KJVOnlyist lets learn together where this doctrine began :)

[KJV1611]

Acts 12:4 - Passover and Easter

By: Brian Tegart

Acts 12:4 - Passover and Easter

Below is a quote from his website explaining how KJVers are wrong:

"As such, we now see there are at least two days associated with "Passover" in scripture. The 14[SUP]th[/SUP] (the "Day of Preparation") when the Passover Lamb is sacrificed, and the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] when it is eaten. Both appear to be the same "day" to us (for we think of days as ending Midnight), but on the Jewish calendar, it is two different days: the preparation/sacrifice day and the feast day."

Right off the bat Brian is changing the word of God to match his theory. Brian says that Passover is a 2-day feast... bald face lie! He tries to confuse the reader by making us think we are looking at the feast days wrong because our days start at midnight and Jewish days start at sundown. Dude give me a break, this classic deception. Let me break out down for you guys:

1) Sundown begins the 14th day and just moments later the evening of the 14th day begins.
2) In the evening of the 14th day, the passover lamb is killed.
3) Just after evening, when the night of the 14th day begins, they eat the lamb.
4) Then in the morning... which is still the 14th day, if any of the lamb remains they are to burn it with fire. HELLO... there is no lamb left to eat on the 15th day. Brian Tegart is WRONG!


Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
Exo 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Exo 12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
Exo 12:10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.


Who do you believe, Brian Tegart or the bible?
If you need more proof, here's more.

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
Lev 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

 

[Karraster]

I believe my King James Bible, and have for half a century. Thanks brother.

 

[KJV1611]

I have a KJV/KJB but unlike you, I refuse to make it an idol over Jesus, or place the creation over the creator.

There in lies your problem -> you separate the word of God from Jesus. The bible clearly says:

Joh_1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You see, I just believe what that verse says, Jesus is the word of God and The word of God is Jesus. I don't understand it, but God said it and I believe it. It is no different than our understanding of the Godhead... none of us understand it, but God said it and we believe it.

 

[Karraster]

The Word is not confusion. We are told where "confusion" comes from. What a shame for young ones coming up in these last days, that how much harder would it be to memorize scripture, carry it in your heart, when they are told, "look at that one and the other over there, study Hebrew and Greek, take a few more off the shelf, and btw always use bla bla bla to make sure you have it all! What are they supposed to believe? This is but one example of how the Word can be snatched away as soon as it's received. Confusion.

 

[KJV1611]

The same way in which your cult argues that Nose Ring is not the correct translation in this passage. WHy does it matter what word is used if they give same message at end of day?

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

By old KJV I assume you mean the original 1611. I have a copy of the 1611 version complete with weird spellings and Roman numerals. It says exactly the same thing all other KJV's say - earring. Maybe you haven't researched this? Maybe you heard or read that from a KJV bashing website and swallowed it hook line and sinker without ever investigating it? You know you can find the copy have on line. Just google it.

 

[KJV1611]

I still wait for a Kjv onlyist to answer. Show a greek manuscript that renders 1 john 5:7 the King james way before the 14th century. Is there one?

Dude I don't doubt the word of God so I have no idea of what your talking about. Maybe you could elaborate. Why do you care what was in a Greek manuscript. You can't read nor understand Greek and no going to a concordance picking which definition you like does not count as understanding Greek. You are setting yourself up to fall for a lie. God said he preserved his Word, just believe him. Stop wasting time on a dead language that you know nothing about and ask God to show you which version he preserved his word in.

 

[Reformedjason]

Dude I don't doubt the word of God so I have no idea of what your talking about. Maybe you could elaborate. Why do you care what was in a Greek manuscript. You can't read nor understand Greek and no going to a concordance picking which definition you like does not count as understanding Greek. You are setting yourself up to fall for a lie. God said he preserved his Word, just believe him. Stop wasting time on a dead language that you know nothing about and ask God to show you which version he preserved his word in.

If there is no greek mss support for the reading is it not an error? The New Testament was originally written in Greek. So yes " dude " you not only don't know what I am talking about . You don't know what your talking about.

 

[KJV1611]

If there is no greek mss support for the reading is it not an error? The New Testament was originally written in Greek. So yes " dude " you not only don't know what I am talking about . You don't know what your talking about.

Here's what I do know. The New Testament Greek manuscript that you're talking about does not exist today. I don't have it ,you don't have it, and the scholars don't have it... it rotted away a long time ago. No original copies of any scripture exists today. You are basing your argument on a text that doesn't even exist today, yet you claim to know what exactly what was in it. Tell me Reformedjason how is that you and only you know what was in the original manuscript?

 

[Reformedjason]

Here's what I do know. The New Testament Greek manuscript that you're talking about does not exist today. I don't have it ,you don't have it, and the scholars don't have it... it rotted away a long time ago. No original copies of any scripture exists today. You are basing your argument on a text that doesn't even exist today, yet you claim to know what exactly what was in it. Tell me Reformedjason how is that you and only you know what was in the original manuscript?

We do have earlier mss now than we did in 1611. The Kjv is based on Erasmus. Erasmus had no greek mss for much of the book of rev. Under pressure from the Vatican he put 1 john 5:7 in his third edition. It came from the Latin vulgate. If you look into early mss you will never find it. Even the majority text does not have it. You said in the begining of this thread if I could show you an error you would put down the Kjv. I show an error and you ignore it. I could care less if you keep reading the Kjv. I have several of them. I like the Kjv just fine. It just is not inerrant. It is a translation of a much later mss than we have now. Stop the double talk and back pedaling and deal with a real issue. The church never saw 1 john 5:7 the way the Kjv renders it for the first 1300 years of its existence. How is this not an error?

 

[KJV1611]

I don't care where 1 John 5:7 came from, God put it in the KJV.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse doesn't contradict anything in scripture, just because you think it shouldn't be there has no bearing on the accuracy of the KJV. You put too much faith in what man says... I don't put any faith in man.

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

I posted this as i was doing some private study, which often times i am very busy so i am thankful to God i had some time. i looked into and studied some of this as i live in Tennessee and this KJVOnlyism is rampant. so i wanted to look into this. this isnt my first time. while not trying to be offensive i find this belief silly personally. but with that said i have no problems with the KJV as it was the first bible i ever had and many of my scripture memory actually comes from this translation. basically i wanted to know more thoughts on here get feed back and start a discussion on the subject. i will provide a video and even a screen shot. which clearly refutes those that say the KJV hasn’t undergone any significant “revision or change” since 1611.

in Christ
brother Travis View attachment 64275

[video=youtube;0NAuJVFjEjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NAuJVFjEjs&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283[/video]

You might not get any useful information that way.

I did a "world history" study not too long ago.

Turns out that the 1611 was used to help create the English language.

People really need to THINK before they start attacking the KJV.

Not saying that you are [:

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

Hi soldierofchrist4ever24, let me say first off that I have terrible internet service so I can't watch the video but I think I'm up on all the arguments against the KJV. I would like to ask you a question if I may. Who do you think was in the fiery furnance with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

IMO Jesus, lol... idk, what you think?

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

ok ill bite i know the textual argument this will probably result in, and let me let you know that was not my intention it was to truly seek, study, and learn. but it was no other Than my Lord Christ

in Christ
brother Travis

True, we shouldn't be petty about small things, but looking at the bigger picture. It's because so many people ignored the so-called small things that we have about a thousand different bible versions.

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

Oh ye, you're a kvj only -ist? lol hey?

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

Daniel3:25 is what you are referring to, i will give you a hint who is talking in this verse? is it a pagan? or a follower of the one true God? also reading the rest of the verses exegetically helps as well. there is much more to easily answer this argument but sadly i do not have time.
in Christ
brother Travis

I heard that it could be Jesus, or one of his messengers...

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

From my observation it's usually from one or more of the following

Blind acceptance of a teaching
Fearful condition of the heart
Exclusionism/Elitism
Mis-perception of God's name and nature as "baal/taskmaster/The LORD" instead of "YHWH/Salvation/Breath of life"
Some genuinely believe there's a translation accuracy, but some use the translation accuracy argument to support one of the above core fallacies.

I'm a KJV "mostlyist" because it does preserve some important poetic quality, but I read the most important mistranslated words quite differently than most.
Those words are "The LORD", "hell", and "eternal" with it's derivatives. And these are not exclusive to the KJV version.

DUDE, are you serious? The Bible is 3 4ths Prophesy. Where do you come out with it being poetic? Don't you have any respect for God's word?

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

I will let you in on a little secret that most people don't know about. There is a reason why the newer translations say "a son of the gods" and it has nothing to do with who was talking in that verse, but it has everything to do with preaching another Jesus and another gospel. Their Jesus is not my Jesus, those books are revealing another Jesus and another gospel... the New Age or Cosmic Christ, a son of the gods, not the Son of God.

Your argument is invalid also. You argue that Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan and knew nothing about the one true God, but this is incorrect. Nebuchadnezzar knew that it was Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace he called their God the most high God.

Dan 3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

Usually, when something happened, and it involved the Israelites... that news spread like wild fire. The Gospel was definitely commonplace (not commonly accepted, just understood) back then. I've even read historical records about this. And I remember in the OT, Artaxerxes did some good stuff....... I wonder why hey.

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

I didn't mean it in a negative way Travis. I was just pointing out that the argument that Nebuchadnezzar didn't know that it was the son of God in the furnace is not true because he knew who was in the furnace. It's just a matter of who's account do we believe, do we believe Gods account in the KJV or do we believe the New Age bibles.

I'd agree with u.

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

Nope never argued just calmly responded but none the less thank you for your input. i would still disagree and say there is way more to it than that. and i really do wish i had time to type it all out as i do not want to pladgerize anyone so i am going to go through my studies and compile my own thoughts etc and this is going to take time.
*Edit*
And just to be clear i said he was Pagan and not a follower of the one true God, i never mentioned anything other than that, anyone can look above and see that for themselves, please lets keep this orderly and not put words in each others mouth thank you
in Christ
brother Travis

True, he repented afterwards and gave GOD praise.
Also, do you remember what Nebud's son did?
He was a bad egg...... the empire was given over to the....... mede's and persians...... something about darius right?

Well, it's just interesting to note how adament God is about PROTECTING his artificats.

I'm implying that God has preserved the Bible, in the form of the KJV1611 btw [:

(Nebad's son polluted God's treasures... and God punished him....... In other words, God does not stand by when evil people try to bastardize God's treasures, whether it be the tablets of moses, arc of the covenant or the KJV1611, God isn't a dunce...)

 

[Pilgrim-Progress]

The older mss have it the way the new translations do. You say God said it the way the Kjv does. How can you prove this? You can't. Closer to originals time wise is more reliable.

Older documents, does not mean more correct.