Why is it so important to use the KJV only?

Here is an incorrect anti-KJVO argument:

"Ears of corn'" in Luke 6:1

Before anyone else brings it up, the Greek word here is 'stachus', which means growing grain or a head of grain. It can apply to wheat, barley, etc.

While corn(maize) was unknown to the people of that time/place, "corn" is an Old English word that meant "grain with the seed still in" and was the name given to grain in general. The word came unchanged through the evolution of English.

When the first English visitors to North America were introduced to maize, they simply called it "corn", since they didn't know any specific name for it, and the name stuck, and now "corn" is used almost exclusively for maize.

Same with 'ear'. This same little word came from two entirely-different sources. The organ of hearing came into Old English from Danish, & was pronounced 'eary'. The word 'ear' came from West Saxon into Old English and meant 'a head or spike of grain'. As time passed, the pronunciation for the organ of hearing became same as for the word for grain, but their meanings are so different that no English speaker has any problem knowing which definition applies in a given sentence.


Therefore, "ear of corn" in the KJV is correct, according to the English of that day.

 

Even today the word "corn" can refer to any grain in many English speaking countries.

Maize is usually referred to as "sweet corn" here.

 

1. You have not provided the proper defense for the Older the Better after you relied on it. You just escaped from it after you claimed it.
Plenty of witnesses ( manuscripts from different locations) are important.

2. You have not properly answered on John 7:39, John 8:1-11, Luke 6:1
What will be good if I point out hundreds more verses where KJV is superior to Modern Versions? You won't be able to answer properly but just evade from it.

I think the above discussion is enough. I won't force you, nor will I accept your ideas.

 

You better check with original and compare between the original language MT and KJV, instead of inserting your idea into the translation. There is nothing wrong with KJV.

 

1. High Sabbath was only once, not twice. It was called Passover Sabbath as well. The regular sabbath was not called High Sabbath. There was another Holy convocation in the DULB week, which was the last day of the Days of Unleavened Bread ( Lev 23)

2. Good Friday is absolutely wrong because it disproves the promise of Jesus that He would be in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days.

3. Luke 6:1 could not occur in any week but only one week after Day of First-Fruits, during which the Believers can enjoy the fruits, because of what Jesus has done during the past week, Death at the Cross, Resurrection. Before that week people could not harvest, but had to bring the sheaf to the priest for Wave offering in the presence of God which symbolized the resurrection of Jesus.

4. Jesus died at the even of Passover, at the time when the Paschal Lamb was killed.

5. A Day by Jewish Calendar starts from Even and ends in Even, because God created the world from the Darkness first. If God set up the first day starting from Daytime, then there would have left one Half Day uncounted, and therefore Jewish daytime counting seems to be biblical and make sense, I think.

I think I explained enough on this issue, and if you disagree with me, it is OK, and it is up to you. b-i-b-i

 

What would constitute a "proper defense"? You can study it in numerous locations. But really, it's a common sense issue. Common sense tells us that the closer one is to the original, the more likely it is to be correct. The more times something is copied, the more chance for mistakes. But common sense is not all that common, unfortunately.

Yes, but not as important as being accurate.

[qutoe]2. You have not properly answered on John 7:39, John 8:1-11, Luke 6:1[/quote]The answer has been given by numerous people numerous times and you have not accepted it from them. I am not so gullible as to think you will accept it from me. Why should I spend time explaining to somethign that you will not accept if a very angel from heaven told it to you?

Hundreds more? You haven't even pointed out one yet that I have seen. There are some places where I think the KJV has a better translation of a particular verse or word.

Actually, I would be quite able. I would be quite unwilling to invest the time in it, given your predisposition against explanations. You simply will not believe, so why should I spend time repeating what others have said before me, and what you have failed to address? Will you really listen to me when you have not listened to others?

I do as well. It has been enough to show that you are unwilling to deal with the real issues.

 

In what sense is there nothing wrong with the KJV? Such a blanket statement must not be accepted as truth.

It has been shown over and over again in these forums and at other forum sites that there are errors in the KJV. After all, the KJV is not inspired by God. God inspired the original authors to write Scriptures, but He did not give new inspiration to the translators of the KJV. No English Bible version is perfect and without error.

If you mean the KJV successfully translates the things God intended to pass down to us through Scripture, then it is true that there is nothing wrong with the KJV. But by using the same criteria, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, the NIV, and many other English Bible translations also convey to us the same truths found in the KJV. There is nothing wrong with legitimate English Bible versions, either - they are just as much the word of God as is the KJV.

 

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

My grandson woke us up early for Christmas; presents are opened, breakfast is eatten, now the fun begins.
Merry Christmas to all!

Regarding the translation in Songs 1:5

It’s rather elementary Hebrew (it must be, I know it :laugh: ).

The conjunction can be translated either way.

Rob

 

Eliyahu:1. High Sabbath was only once, not twice. It was called Passover Sabbath as well. The regular sabbath was not called High Sabbath. There was another Holy convocation in the DULB week, which was the last day of the Days of Unleavened Bread ( Lev 23).

And that 2nd Holy Convocation was a High Sabbath also.

2. Good Friday is absolutely wrong because it disproves the promise of Jesus that He would be in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days.

I agree 110%.

3. Luke 6:1 could not occur in any week but only one week after Day of First-Fruits, during which the Believers can enjoy the fruits, because of what Jesus has done during the past week, Death at the Cross, Resurrection. Before that week people could not harvest, but had to bring the sheaf to the priest for Wave offering in the presence of God which symbolized the resurrection of Jesus.

First, the events occurred BEFORE Jesus' passion. Next, by God's law to Moses, the roadside crops were left unharvested so travelers could eat of them. they were not counted among the first fruits. There's not a word of Scripture forbidding anyone from eating them whenever they were ripe.

4. Jesus died at the even of Passover, at the time when the Paschal Lamb was killed.

Duh...Jesus had ALREADY EATEN the paschal meal. His passion followed that "last Supper" during the 24 hours between sunsets. He was placed in the tomb shortly before those 24 hours had passed.

5. A Day by Jewish Calendar starts from Even and ends in Even, because God created the world from the Darkness first. If God set up the first day starting from Daytime, then there would have left one Half Day uncounted, and therefore Jewish daytime counting seems to be biblical and make sense, I think.

Yes, before the coming of accurate clocks. Where I live, there are only about 9 hours of sunlight right now. Six months later, there will be over 14 hours of sunlight. Our modern timekeeping follows that Biblical principle as midnight is called that because it's the middle of the night all year except within the Arctic or Antarctic circles..

I think I explained enough on this issue, and if you disagree with me, it is OK, and it is up to you. b-i-b-i

And I DO respectfully disagree, because it...well...isn't correct.

In Eze. 45:21, GOD says passover is the whole week of UB.

And I believe you're relying on the following Scripture to sustain some of your views:

28 Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

Again, remember that the paschal meal had ALREADY BEEN EATEN. There were NOT two paschal meals in the same week. But there WERE the special UB meals all week which were parta the observance.

The following Scriptures leave no doubt that the paschal meal had already been eaten before Jesus' passion:

Luke 22:7 Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. 8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.”
9 So they said to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare?”
10 And He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. 11 Then you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 12 Then he will show you a large, furnished upper room; there make ready.”
13 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve[a] apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

See why I respectfully disagree?

I coulda explained it all from the KJV, but I used the NKJV to show the unimportance of using only the KJV.

 

Something to ponder... northern Israel and southern Israel looked at the start of a day differently. Northern Israel used "sundown to sundown", while southern Israel (where the Roman seat was) used "sunrise to sunrise". no, I don't remember my source on it.

Thus, you have two Passovers... north and south, on the same day (sorta). Jesus and His disciples had their Passover that night, but the Pharisees in Jerusalem were to have their's that next evening.

 

I know what you're speaking of, Trotter, but there's no indication the Jerusalem officials observed any other time. The preliminary Scriptures simply say Passover was approaching. And we know Jesus obeyed the "Mosaic" law perfectly. Nor was Jesus accused of violating that law by observing the paschal meal at the wrong time. But I believe there's no question that Jesus observed it at the proper time.

 

I tried to end up the debate but roby may want some more points cleared out. I would comment shortly.

Could you find anywhere in the Bible that Jesus ate PASCHAL LAMB? Nowhere! He just ate the Bread and drank Wine.
From Dead Sea Scrolls, people tried to figure out the custom of Passover, but not in detail. Many Messianic Jews believe Apostle John was Essene, and Essene celebrated Passover 1 or 2 days earlier.
Let's have a look at the Bible.
1. they made ready the passover ( Mt 26:19) and the even was come. (20)
2. Mark 15:42 ( after crucification): Now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath. - this sounds before Passover.
3.With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer - this sounds Jesus was eating Passover. ( Luke 22:15)
4. they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover ( John 18:28)
5. that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on ( Luke 23:54)

6. it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour ( John 19:14)
7. The Jews therefore, because it was preparation,... ( Jn 19:31)



Anti-christian people criticize that the Bible statements are contradictory each other. But if we read the above carefully, it is quite clear that
the official Passover was not passed yet, but the Passover Sabbath was drawing on, while what Jesus celebrated was a kind of folk custom Passover without lamb, on the eve of Passover. This is the most probable interpretation about the two events.
Have you ever thought about this before? I already thought about it.

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/pagan/easter/ishtar.html

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/commentary/tw-comm.cgi?category=Commentary1&item=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.

 

Exactly. But the Pharisees did by using the Roman reckoning.

Jesus observed Passover with the eating of the pascal lamb, and was slain at the same time the lambs of Passover were slain at the temple.

 

[



Could you find anywhere in the Bible that Jesus ate PASCHAL LAMB? Nowhere! He just ate the Bread and drank Wine.

He plainly ate the passover, even though Scripture doesn't cover every little detail. For that matter, scripture doesn't cover every little detail of His passion. For example, Isaiah prophesied His beard would be yanked out, but the Gospels make no mention of this.


From Dead Sea Scrolls, people tried to figure out the custom of Passover, but not in detail. Many Messianic Jews believe Apostle John was Essene, and Essene celebrated Passover 1 or 2 days earlier.

As JESUS obeyed the law perfectly, He certainly ate the paschal meal at the ordained time, and naturally the legalistic Pharisees woulda eaten it at the correct time also.
Let's have a look at the Bible.
1. they made ready the passover ( Mt 26:19) and the even was come. (20)
2. Mark 15:42 ( after crucification): Now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath. - this sounds before Passover.

John 19:31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day,
that the bodies should not remain on the cross
on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),

To this day, Orthodox Jews observe two High Sabbaths during Passover Week. THAT'S what the preparation day is for. As the Jews began their new day at sunset, we see after sunset Jesus ate the passover, was busted shortly later, shuttled arpind between Caiaphas, Herod , and Pilate all night. & was crucified after daylight had returned, died awhile before sunset, & was placed in the tomb shortly before that 24-hour day ended at sunset.

The ordinary Jews prepared for the first High Sabbath on Preparation Day, which was within the same 24 hours in which the paschal meal was eaten, by pre-cooking the next day's meals & doing all the mundane work possible, doing only necessary work(tending to animals, ill people, etc.) on the High Sabbath day itself.


3.With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer - this sounds Jesus was eating Passover. ( Luke 22:15)

Exactly...and we can be assured Jesus followed EVERY ORDINANCE of the paschal meal exactly, which would include eating of the lamb, even though it's not mentioned in Scripture.
4. they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover ( John 18:28)

Remember, passover lasted ALL WEEK.(EZE. 45:21) The special matzah meals (unleavened) were parts of the passover observance.


5. that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on ( Luke 23:54)

6. it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour ( John 19:14)
7. The Jews therefore, because it was preparation,... ( Jn 19:31)

Yes, the preparation of the first High Sabbath, which is part of passover.



Anti-christian people criticize that the Bible statements are contradictory each other. But if we read the above carefully, it is quite clear that
the official Passover was not passed yet, but the Passover Sabbath was drawing on, while what Jesus celebrated was a kind of folk custom Passover without lamb, on the eve of Passover. This is the most probable interpretation about the two events.

Have you ever thought about this before? I already thought about it.

Yes, I HAVE thought about it, VERY CAREFULLY, & that's why I KNOW your scenario cannot be correct. Jesus was the ONLY MAN who ever obeyed EVERY ORDINANCE of God's law as He gave it to Moses HIS ENTIRE EARTHLY LIFE. And among those ordinances is "THE" set of passover ordinances, in Exodus 12. I firmly believe , since JESUS DID NOT SIN, that He followed His Father's passover ordinances to the last jot & tittle.


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, passover was THE WHOLE WEEK, and its High Sabbaths are part of passover, same as the paschal meal is.

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.

Again, Scripture often doesn't record every nut & bolt of every event. But again, we must assume that JESUS FOLLOWED THE PASSOCER ORDINANCES EXACTLY! Otherwise, He woulda sinned!

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.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT......

The translators of the various English BVs, old or new, are/were more expert than anyone on this board, and they're almost unanimous in their translation of Ez. 45:21 that God is calling passover an observance of seven days. You prefer the KJV? It does likewise.

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.

You're partially right...there were many pesach imitations. However, 'pesach' is the word GOD used to Moses, the only word in Hebrew known to have been used for passover, and was the only meaning for the Greek 'pascha' in Biblical times. Pascha is a Greek translateration of pesach.

The KJV renders pascha as passover in every instance exc. Acts 12:4.



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.

If we keep that in mind, we're WRONG. The DULB *IS* passover. Acts 12:3 says the DULB were going on at the time Herod busted Peter.

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

There's not the first quark of evidence Ishtar was worshipped in that time/place, let alone that HEROD worshipped it.

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.

The TR says 'pascha' at Acts 12:4, same as it does in 28 other places. And the KJV renders pascha 'passover' everywhere else.

And JESUS did NOT abolish passover. God established it as a MEMORIAL of His leading Israel outta Egypt, and established it FOREVER. (Ex. 12:14)

The ONLY valid excuse for the AV's using Easter is that some translator reverted to the custom of over 100 years earlier of using 'Easter' for 'pascha' before Tyndale coined 'passover'.

I appreciate your discussing this in a GENTLEMANLY manner, Eliyahu! I hope I have behaved similarly to you.

 

Eliyahu's opinion is that Jesus did not eat all of the Passover meal. What does Matthew say?

Why would we suppose Jesus ate the bread and drank the wine without touching the Paschal lamb? Jesus told His disciples to go prepare the Passover. This Passover meal would have included the common elements - the lamb, the unleavened bread and the wine. Jesus didn't tell his followers to prepare only a part of the meal - their preparation would necessarily have been for the traditional Passover meal unless Jesus had instructed them otherwise. There is no indication Jesus instructed His disciples to do anything different than the traditional Passover meal.

 

Shhtt... Eliyahu doesn't need to know he has a defensible position on this one.
;)

 

And again I emphasize that JESUS obeyed the law perfectly...otherwise He woulda sinned.

 

Trotter, I love ya as a fellow Christian and Baptist, & we usually agree, but I gotta disagree on this'n. There's absolutely no evidence that there were two paschal meals at that time. The Pharisees & other legalistic Jewish leaders hurled all sortsa accusations at Jesus, based mostly upon their perceptions that He had violated some little part of the Mosaic Law, but we don't see violation of the Passover statutes among them.

The matzo eaten by the Jews during Passover Week is a special food, generally made of just non-rising flour made into a dough by adding water, rolled flat, then baked. It is not the best-tasting food possible, and if eaten in pure form only during Passover Week. I believe that's what John meant about the Jews' eating Passover after Jesus was arrested.

 

No harm done, Cranston. I've been wrong before. I remember hearing that once upon a time, but I don't recall where, when, or who.

Old timers' is kickin' in...