Are there problems with the modern versions?
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Bible, which is our final authority, is a book that is capable of interpreting itself and we need not look to any outside source to understand it, so if It distinguishes the day of the Passover from the feast then that's what we ought to go by. Also Easter comes from the pagan celebration of Astarte whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar (Easter is a pagan holiday, which is a discussion for another thread at a different time)
R
the bible often equates the two...
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."
luke 22:1..."Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
easter has nothing to do with astarte or ishtar...the names just sound similar to english speakers...nothing called 'easter' existed in new testament times...
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."
luke 22:1..."Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
easter has nothing to do with astarte or ishtar...the names just sound similar to english speakers...nothing called 'easter' existed in new testament times...
Andrew, to clear up what you say about an outside source, you are using the outside source of history to understand the bible. That is good. You are using history of the origins of our Easter celebration. That outside source is important to our understanding of bible. Our Lord is using people who lived 2,000 years and more before us to illustrate God principles we need to learn. Even 500 years ago, there was a difference in how people thought, we need history of the people God uses to understand the principles. That outside reading is sometimes confused with reading about what men say scripture says and using that as scripture.
V
That's what continually updating translations is all about. Keeping that inerrant message inerrant. Otherwise, the true message would be lost in the translation. Literally. The translation is not up-to-date? You've got different meanings for different words. In other words, you've got a translation not true to the original message. Obviously, God's not letting that happen. But you're not seeing that because you're religion is all about the KJV translation. You're blinded by that mini-idol of yours (the KJV only agenda). I'd say you're more attached to it than you are God's inerrant message.
I will concede that the feast was sometimes referred to as the Passover in the Bible, However that does not prove that 'easter' is a mistranslation. First of all the original copies of the Bible don't exist so it's impossible to know what they said, we can only rely on Gods promise for God to preserve his word and take that by faith. Secondly the word Easter does indeed come directly from Astarte,
"Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven,..." (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hyslop, Ch 3, s2)
thirdly the King James translators were highly educated men, it would be inconsistent for them to have been sloppy in this one spot without someone pointing it out, I suspect they new what they were doing.
"Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven,..." (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hyslop, Ch 3, s2)
thirdly the King James translators were highly educated men, it would be inconsistent for them to have been sloppy in this one spot without someone pointing it out, I suspect they new what they were doing.
A
Please, please, please everyone just watch 'Tares Among Wheat' by Christ Pinto and Addullam films. They clearly show that the codex sinaticus, which all the modern versions are based on, is a fraudulent document and not "the oldest manuscript in existence." It's an excellent film.
[video=youtube;qgpa76F2flk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpa76F2flk[/video]
[video=youtube;qgpa76F2flk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpa76F2flk[/video]
R
we don't have the original manuscripts...but the fact is that -all- known manuscripts -including- the ones king james' scholars used...have the greek word for 'passover'...not any word meaning easter...
the word easter actually comes from the latin 'eostarum'...which means 'dawn'... the name 'astarte' comes from the akkadian 'ishtar'...which means 'she who waters'... the two are -not- related at all...
i should add that hislop is not a reliable source...his book is all sloppy guesswork and made up 'facts'...
the probable source of this particular error in the king james version is that the greek word 'pascha' came to be used by greek speakers in later times to refer to the christian holiday of easter...but to translate 'pascha' as 'easter' in a document from the first century AD is anachronistic...
the word easter actually comes from the latin 'eostarum'...which means 'dawn'... the name 'astarte' comes from the akkadian 'ishtar'...which means 'she who waters'... the two are -not- related at all...
i should add that hislop is not a reliable source...his book is all sloppy guesswork and made up 'facts'...
the probable source of this particular error in the king james version is that the greek word 'pascha' came to be used by greek speakers in later times to refer to the christian holiday of easter...but to translate 'pascha' as 'easter' in a document from the first century AD is anachronistic...
G
G
I cannot possibly take this seriously. I have read since I was a child the different translations in the parrellel form. I KNOW they all say the same thing! Yes, some are clearer than others in various ways, but the fact is, we have every last one of them to look over, including the KJV. That provides us with all possible angles to access while studying God's word.
As I cannot allow the enemies of the Biblical doctrine of preservation, as laid out in Psalms 12:6-7, to win this debate I have researched some more on this and have come to the discovery that a perhaps simpler and more elegant explanation to the translation of 'Easter' in Acts 12:4, is that the word Easter was used in reference to the Passover in 1611 when the KJB was written. Furthermore that there was a distinction between the Christians celebration of the Resurrection, and the 'Jews Passover'
John 2:13 And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
The Christians celebrating the Passover in a different manner then the Jews. The Christians therefore had a different passover then the Jews, the King James translators then taking note of this will have distinguished Luke's Passover (for he was a Christian) from the Jews Passover. I must from here do some research into the Pagan elements of Easter today and whether it is observed at the proper time or whether it should be observed during the passover in remembrance of Christ and not coincide with the pagan dates. In any case this demonstrates that Easter is not a mistranslation and reinforces the fact that there are NO Proven errors in the KJB.
John 2:13 And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
The Christians celebrating the Passover in a different manner then the Jews. The Christians therefore had a different passover then the Jews, the King James translators then taking note of this will have distinguished Luke's Passover (for he was a Christian) from the Jews Passover. I must from here do some research into the Pagan elements of Easter today and whether it is observed at the proper time or whether it should be observed during the passover in remembrance of Christ and not coincide with the pagan dates. In any case this demonstrates that Easter is not a mistranslation and reinforces the fact that there are NO Proven errors in the KJB.
A
With all due respect, the Bible is a HUGE book. I find it difficult to think you have studied all modern versions, side by side, page for page comparing them for consistency.
The point I was making is that the Codex Sinaticus was not an ancient Biblical manuscript. It was a draft manuscript made by Constantine Simonides in the 19th century as a gift to the Czar of Russia. It was then taken from the library at Mt. Sinai and redacted beyond belief by the Vatican (the current library where it is housed counts 23,000 revisions). And this is what modern versions are based on (along with Codex Vaticanus, conveniently discovered by the Vatican at the same time as the sinaticus was "discovered.")
I can easily list many of the discrepancies with modern versions compared to the KJV if you like. And mind you, I am not KJV-only. I also use the Brenton's Septuagint.
The point I was making is that the Codex Sinaticus was not an ancient Biblical manuscript. It was a draft manuscript made by Constantine Simonides in the 19th century as a gift to the Czar of Russia. It was then taken from the library at Mt. Sinai and redacted beyond belief by the Vatican (the current library where it is housed counts 23,000 revisions). And this is what modern versions are based on (along with Codex Vaticanus, conveniently discovered by the Vatican at the same time as the sinaticus was "discovered.")
I can easily list many of the discrepancies with modern versions compared to the KJV if you like. And mind you, I am not KJV-only. I also use the Brenton's Septuagint.
To say that our KJV doesn't need updating, at least, doesn't make sense. Shakespeare was one of the 47 men King James had do the translation, have you ever tried to read the Old English of Shakespeare. I haven't the patience.
King James didn't list the translators, but Shakespeare left his signature in code in the 46th Psalm. He was 46 years old, and if you will check the 46th word in that psalm it is "shake". If you count 46 letters from the end, it is "spear".
I just read the first paragraphs in the book King James wrote about witches. If is in the public domain, and you can read it on line. And this!! was the man who ordered the most accurate translation of the bible!
King James didn't list the translators, but Shakespeare left his signature in code in the 46th Psalm. He was 46 years old, and if you will check the 46th word in that psalm it is "shake". If you count 46 letters from the end, it is "spear".
I just read the first paragraphs in the book King James wrote about witches. If is in the public domain, and you can read it on line. And this!! was the man who ordered the most accurate translation of the bible!
R
i am just going to skip over the fact that you turned your entire interpretation upside down here...but i guess in your case exegesis has to become a slave to your king james only cult ideology...
the days of unleavened bread are mentioned in the verse directly before...and in fact the whole context has to do with herod trying to keep the jews happy...so it is logical to conclude that the acts 12:4 is referring to the jewish passover...not a 'christian passover' that you think 'easter' must refer to...
in any case the term 'easter' is an anachronism...it would be like saying pedro teixeira died on independence day...when independence day didn't actually exist back in 1641...
the days of unleavened bread are mentioned in the verse directly before...and in fact the whole context has to do with herod trying to keep the jews happy...so it is logical to conclude that the acts 12:4 is referring to the jewish passover...not a 'christian passover' that you think 'easter' must refer to...
in any case the term 'easter' is an anachronism...it would be like saying pedro teixeira died on independence day...when independence day didn't actually exist back in 1641...
It appears to me that I inadvertently set up a straw man argument that was easy to knock down, which in turn makes it appear like my whole argument is flawed, my bad. however God promised to preserve his words therefore there must be an answer. If Easter also meant passover at the time that the KJB was written then it's accurate, call it an anachronism if you like. Furthermore in spite of that it will have been in reference to the Jews passover Luke as a Christian was conveying this message to Christian readers who did not see the passover in the Jewish sense. so he was saying in effect that Herod intended to execute Peter after the time that we as Christians see as Easter, which to the Jews was the time of the Passover. There is no problem here.
I will say again referring to the defenders of the inerrancy of the KJB as a 'cult' is a disinformation tactic designed to scare people away from accepting that viewpoint.
I will say again referring to the defenders of the inerrancy of the KJB as a 'cult' is a disinformation tactic designed to scare people away from accepting that viewpoint.