a revision) used the word only twice.

Use of Easter in the KJV probably was archaic even in 1611, having been supplanted by Tyndale's Passover in the intervening years.

The question remains why the translators chose to leave one instance and use Passover elsewhere. The fact is that no one knows, those there are some (reasonable) guesses.

Was using Easter wrong? Not in the strict sense, because readers might have understood that Passover and Easter were interchangeable. Was it the best choice? It seems unlikely from our perspective, and it was seen as problematic long before modern versions appeared, so this is far from a new issue. John Gill simply identifies Easter with the Passover in his commentary, while Adam Clarke 200 years ago said "Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd."

I wish defenders of the modern versions would desist from calling it an outright error or mistranslation. The only result of that, it seems, is to foster construction of wildly conjectural and convoluted arguments from those who believe that the KJV translators never made any questionable decisions, let alone outright errors.

 

[robycop3]

With all do respect Hank, the comments by Keith were dishonest in light of the facts, and then he tried to turn this back to a KJVO argument, which I never alluded to. I was only addressing whether this is an incorrect translation or not.

You can not base your opinion of the translation on a 21st century understanding of the word.

In the 17th century...Easter = Passover

And that is also verified by the fact that the man who created the word "Passover" (Tyndale) also used the word "Easter" when translating pashca.

(Tyndale's NT 1 Cor. 5:7)
7 Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs.

These are the facts.

You may not like the word choice (which is your right) but it is dishonest to say it is an error.

Understand that I do not hold to the wacky views of some KJVo on this matter, but we need to play fair an not throw around falsehoods as though they are fact.

Max

Then you're faced with a prob, Max.

The older Geneva Bible(1599 Edition) has 'passeouer' in Acts 12:4. Apparently the Easter = Passover thingie was obsolete by 1599.

 

[robycop3]

Hawaiiski:In view of the differences between the TR & Alexandrian texts, both cannot be trustworthy. That much is logical. If you believe these verses were added to the Majority Text, why then do you recommend versions based upon this text in view of Deut. 4:2 & Prov. 30:6? This is inconsistent.

Sorry, but saying one or the other is corrupt WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE IT is incorrect.

The Four Gospels all differ among themselves, as do Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles. According to your logic about different 'families' of mss, only ONE of the Gospels and only ONE of the OT boox I named can be right. WHICH ONES?

 

[robycop3]

Hawaiiski:If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is?

Every valid version. QUOTE]

What makes a version valid?

Following its sources closely.

 

[robycop3]

I understand this. The point I was conveying was that this type of reasoning is unbiblical, since imperfect men did in fact produce a perfect product. Since God initially gave them this ability, why should we conclude that He didn't oversee the process of preservation of those same perfect words as He promised?

BUT...

Can you name a translation that doesn't have some goof somewhere? Newp!

 

[robycop3]

The NIV has 17 fewer verses than the KJV & NKJV. Either these verses are genuine & were omitted from the NIV, or they aren't genuine & were erroneously added to the KJV & NJKV. Which do you believe? One or the other has violated the admonitions of adding to & subtracting from God's word. Both cannot be valid.

In the Masoretic Text, Chronicles gives Jehoiachin's age as eitht when he began to reign, while Kings gives his age as eighTEEN when he began to reign. Only ONE can be right. Careta choose?