The Gipper shoulda stuck to football...

Granny Gumbo:Her credibility is certainly NOT almost down the drain. Why would you say something like that?

Because:

1.) I had just posted Scriptures from her fave BV, the KJV, showing that the days of unleavened bread began WITH the day of the paschal lamb meal & she went on insisting those days didn't start till AFTER that meal day.
2.) She says she isn't KJVO, but refuses to recommend any other version.
3.) She attributed a certain statement to me, but when I asked her to search any site she wished to find such a statement by me, and to copy and paste it here...OR...to admit she'd been wrong. her refusal to do either shows us she isn't on very friendly terms with the TRUTH. And I'm not the first nor only person to which she's done the same thing. If you really wish to continue to believe someone who acts this way, be my guest.

 

Michelle:Quite the contrary! Many here are the one's guilty of trying to "LIMIT GOD".

Yes...if they're KJVO. they say in effect that God isn't allowed to provide His word in English except in a version THEY approve.


You are the one's who say God CAN'T AND DIDN'T provide for us (faithful English speaking people)HIS WORDS PERFECTLY as God promised he would in Psalm 12, and alluded to in the rest of the cannon of scriptures.

Newp! WE accept the fact that since no 2 English BVs, old or new, are alike, that THIS is how God has chosen to present His word in English.


You also DENY the EVIDENCE that HE HAS provided this

How?


and also DENIED the scriptural REASONS/PROOF/EVIDENCE that He hasn't provided the mv's.

Because there ISN'T any such evidence except in the fevered imaginations of KJVOs or other one-version-onlyists.


God does not lie, nor can he lie, and therefore HIS words will not have lies in them.

Then why make a lie from His word? "Easter" isn't a lie; it's a BOOBOO.

And YOU totally ignore the KJV Scriptures which deny your myth. We posted Scriptures showing the days of unleavened bread begin with the paschal meal day, but you still have insisted they don't begin till the next day.

You say you aren't KJVO, so what other specific version(s) do you recommend?

And where's the message by me containing the statement you said I made?

THIS AINT GOING AWAY, MICHELLE!

 

Michelle:I already gave you the LITERAL rendering, and as God provided it accurately in our language from the greek.

No, you didn't. You gave us a booboo made by some translators in rendering the Greek into English. God had Luke write "pascha".


It reads: (THEN were the days of unleavened bread)

Right. Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread.


. Another question you might want to ponder is, if this was supposed to be passover(as you claim), what was the need for the parenthis indicating: (then were the days of unleavened bread)

Simple English syntax. The phrase within parentheses was different from the main theme of the paragraph.


? That is your other problem that you must solve/figure out/reason. Because the scriptures I gave you tell you when the Lord's passover is, and that it is the day before the days of unleavened bread.

While you totally ignore the Scriptures showing the paschal meal day was the FIRST DAY of unleavened bread...AND...John 18:28 which shows the Jews of then reckoned the whole WEEK as passover(pesach) with various rites to be observed on certain days within that week. Did you not see the "holy convocation" on the 2nd day after the paschal meal within the Scriptures you posted, and the command to do no unnecessary work on that day? remember, as you acknowledge, all the events of Jesus' "passion" took place on paschal meal day, and that this day was called "Preparation Day", that is, everyone did all his/her unnecessary work on this day.

The next day was called a "High Sabbath", which is what the Jews STILL call it, and call any other special observance, to differentiate them from the ordinary weekly Sabbaths. Thus, John 18:28 correctly refers to the meals eaten on the day of convocation as "passover", same as the paschal meal eaten the day before.

Some people insist there were TWO "timelines" for Passover, but we see that Jesus, and those who arrested Him, were all "on the same page" timewise. The correctness of this timeline is established by the fact that JESUS followed it.

Again, what I've written here is derived from conversations face-to-face with Jewish acquaintances. Surely you know some Jews, or you can phone a rabbi or synagogue to verify what I've written. I believe that if you take the time to do that, you'll come away with a different point of view-unless you think you know more about Judaism than its participants do.

 

Michelle:What do you base this on? Did not the Jews crucify Jesus during the Passover? Of course they did, because he was the Passover!

No, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus; they had the Romans do it. The self-righteous Jews wouldn't even enter the Roman praetorium, so Pilate spoke to them from a portico. And this was the PREPARATION DAY, the rest of the day after the paschal lamb had been eaten. God provided that jesus should undergo His "passion" on this day, so, as you correctly said, He could become the TRUE Passover.


So why would it be different for them now? How do you know what Herod thought or believed about Peter? I thought you had just said and the scripture said that Herod arrested Peter to please the Jews?

Josephus and other writers said this Herod tried to please the Jews however he could, and he'd evidently heard them complain about James, Peter, and other Christians. When he saw that killing james had pleased the Jewish leadership, he arrested the man thought to be the greater heretic by the Jews-Peter. He intended to hold him till the Passover week was over & let the Jews have him to dispose of as they wished.

Besides, if you read further, you will see that it was Herod who desired Peter killed,

WRONG. If herod had desired to have killed Peter, he would've done so as he'd done to James. If that had been his desire, what was to stop Herod? He knew killing James had pleased the Jews, & if he'd killed Peter outright, it certainly wouldn't have DISpleased those Jews!

One factor overlooked here is GOD'S WILL AND POWER. It was GOD who preserved Peter and allowed James to come to Him. He had more work for Peter to do.


and you will notice that Herod practiced his own religion and the people encouraged him.

Scripture, please?

 

Michelle:I don't NEED to use any other version with the words of God, because God already provide them 100%.

Then, why not simply admit you ARE KJVO?


They are not lacking, for they are the words to which hold the way, the truth, and the life for the believer. They are the words that testify of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and they are the words to which give us eternal life and a personal relationship with our Lord. They are God's perfect words (100% truth), provided for you.

As found in the KJV, and in other versions before & after it.


Yet, you desire for me to believe God did not keep his promise, nor even made this promise, and would keep me, and other faithful believers always in doubt as to what HE has said, making my own self the judge, rather than listening to God.

No, I would hope that you abandon the KJVO myth, which has been proven false.


Sorry. You are NEVER going to convince me of this lie.

Apparently, you're already convinced of a lie-the lie that the KJVO myth is true.

NOW...Where's the post containing the statement you allege I've said?

 

Michelle:Now you have gone and made yourself judge. God didn't see fit to correct it, so therefore it was not an error, mistake, or mistranslation.

Ah, but He DID, in subsequent BVs. none of them in English reads, "Easter".


It was translated EXACTLY the way God wanted it. My evidence? History in the churches. God is the Judge and is the one in CONTROL over and concerning His words.

No, it wasn't. Luke, under God's inspiration, wrote "pascha", which, in Luke's day, meant only "Passover". To deviate from Luke's intent is to mistranslate, even if pascha were to mean "demolition Derby Day" today.


Not you, nor any man. This has not been an issue until the advent of modern scholarship, and textual critisism, and the modern versions.

Actually, it HAS, but, as it doesn't affect any doctrine, it wasn't discussed very much until the silly KJVOs started insisting the KJV was perfect.


Now every man is the judge of what God intended, and what he didn't. I will NEVER BELIEVE any man over that of what God has said.

Then why do you believe some human translators' rendering over what Luke actually meant when he wrote "pascha"?


He left it at EASTER, and this is good enouph for me.

But of course it is, since that's what your fave version reads, and that's more important to you than accuracy is.

If I wonder why, then I trust he will show me, and HE has. I do not, nor will I EVER doubt God's words.

Clearly, you have, several times in this thread alone. Luke wrote pascha, which meant Passover to him, and you choose the human rendering "Easter" over the thought Luke had written. And you have totally dismissed some KJV Scriptures showing you that the day of the paschal lamb meal was the FIRST DAY of the days of unleavened bread. You even posted the Scriptures recording when God first gave Israel Passover and then ignored many of their details, which the Jews of Jesus' day still followed.

 

Askjo:God perfectly preserved His words in apographs. The KJB derived from them.

As have all other valid BVs.


The KJB has no errors.

Yes, it does. We're discussing one of them in this thread.


The KJV can't be perfect itself, but God's Word in the KJV is perfect.

The KJV, same as other valid BVs, came out as God willed.

 

Granny Gumbo: Well, I have certainly not had a hard time understanding anything she has posted.

Me either, except when she begins to babble about things entirely off-topic. And I understand her to be entirely wrong most of the time.

I've loved all the Scriptures and trusted the ones she posted to speak for themselves...and they have.

I have posted Scripture also, showing most of her imaginings wrong. Here's an example:

Michelle:And Jesus was crucified as the Lord's Passover Sacrifice, which was the DAY BEFORE the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Hence, Acts 12, CLEARLY INDICATES, that: (Then were the days of unleavened bread.). THEN WERE THE DAYS. This is a clue robycop, of the timing of this, and that this was NOT PASSOVER.

I had previously posted, the first time Michelle brought this nonsense up:

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?

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

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?

I also posted the GREEK writing translated,"Then were the days of unleavened bread" showing that the days of unleavened bread were in progress when Peter was arrested and NOT beginning afterwards.

I believe Dr. Bob or another Greek reader can confirm this.

She's not said or done anything that has led me to disbelieve her, nor has she lost her cool, unlike some that have been on here before. She's shown pure grace & you know it.

Pure NONSENSE, such as the example above, in the face of Scripture from her fave BV showing her wrong.

I never considered myself to be KJVO till y'all labeled me that, so guess I am, but it don't bother me one bit. It's all I know.

Aint nuffin wrong with that, long as you don't tell me that when I use another version, that "I aint usin' no real Bible".


The one thing I have found Michelle to be and that is sincere and her spirit does not put forth mockery...ahem, as some I have seen.

One can be very sincere and very wrong at once as her example proves.

As I do not take part in any of the pagan holidays, I understand perfectly about the Easter thing. God wanted it there & for a purpose.

If that's what God had wanted, He would've caused Luke to have written another word besides pascha, which to Luke meant Passover and nothing else.


Just like if He wanted us to call Jesus by some of those names I've heard on shortwave (Yah-shu-a) or something like that, He would have written it that way for me to learn; but He didn't, so I call Him Jesus. He does refer to the devil in Rev. by another name, but if He wanted me to call Jesus by that language He would've written it too, like He did for satan.

His name in Hebrew IS Yeshua; in other languages, Joshua, and in English, the Latinized form, Jesus. We speak English, so we must honor Jesus as His name, same as we honor God as HIS name, although it's really His TITLE.

Yes, as long as she is posting TRUTH, till she proves otherwise, I will continue to believe her, & btw, thank you for giving me permission.

I believe the above example as about as empirical a proof as we could have.

Permission continued-if you wish!

 

Askjo:The KJV and the NKJV disagree each other 2,000 times! These 2,000 words in the NKJV can't be perfect. Therefore the NKJV is not the Word of God.

The KJV and the NKJV disagree each other 2,000 times! These 2,000 words in the KJV can't be perfect. Therefore the KJV is not the Word of God.(Sarcasm only. My above statement is as incorrect as Askjo's.)