Are there problems with the modern versions?

[RachelBibleStudent]

If the Jewish Passover is meant in this place then you have a real problem, how can the Passover occur after the Passover? It was the days of unleavened bread which occurred after the Passover, when Peter was apprehended.
By the way I don't worship the KJB, I worship the Word, who is Jesus. But by faith I believe in Gods promise that he would preserve his words unadulterated.

the terms 'passover' and 'feast of unleavened bread' are used interchangeably...the day of passover was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread...so the entire feast was sometimes known simply as passover...

 

[Andrew1]

the terms 'passover' and 'feast of unleavened bread' are used interchangeably...the day of passover was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread...so the entire feast was sometimes known simply as passover...

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)

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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)

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...

 

[RedTent]

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)

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.

 

[Vestarena]

How can the message be inerrant if the words are not inerrant?

Simply trust that God's word is inerrant and perfect. And believe that He kept His promise to preserve His words.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. - Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Bible)

Notice it says: The words of the LORD are pure words.

So not just the message is inerrant and pure, but the very words of God are pure and inerrant.

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.

 

[Vestarena]

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.

I like you RedTent. You're cool and the way you word your posts is delightful. Excellent point!

 

[Andrew1]

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.

I have no objection to using outside sources to help to understand the Bible, but the Bible is sufficient to interpret itself. The fact is God in Psalms 12:6,7 promised to preserve his words, which means all of them, where are they? I want them.

 

[Andrew1]

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...

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.

 

[A-Omega]

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]

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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.

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...

 

[Georgiana]

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book..... REVELATION 22 : 19

John wasn't talking about the KJV version there. He was talking about the Book of Revelation.

 

[Georgiana]

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]

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.

 

[Andrew1]

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.

 

[Georgiana]

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.

The enemy's in here? In here? *Glancing nervously all around.* Oh! You mean anyone who reads anything but the KJV! *Sigh.*

 

[Andrew1]

The enemy's in here? In here? *Glancing nervously all around.* Oh! You mean anyone who reads anything but the KJV! *Sigh.*

You scoff, but say nothing to support your position.

 

[Andrew1]

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.

I should have said 'As I cannot allow the enemies of the Biblical doctrine of preservation,... to think they won this debate.'

 

[A-Omega]

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.

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.

 

[RedTent]

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!

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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.

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...

 

[Andrew1]

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...

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.