brandplucked
New member
Easter is Correct in Acts 2:4
Easter is Correct in Acts 2:4
Hi Danoh. This is very good. Thanks.
Easter is Correct in Acts 2:4
Hi Danoh. This is very good. Thanks.
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
And that is your evidence for????? Passover being 8 days long?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
This is completely correct. Luke is explaining it from the Jewish perspective and it should be translated here, in English, as Passover. The Jews had a feast called the Passover which included unleavened bread. This is what Luke is referencing.
By the time we get to Acts where Luke is talking to Christians, he gives them a Christian reference point. He uses the same Greek word which now had acquired, for his post-resurrection audience, two meanings. For them, the primary meaning was the Savior's pascha; Easter.
The exact phrase, "I will talk to you in the New Year" means something completely different to an American and a Chinese. It is identical in wording, meaning and direction, but understood as denoting a different holiday.
Luke's audience was Christians who had recently begun to celebrate, in the same time slot as the Jewish Passover, the resurrection of Christ. Eusebius tells us this. That celebration is called, in English, Easter - not passover.
Yes.
Peter was arrested during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Herod wanted to keep him there until the Passover was over.
The two verses I gave you show that Passover wasn't a one day event, and that the entire 7 days were called Passover.
Some relevant thoughts on the KJVO issue:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113097
Sneak this in while DR is out recuperating... again, get well soon.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113097
Sneak this in while DR is out recuperating... again, get well soon.
Er, no.
Herod was planning on handing Peter over to the Christ rejecting Jews, not the Christians.
Herod was going to wait until the Christ rejecting Jews were done with their Passover celebration to hand Peter over to them.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that Herod would hand Peter over to Christians celebrating the resurrection of Christ.
(Acts 12:4b) ...Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.
Who did Herod intend to hand Peter over to for public trial?
A) Christ rejecting Jews
B) Christians celebrating the resurrection of Christ
Who did Herod intend to hand Peter over to for public trial?
A) Christ rejecting Jews
B) Christians celebrating the resurrection of Christ
Years ago, right about the time of their Passover, I once said to a Jew, as I was leaving, "well, Happy Easter."
Just as I was about to correct myself, she smiled and said "that's ok, I know what you meant; Happy Easter to you too..."
In Spanish, the word for East is Oeste (oh-eh-steh). Guess what?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=east
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
You insist on putting words in my mouth.
Please quote me saying that Herod intended to hand him over to the Christians. Please don't do that again! It has nothing to do with Herod's plans at all.
It has everything to do with who Luke was addressing.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Who was Luke telling his story to?
A) Jews who celebrate the Passover
B) Christians who celebrate the Resurrection
Hint:
A) Jews who celebrate the Passover
B) Christians who celebrate the Resurrection
Hint:
genuineoriginal
New member
(Previous)
First post in Round 3
Unofficial analysis of brandplucked's response to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's second round questions.
Your results may vary.
BWQ13: “Will Kinney, if in truth the actual 1611 KJB errors long blamed on the printers could be shown to have been caused by the translators, would you publicly call for the KJO leaders to join you in humbly retracting those incorrect statements?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ14: “Will Kinney, can you describe in a thoughtful way how the KJO movement might be able to survive if many of the actual King James Bible errors that it has admitted to were actually the fault of the translation work itself?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ15: “Will Kinney, if you do not believe that the translators were inspired (which we are thankful that you do not) then why can you not agree with their own testimony, which is right before your eyes, and acknowledge that some of the errors that the KJO camp has always attributed to the printers were instead, demonstrably, caused by the translators?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ1: “Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?”
- answer: brandplucked sidesteps the actual question and addresses the comment used for clarification
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ3: Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today? [Please answer yes or no, and feel free to expound of course.]
- answer: This is a repeat of the same question that was so stupid that brandpoint got points even though he didn't answer it, this time he answered yes
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ4a: “Will Kinney, please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you claim them to be free of error (God’s perfect Word).”
- answer: any of the Cambridge printings
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ5: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
- answer: no
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ7: “Will Kinney, because neither the Bible nor the Gospel is only for English-speaking persons, from the insights gained by the KJO movement, please explain how Chinese Christians, or those who speak Spanish or Hindi, for example, could evaluate whether God’s Word was available for them and their children in their own language?”
- answer: brandplucked seems to be unable to understand the question and gives an answer about the number of different translations of the Bible in a language
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ16: “Do you deny that there were at least 400 textual differences between the “He” 1611 and the “She” 1611?”
- answer: those are minor printer errors
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ17: “If you really agree with us, Will Kinney, as you have stated, that the 1611 translators were not inspired, then why can’t you admit the overwhelmingly obvious truth that errors in the 1611 that come from the translators’ own handwritten notations were caused by the translators?”
- answer: translators are printer errors
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
tally for first half of the third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 7
brandplucked - 3
Running total at midpoint of third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 16
brandplucked - 12
Your results may vary.
(Next)
First post in Round 3
Unofficial analysis of brandplucked's response to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's second round questions.
Your results may vary.
BWQ13: “Will Kinney, if in truth the actual 1611 KJB errors long blamed on the printers could be shown to have been caused by the translators, would you publicly call for the KJO leaders to join you in humbly retracting those incorrect statements?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ14: “Will Kinney, can you describe in a thoughtful way how the KJO movement might be able to survive if many of the actual King James Bible errors that it has admitted to were actually the fault of the translation work itself?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ15: “Will Kinney, if you do not believe that the translators were inspired (which we are thankful that you do not) then why can you not agree with their own testimony, which is right before your eyes, and acknowledge that some of the errors that the KJO camp has always attributed to the printers were instead, demonstrably, caused by the translators?”
- answer: brandplucked doesn't understand the evidence of the translator's changes, blames the printer
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ1: “Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?”
- answer: brandplucked sidesteps the actual question and addresses the comment used for clarification
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ3: Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today? [Please answer yes or no, and feel free to expound of course.]
- answer: This is a repeat of the same question that was so stupid that brandpoint got points even though he didn't answer it, this time he answered yes
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ4a: “Will Kinney, please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you claim them to be free of error (God’s perfect Word).”
- answer: any of the Cambridge printings
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ5: “Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?”
- answer: no
Points go to brandplucked
BWQ7: “Will Kinney, because neither the Bible nor the Gospel is only for English-speaking persons, from the insights gained by the KJO movement, please explain how Chinese Christians, or those who speak Spanish or Hindi, for example, could evaluate whether God’s Word was available for them and their children in their own language?”
- answer: brandplucked seems to be unable to understand the question and gives an answer about the number of different translations of the Bible in a language
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ16: “Do you deny that there were at least 400 textual differences between the “He” 1611 and the “She” 1611?”
- answer: those are minor printer errors
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
BWQ17: “If you really agree with us, Will Kinney, as you have stated, that the 1611 translators were not inspired, then why can’t you admit the overwhelmingly obvious truth that errors in the 1611 that come from the translators’ own handwritten notations were caused by the translators?”
- answer: translators are printer errors
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy
tally for first half of the third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 7
brandplucked - 3
Running total at midpoint of third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 16
brandplucked - 12
Your results may vary.
(Next)
Last edited:
WK - 28-0
Sodor72
New member
I have to say the best version of the Bible is the "Brick Bible", but I love Legos.
http://www.amazon.com/Brick-Bible-C...TF8&qid=1446789854&sr=8-1&keywords=Lego+bible
http://www.amazon.com/Brick-Bible-C...TF8&qid=1446789854&sr=8-1&keywords=Lego+bible
brewmama
New member
Hey I love the KJV as much as anyone, but come on, since the scriptures Jesus quoted were the Septuagint, and it was the original Church Scripture, and everyone translated the NT from the Greek of various sources, why on earth wouldn't the Septuagint or the Greek Bible be the most inerrant?
Sodor72
New member
Great point!
because God said so, brewmama !!:rapture:
Shasta
Well-known member
In the beginning of the debate you posted a number of critiques of modern versions. Your intention was to discredit them so you could prove that the KJV is the only perfect English translation of the Bible. However as I compared what you wrote to the original Greek text I found that in many cases it was the KJV that had erroneously translated the original Greek text.
Here is only one of a number of examples I found.
You said:
“ The whole world“ lieth in“WICKEDNESS” is an incorrect translation of 1 John 5:19 The word wickedness or evil (poneria) is presented in the KJV as if it were a noun when the Greek word (poneros) is an adjective.
There is also an article in front of the word they translated as "wickedness." The translators of the KJV omitted it perhaps because it would have been awkward to say "the whole world lieth in THE wickedness."
As we know, adjectives modify nouns…but where is the noun that this adjective is supposed to modify? Well, there is no noun it could be referring to but since the adjective is singular and masculine a noun is implied. The modern translators whose work you have disparaged represent this implied noun with the singular masculine pronoun“ONE” so that it reads:
“the whole world lies in the control of the wicked (or evil) ONE.
The term "evil one" obviously refers to the Devil and not the generic principle of "wickedness." The interlinear translation agrees with this translation.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/5-19.htm
As you can see further down on this page
http://biblehub.com/text/1_john/5-19.htm
all the Greek texts including the Critical text, the Majority Text and Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550 use exactly the same words.
Your belief in the infallibility of the KJV led you first to accept a mistranslation and then to falsely conclude that the Devil does not dominate the world of men. Paul said that he does because of the influence he has on the mind of fallen humanity:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)
Jesus Himself called Satan the prince (or ruler) of this world (John 14:30).
This does not mean that he is in charge of the physical planet. The Bible says that piece of real estate belongs to God alone (Psalm 24:1).
This should illustrate the point that the benchmark against which all translations should be measured, including the KJV, is the God-breathed scriptures Paul was referring to. No translation should be above this kind of assessment.
Here is only one of a number of examples I found.
You said:
“ The whole world“ lieth in“WICKEDNESS” is an incorrect translation of 1 John 5:19 The word wickedness or evil (poneria) is presented in the KJV as if it were a noun when the Greek word (poneros) is an adjective.
There is also an article in front of the word they translated as "wickedness." The translators of the KJV omitted it perhaps because it would have been awkward to say "the whole world lieth in THE wickedness."
As we know, adjectives modify nouns…but where is the noun that this adjective is supposed to modify? Well, there is no noun it could be referring to but since the adjective is singular and masculine a noun is implied. The modern translators whose work you have disparaged represent this implied noun with the singular masculine pronoun“ONE” so that it reads:
“the whole world lies in the control of the wicked (or evil) ONE.
The term "evil one" obviously refers to the Devil and not the generic principle of "wickedness." The interlinear translation agrees with this translation.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/5-19.htm
As you can see further down on this page
http://biblehub.com/text/1_john/5-19.htm
all the Greek texts including the Critical text, the Majority Text and Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550 use exactly the same words.
Your belief in the infallibility of the KJV led you first to accept a mistranslation and then to falsely conclude that the Devil does not dominate the world of men. Paul said that he does because of the influence he has on the mind of fallen humanity:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)
Jesus Himself called Satan the prince (or ruler) of this world (John 14:30).
This does not mean that he is in charge of the physical planet. The Bible says that piece of real estate belongs to God alone (Psalm 24:1).
This should illustrate the point that the benchmark against which all translations should be measured, including the KJV, is the God-breathed scriptures Paul was referring to. No translation should be above this kind of assessment.
Shasta
Well-known member
The narrative about how the KJB was a product of a multi-staged process until the flawless Cambridge edition was produced is a myth that is imparted to people by revelation and accepted by faith. This is what brandplucked said in the course of the debate"
I don't know about you but this sounds super-spiritual to me, arrogant even. The scriptures he quotes to establish his point have nothing to do with the subject. He just uses them to make his opinions sem more spiritual and to give him a justification for calling everyone who disagrees carnal. You see, really spiritual people believe KJVO. People who read those other versions are carnally minded.
It seems to me that when people in the Bible had divine REVELATIONS God talked to them through dreams, visions, angels or directly. I mean, it's not the same thing if I just happen to hold a strong opinion about something. I believe God does show us things but I would never say with authority "God has showed me something about the Bible itself" unless it is actually written in the Bible.
What I would like to know is, if KJVO doctrine is to be accepted and believed because it is revelation knowledge then through what avenue was this revelation given...and when was it given? I doubt if the men that translated the KJB thought what they did was a work of perfection.
A lot of people have a sense of awe and reverence about the KJB because it has been around a very long time and they have had a lifetime of familiarity with it. I myself grew up reading the KJV and much of what I know by memory is in Old English. I think it is fine that they like it, especially if it motivates them to try and understand it but for people to lay a trip on everyone else, that they are carnally minded because they do not believe KJB is the ONLY perfect word of God is judgmental. You cannot measure a person's spirituality by their stance on this subject.