The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

didn't i say from. the beginning i had learned to consider it more fruitful to make lighthearted jokes than throw all my energy tearing down kjv-onlyism-arguments?

i do think there are fruitful conversations to be had about Pascha vs easter tho. seeing the circumstances under which the word originated, how narrowly confined its use is, how it is unrelated to the actual feast on which Christ rose, the probabilities of its etymology... this path leads one (or at least led me) to a much greater appreciation of the actual testimony of Christ all over scripture, how that there is no 'Jewish scripture vs Christian scripture' but one scripture, how valuable Leviticus is even tho we aren't under the Law...

of course to appreciate how Christ is magnified in Pesach and diminished by easter, one has to set aside doggedly defending the word 'because it appears in kjv' so there is the thread-relevant, ulterior motive...
but my suggestion bro, going forward, is try to focus on glorifying God rather than focus on 'defeating' someone. not saying i am good at that or that i always remember to, but, it's good advice, and also good advice our brother Paul gave - if at all possible, be at peace with all men. Mssr Highlighter isn't our enemy, he's our brother.

Thank you for saying I am a brother. We may get heated on this topic because we each have our own beliefs on this matter with good reasons of our own. I take the stand that Easter is true because the Bible is true. It may not line up perfectly with history because men can take words and color them to their own agenda or men can say this word originated in such an evil way (Because it is attached to Christianity). In my search for truth, I would pray about the English word "Easter" in Scripture and ask God to reveal to me why it is there vs. Passover (which underlies the original language use of those words). At the end of the day, I believe the Lord Jesus is going to ask if we fully trusted His words and not the words that come from men. While I do not have all the answers, I know that the Lord Jesus Christ does have them. So I trust in His Word even if it makes me look foolish.

 

[posthuman]

And you are ignoring the other ones. We see a consistent theme. 119 to 105 is a big deal when you look at the other occurrences that are worse (196 KJV vs. 141) (84 vs. 64). The point here is that if there was corruption in your Bible line (which I believe there is because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have corrections on them and they disagree with each other in 3,000 places), then this demonstrates that you're on the wrong side. Again, there are corrupt doctrines in Modern Bibles, and the removal of 1 John 5:7 (Which is hidden in Modern Bibles with the moving of words from 1 John 5:8), and so obviously the number count is not obviously the only reason here. We look at all the reasons as a whole and not just one reason alone as you guys are trying to make it out to be. In a murder case, they don't look at one piece of evidence alone if they have other evidences. I was also replying to Jamessb‘s point in that he did not think the Jesus’ name was removed by way of comparison between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles.

for me it's not about the biggest number. it's about the most accurate number.

We could easily go print a Bible with every instance of "Iesous" replaced with "highest and awesomest king Jesus Christ lord God almighty the best evar!!1111“
... but if thats not what tge texts actually says in tge original Greek, it's worse than worthless.

so counting word instances is worth nothing for argument. deep scholarship is needed, and it's uncontested fact that kjv translators did not have all the information available today for textual criticism.

that alone doesn't make the kjv right or wrong - every single verse, every word would have to be scrutinized individually, and that's beyond me or anyone else in the thread to do.

 

[posthuman]

Thank you for saying I am a brother. We may get heated on this topic because we each have our own beliefs on this matter with good reasons of our own. I take the stand that Easter is true because the Bible is true. It may not line up perfectly with history because men can take words and color them to their own agenda or men can say this word originated in such an evil way (Because it is attached to Christianity). In my search for truth, I would pray about the English word "Easter" in Scripture and ask God to reveal to me why it is there vs. Passover (which underlies the original language use of those words). At the end of the day, I believe the Lord Jesus is going to ask if we fully trusted His words and not the words that come from men. While I do not have all the answers, I know that the Lord Jesus Christ does have them. So I trust in His Word even if it makes me look foolish.

of course, brother.
it's in Christ we are brought together.

i am difficult to argue with and tactless and often don't have time to give full answers. i know.
but all this is second to our faith. we're all here because we're passionate about our faith, and we need to not forget that when we have these discussions, even when we are on opposite sides of some issue.

you'll have to forgive me a lot, am sure
but be assured i will also forgive you

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

didn't i say from. the beginning i had learned to consider it more fruitful to make lighthearted jokes than throw all my energy tearing down kjv-onlyism-arguments?

i do think there are fruitful conversations to be had about Pascha vs easter tho. seeing the circumstances under which the word originated, how narrowly confined its use is, how it is unrelated to the actual feast on which Christ rose, the probabilities of its etymology... this path leads one (or at least led me) to a much greater appreciation of the actual testimony of Christ all over scripture, how that there is no 'Jewish scripture vs Christian scripture' but one scripture, how valuable Leviticus is even tho we aren't under the Law...

of course to appreciate how Christ is magnified in Pesach and diminished by easter, one has to set aside doggedly defending the word 'because it appears in kjv' so there is the thread-relevant, ulterior motive...
but my suggestion bro, going forward, is try to focus on glorifying God rather than focus on 'defeating' someone. not saying i am good at that or that i always remember to, but, it's good advice, and also good advice our brother Paul gave - if at all possible, be at peace with all men. Mssr Highlighter isn't our enemy, he's our brother.

On a continued note from my previous post to you:

What I mean by praying for God to reveal truth in His Word is something God reveals in His own timing when I ask.
I remember watching a debate between Will Kinney vs. CJ. Cox a long time ago. CJ. Box brought up how the KJV was in error in Job 40:17 when talking about the stones of the Behemoth (Which appears to maybe be some kind of Sauropod dinosaur). Will Kinney oddly believes this is in reference to the private area of the animal. Yet, I believe the Modern Bibles do help to clarify the meaning in the KJV in this instance in that it is referring to thighs. However, the KJV is not in error. It was only recently God showed me the verse that ties in nicely here. It was Song of Solomon 5:15.

Song of Solomon 5:15 (KJV)
"His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars."

Job 40:17 (KJV)
"He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

So this possible Sauropod dinosaur here has a tail like a cedar tree, and its thighs that are like stone whereby its tendons of its thights are wrapped together. They are wrapped together so tightly to be like stone if we were to touch its leg.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture like a good Berean is the proper way or the first approach I always strive to take.
Many times the Bible is its own best interpreter. But it can only be unlocked if we ask and we pray and wait upon the LORD for the answer. Sometimes the answer comes right away, and sometimes the answer comes years later.

 

[jamessb]

didn't i say from. the beginning i had learned to consider it more fruitful to make lighthearted jokes than throw all my energy tearing down kjv-onlyism-arguments?

i do think there are fruitful conversations to be had about Pascha vs easter tho. seeing the circumstances under which the word originated, how narrowly confined its use is, how it is unrelated to the actual feast on which Christ rose, the probabilities of its etymology... this path leads one (or at least led me) to a much greater appreciation of the actual testimony of Christ all over scripture, how that there is no 'Jewish scripture vs Christian scripture' but one scripture, how valuable Leviticus is even tho we aren't under the Law...

of course to appreciate how Christ is magnified in Pesach and diminished by easter, one has to set aside doggedly defending the word 'because it appears in kjv' so there is the thread-relevant, ulterior motive...
but my suggestion bro, going forward, is try to focus on glorifying God rather than focus on 'defeating' someone. not saying i am good at that or that i always remember to, but, it's good advice, and also good advice our brother Paul gave - if at all possible, be at peace with all men. Mssr Highlighter isn't our enemy, he's our brother.

This is very well written and very interesting. Thanks!

Regarding Bible Highlighter... Of course he isn't our enemy. I have no doubt that he is a very serious, devoted Christian. What I object to is his unceasing effort to ram the King James translation down our throats! I long ago got tired of his adamant insistence that his preferred translation is the only valid English translation. I have no idea why he is so obsessed with the KJV and feels compelled to denigrate modern translations, but as I said, it is both tiresome and annoying. That is why I have put him on "ignore".

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

for me it's not about the biggest number. it's about the most accurate number.

We could easily go print a Bible with every instance of "Iesous" replaced with "highest and awesomest king Jesus Christ lord God almighty the best evar!!1111“
... but if thats not what tge texts actually says in tge original Greek, it's worse than worthless.

so counting word instances is worth nothing for argument. deep scholarship is needed, and it's uncontested fact that kjv translators did not have all the information available today for textual criticism.

that alone doesn't make the kjv right or wrong - every single verse, every word would have to be scrutinized individually, and that's beyond me or anyone else in the thread to do.

While I enjoy watching videos on the topic by one particuar channel (Truth is Christ), I do not focus on numbers much in the Bible. It's generally not my thing. But I do realize that they have their part or place in God's Word. Many Christians think pagan numerology when you start to talk about numbers in the Bible. Surely we must guard ourselves from such things. It is wrong to lead one's life by numbers or to predict the future with numbers. I believe the main reason of numbers in the Bible is that they glorify God's Word and it demonstrated that His book is divine. But most Christians have not meditated on this verse below and tried to truly figure out what this verse below says.

Revelation 13:18 (KJV)
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Revelation 13:18 (KJV) speaks in a way that you (the reader) has understanding in biblical numerics so as to know how to count in order to get the number 666. Meaning, if any believer has ever studied the numbers in the Bible before, they would know that the number 6 is the number of man, and not the number of the beast. Therefore, when God's Word tells us to count the number of man (6) it is a tripled version of it (counting it out three times) when it comes to the mark of the beast (666).

Whether you agree or not with Biblical Numerics, I believe it is worthwhile to at least check out Brandon Peterson's two videos on the topic. At least you will know why we believe the KJV is special above all other books. Granted, I have many other reasons why I believe the KJV is the perfect Word. There are biblical reasons, doctrinal reasons, textual reasons, etcetera. But the information below is also worthwhile to consider, as well. But it is only one link in a larger chain of evidences.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is very well written and very interesting. Thanks!

Regarding Bible Highlighter... Of course he isn't our enemy. I have no doubt that he is a very serious, devoted Christian. What I object to is his unceasing effort to ram the King James translation down our throats! I long ago got tired of his adamant insistence that his preferred translation is the only valid English translation. I have no idea why he is so obsessed with the KJV and feels compelled to denigrate modern translations, but as I said, it is both tiresome and annoying. That is why I have put him on "ignore".

Well, the same can be said from your side, or belief, my friend. It is unfortunate, but the Modern Scholarship side also rams it down our throats that no Bible is perfect when that runs contrary to Scripture. I have been in numerous Bible discussions where my fellow brother or sister is distorting the Bible in what it says because they think they are an expert in Hebrew and Greek and the English in our Bibles is in error. However, the Bible itself says His words are pure and that they would be preserved forever. So I believe the Bible, and because I do, I am placed on ignore or I am laughed at or falsely accused. You could try to kindly explain how your view of Scripture and show how mine is inferior in light of the Bible, but this has not happened. I believe we need to be patient and kind with one another. As I said before, I would fellowship with Christians who are not KJV-only as long as they did not attack KJV believers, or attack the KJV, and or they sought to make a Modern Bible. Pinpoint Evangelism is one such Christian group (who is not KJV-only) in whom I find enough agreement whereby I would love to fellowship with them.

Anyway, I cannot recall ever using the ignore feature. I only choose not to reply to those who slander me falsely and just want to laugh at me and or what I believe the Bible teaches. Placing people on ignore means that one cannot handle what the other person says. I suppose if the forum allowed cussing or something, this would be grounds for me to put them on ignore. But I really cannot say I would do that involving a Bible discussion. I would always want to reach that person unless they started to insult me and or my belief. So your reaction is puzzling, my friend. I mean, I do understand that there are some topics that I will not discuss. I generally do not want to debate against the JW religion, etcetera (Although I have in the past did so once). I also do not like to try and convince those believers who hold to the belief of Universalism in light of hell and the Lake of Fire. Univeralist believers are obviously distorting the Bible far beyond what it says for me to try and convince them with what the Word says. I would consider them as a liberal. In my understanding and experience, liberals are hard to reach. I believe prayer is the best course of action in such cases. The same is true if a believer is angry and hateful and slanderous. My quoting Scripture to them is going to go in one ear and out the other most of the time. So prayer in my opinion is the best way. But to place believers on ignore is extreme in my opinion. We are to pray and love one another. We are to be patient and kind. Have you ever considered why KJV believers believe the way they do? We are not without our good reasons. It may not make sense to you, but should at least see from their perspective why they believe the way they do (even if you do not agree). I can say that @Dino246 has helped me to set certain facts correctly in this discussion (Although we do not agree on this topic). We may even get heated with each other in this discussion. But there are times we do agree on other things. I am thankful for Dino246 for showing me that sometimes the statements made by my fellow KJV-only brethren in various articles is not founded in reliable sources. I do also try to criticize my own points or reasons for the KJV, as well. I will not make certain arguments that my fellow KJV-only brethren will make for the KJV (like how the KJV is easy to understand, or Luke 4:4, etcetera). I strive to stick to the big reasons or points to defend the King James Bible.

In any event, may God bless you, even if we may disagree. I do hope one day you will change on the ignore issue and ask God for strength in dealing with those in whom you disagree with.

Peace, and love be unto you in the name of Jesus.

 

[posthuman]

So this possible Sauropod dinosaur here has a tail like a cedar tree, and its thighs that are like stone whereby its tendons of its thights are wrapped together. They are wrapped together so tightly to be like stone if we were to touch its leg.

back in my youth when i played soccer in club teams, my calf muscles felt like rocks when flexed. that's the sense i get from the verse.

to be honest? i use nkjv almost always because it has the accuracy of the kjv, cleans up some archaic forms, and adds capitalization to pronouns referring to God, which i feel is proper. but for difficult passages or something i want to really dig into, i look at lots of other translations and poke around at Hebrew/Greek to try to get a sense of what's really bring said. i like young's literal for this, because it's as word for word as he could be.

sometimes you find very cool things that translations all figured didn't make sense, so they tried to interpret. like in Psalm 22, did you know it doesn't actually say "they pierce my hands and feet"? what's literally in Hebrew is "like a lion my hands and my feet"

wow!!

you'll never see that if you don't go digging for it. i believe God wants us to go dig. it's part of being a "good Berean" - don't just take someone's word for it, even Paul's. go search and prove out The Truth. He will not fail us.

and my biggest issues with kjv are what i see as obvious punts like farthings instead of drachmas, unicorns and basilisk because they didn't have a clue what obscure animal was being described, and obviously i have a beef with easter lol.

but these are small potatoes. the gospel is preserved even in the meanest speech: Christ was born in the flesh, God with us, and He died and rose so that through faith in Him we may have life. and He's coming back for us!

let's not forget that millions of illiterate people throughout history, and people without any access to read the scripture themselves in any form, are still saved through this same grace.

imho we're incredibly blessed to have the luxury of arguing over petty things like should it be "red sea" or "reed sea"!!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

i would argue this **might** make sense in 1 Corinthians for example, but not in Acts 12.

i would further argue it doesn't make sense in either case, it's still the Levitical feasts being fulfilled, not something new being created, and Resurrection took place on firstfruits, not Passover.

I am Core-KJB, and not KJV-only. This means that the KJV is my core foundational text that I believe is the perfect, inerrant, and inspired words of God for today. That said, I do believe it is a must that we use Modern English Bibles to help flesh out the meaning of the archaic language in the KJV. I am not looking to change the wording in the KJV. I believe that would endanger my soul. However, I am looking to gain understanding from other sources in explaining the uncommon words in the King James Bible. I look at Modern Bibles like I would a dictionary.

Okay, that said, my viewpoint on Acts 12:4 is that the word "Easter" is simply a synonym for "Passover." It is admitted on both sides of the debate on this Bible topic that William Tyndale invented the English word "Passover."

In various Textus Receptus Bibles we see Passover and Easter used interchangeably between various passages that do not appear in the KJV. This lets us know it is just a synonym. Granted, I believe there is a reason why God used the synonym Easter in Acts 12:4. I believe the answer is in Scripture, but God has not revealed this to me yet. If we were to look at the etymology of the English word "Easter," it explains how it means East or the rising of the sun from the east. The sun rises and ends the darkness and gives light to the world Which would be a reference to Christ being the light of the world). But why is it here in Acts 12:4? Is there some kind of symbolic connection of this to Acts 12:4? Why wasn't Easter used for the other occurences for Passover in the New Testament? Why only in Acts 12:4? This is the mystery. This is what I am asking the Lord and I believe He is faithful.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

back in my youth when i played soccer in club teams, my calf muscles felt like rocks when flexed. that's the sense i get from the verse.

Yes, I agree.

to be honest? i use nkjv almost always because it has the accuracy of the kjv, cleans up some archaic forms, and adds capitalization to pronouns referring to God, which i feel is proper. but for difficult passages or something i want to really dig into,

I think the KJVer Sword Bible is better. I did a review of that here. It makes less changes to the text. But again, it gives Modern Scholar agenda in certain definitions in saying sodomite is a male temple prostitute when we can just read the story in Genesis 19 to get the real meaning. So one has to be careful. It's not a real KJV.

i look at lots of other translations

I do so, as well. But as I said before, the KJV is my core foundational text.
Any Modern Bible that disagrees with the KJV, I side with the KJV every time.

and poke around at Hebrew/Greek to try to get a sense of what's really bring said.

There has been only one notable time where God led me into the original languages. This was not to explain away what it says in the English in the KJV by any means but to give a deeper meaning. You can see here to learn more.

sometimes you find very cool things that translations all figured didn't make sense, so they tried to interpret. like in Psalm 22, did you know it doesn't actually say "they pierce my hands and feet"? what's literally in Hebrew is "like a lion my hands and my feet"

wow!!

Yes, the Hebrew word does appear to attach lions into the picture according to the Strong's at BlueLetterBible. But I would need a verse in English confirming it elsewhere. Original language dictionaries can be helpful and accurate to a degree, but I do not see them as infallible.

you'll never see that if you don't go digging for it. i believe God wants us to go dig. it's part of being a "good Berean" - don't just take someone's word for it, even Paul's. go search and prove out The Truth. He will not fail us.

I was thinking more along the lines of cross references.

and my biggest issues with kjv are what i see as obvious punts like farthings instead of drachmas, unicorns and basilisk because they didn't have a clue what obscure animal was being described, and obviously i have a beef with easter lol.

From an outward skeptical perspective against the KJV, I can see how you may think this way, but if God said His words are pure words, and they would be preserved, then we must believe there is a perfect Word in existence today for our generation. The KJV is the best candidate.

As for the KJV translators: I believe God employed "Selective Temporal Inspiration" involving the KJV translators (See: Job 32:8). Meaning, I believed they sometimes operated by their own thoughts when making the KJV translation and yet, at other times God gave them key moments of understanding (Inspiration of the Almighty). God would ensure that the KJV translators would eventually get all the words right in the final hand written master copy. Granted, they did not know God was working in them in such a way. We see in Scripture of Peter saying to Jesus, "You are the Son of God" and Jesus said that the Father revealed this to him. Yet, at another time, Jesus calls Peter as Satan because Peter was trying to prevent him in going to the cross. So even men of God can operate by the understanding of God, and other times this is not the case. But what might appear to be an error or a silly word to us because it is archaic or strange does not mean it was a wrong word choice. There are a million explanations that could explain what might appear to be an imperfect word or supposed error. In my experience with the Bible, when I ask God for help in understanding a difficult passage or verse, He will come through for me. He may answer right away or years later (as I said before).

It used to trouble me that God asked Abraham to murder his own son. But I asked God and waited upon the Lord for an answer on this.
Lo and behold, I found out it was a KJV vs. Modern Bible issue.

In Genesis 22:2, “offer him up” (KJB) is changed to: “sacrifice” in Modern Bibles (CEV, ERV, GW, TLB, MSG, NOG, NIV, NLT). God told Abraham to offer up Isaac and not to sacrifice him. So if certain Modern bibles are correct, the dilemma here is that either:

• Abraham did not obey God or:
• God went back on His Word.

For example, in the Old Testament, the Israelite could offer an animal sacrifice to the priest, but that does not mean they would have to make the actual sacrifice themselves. The Jew would just be offering their sacrifice to the priest. This is what Abraham was told to do. He was merely to just offer his sacrifice to God and not to actually sacrifice his offering. Of course, Abraham misunderstood God, but his obedience was all a part fulfilling the future type of Christ’s sacrifice.

but these are small potatoes. the gospel is preserved even in the meanest speech: Christ was born in the flesh, God with us, and He died and rose so that through faith in Him we may have life. and He's coming back for us!

Yes, the gospel is told to us clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day according to the Scriptures. By believing this good news message, a person can be saved. This message is in most Modern Bibles. Praise God. But I would caution folks against Modern Bibles because I believe they also teach false doctrines, etcetera.

let's not forget that millions of illiterate people throughout history, and people without any access to read the scripture themselves in any form, are still saved through this same grace.

In the case of countries that do not have the KJB translated into their language but they have a translation based on a Modern Bible: Well, I see that they are not going to be held accountable like those in English speaking countries who do have access to the KJV. Granted, this translation in another country cannot be extremely heretical or anything. For example: China is currently changing the Bible to be enslaved to China. This is nothing new. Slave masters used to change the Bible to make slaves in submission to them.

imho we're incredibly blessed to have the luxury of arguing over petty things like should it be "red sea" or "reed sea"!!

I do like Red Sea better. Speaking of the Red Sea: Have you ever seen these two Christian documentaries before?

Exodus Revealed:

You can watch this documentary on YouTube here:

Mountain of Fire

You can watch this documentary here on YouTube:

They are really good.

You can see my other top favorite Christian movies here:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-you-find-to-be-the-most-rewatchable.8055027/

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

I am thankful for the criticism here. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, even when I do not like to hear it. The point about how the KJV exalts the Lord Jesus more than Modern Bibles by the number of occurrences of the variations of the word “Jesus” is not always consistent among the popular respected Modern Bibles (like with the word “Jesus” in the NIV). I do truly want to offer the best reasons for the KJB that stands up to scrutiny. So unless further research can be shown, I am considering in removing this reason or point out of my 101 Reasons for the KJB. So thank you everyone. I do like to be fair and honest in these kinds of discussions. While I believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God, and there are many reasons for that belief, I do not think this is one of those strong and good reasons anymore. So again, I appreciate it Thank you @Dino246 and thank you @posthuman. The word, “Jesus” in the NIV according to BlueLetterBible appears more times than the KJV, and this is the case for a few Modern Bibles, too.

The only way this point would work is if the name Jesus in all its forms always outnumbered the occurences of the name of Jesus in Modern Bibles. So thank you.

May the Lord Jesus shine upon you all. Now, that said, the KJV does associate Jesus with with the number 7 in a highly unusual extreme level that does not appear in Modern Bibles. Check out the following article below.

https://truthischrist.com/seven/

Yes, I understand that some of you here may see that as numerology (Even though I do believe that is the case).
But nevertheless, I am presenting facts that cannot be denied.

Anyway, peace be unto you all in the name of Jesus.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Side Note:

Hmmm, now that said, maybe the earlier editions of the NIV, NAS, etcetera are lower are different and have a lowered count of the name of Jesus (When compared to the KJV). However, this would actually be more difficult to verify. I would have to get some of the earlier editions of these Modern Bibles and count them out to find out the numbers. If all the earlier editions show a lower count number, then my reason or point will remain. I say this because the Modern Translator folk would know of the complaints by KJV believers on this point and simply add more names of Jesus into their later editions. I will keep folks posted on this.

 

[fredoheaven]

You are not understanding what I am saying and that is ok. Blessings!

Your position was a little fuzzy to me. So I replied in such a way to address both known KJV viewpoints on Acts 12:4 involving the word "Easter."

Viewpoint #1. - Acts 12:4 is talking about the Christian Passover and not the OT Jewish Passover. This viewpoint is clearly not supported by the context.​

​

Viewpoint #2. - Acts 12:4 is referring to the OT Jewish Passover, but the wording by the Holy Ghost is showing a symbolic double meaning to its wording here in that it is also a reference to how Christians view the Passover now (Which is in the fact that Christ is our Passover Lamb). I am under the impression you favor this view, but I am not 100% sure.​

Do you hold to a viewpoint that is not on this list? If so, I would be curious to know what it is.

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

The Jewish ‘days of unleavened bread’ refers to the 15th day after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It commenced evenly with the resurrection day for another long week celebration as indicated in Leviticus 23:6, Numbers 28:17, and Joshua 5:11. Luke the writer mentioned that the persecution was to the church and how the Jews were pleased with killing James. King Herod himself had his testimony that he also intended to kill Peter, yet put him in prison intending after (pasha)…

Let’s cut it there and here is the question, Is Luke's pascha still pointing to the Jewish Passover, or does Luke reference the Resurrection which coincides with the days of unleavened bread?

The phrase ‘after Easter’ in the KJB still corresponds to the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ being the 15th day or the first day of the week after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It might be Tyndale who invented the English word ‘Passover’ and who sees that it would not fit on the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ so Easter is the correct one.

Biblical Easter connects to the Sun of Righteousness rising in the East or the day dawn rising in the East. I do also think that it is almost exactly agreed to the Jewish Passover but it’s not the same. God bless

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

The Jewish ‘days of unleavened bread’ refers to the 15th day after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It commenced evenly with the resurrection day for another long week celebration as indicated in Leviticus 23:6, Numbers 28:17, and Joshua 5:11. Luke the writer mentioned that the persecution was to the church and how the Jews were pleased with killing James. King Herod himself had his testimony that he also intended to kill Peter, yet put him in prison intending after (pasha)…

Let’s cut it there and here is the question, Is Luke's pascha still pointing to the Jewish Passover, or does Luke reference the Resurrection which coincides with the days of unleavened bread?

The phrase ‘after Easter’ in the KJB still corresponds to the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ being the 15th day or the first day of the week after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It might be Tyndale who invented the English word ‘Passover’ and who sees that it would not fit on the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ so Easter is the correct one.

Biblical Easter connects to the Sun of Righteousness rising in the East or the day dawn rising in the East. I do also think that it is almost exactly agreed to the Jewish Passover but it’s not the same. God bless

Thank you so much. I have clarity on this now based on what you said, and based on an old article I saved. I was reading this old article on the Passover that is one of my top favorites in explaining the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Please check that out article here:

http://www.ironsharpeningiron.com/passoverisafeasthenson.htm

Note: It’s a long article on the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread; But well worth the read. The article focuses on Luke 22:1 that says, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” (KJV).

The article also demonstrates by Scripture that the Passover was seven days (i.e., a seven day celebration that included unleavened bread). Christ died on the 14th the first day of Passover, and this Passover continued. It was a seven day Passover. If such is the case (Which I believe is the case according to the Scripture shown in the article), then Acts 12:4 would be a reference to the “Passover WEEK” when it speaks about the days of unleavened bread. Herod was intending after the “Passover WEEK” (i.e., the seven day week Passover / Unleavened Bread celebration) to then take Peter. The other NT references of the Passover (after the resurrection in the NT) are references to the actual Passover day. For example: The Passover Lamb on the 14th (1 Corinthians 5:7) is involving the 14th, and Moses kept the 1st Passover event, which was a day (Hebrews 11:28). Seeing the resurrection of Jesus Christ would have fallen during the seven day Passover week celebration, it makes sense now why it would be called, “Easter” (pointing to the fact that Jesus rises from the grave just like the sun rises from the darkness out of the horizon line (or the earth - from our perspective).

So thank you. You helped me out on this one greatly.
The KJV is perfect and the Word of God! It’s always right!

Praise God!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Side Note:

Hmmm, now that said, maybe the earlier editions of the NIV, NAS, etcetera are lower are different and have a lowered count of the name of Jesus (When compared to the KJV). However, this would actually be more difficult to verify. I would have to get some of the earlier editions of these Modern Bibles and count them out to find out the numbers. If all the earlier editions show a lower count number, then my reason or point will remain. I say this because the Modern Translator folk would know of the complaints by KJV believers on this point and simply add more names of Jesus into their later editions. I will keep folks posted on this.

Hot news update:

I just checked the NIV 1978 (full complete edition) and the English word “Jesus” appears approximately 957 times, which is less than the KJV. Note: I had to subtract the title headings that referred to Jesus.

The later NIV has the name of Jesus in it more, but like I said, it’s a strong possibility they added the word “Jesus” to the NIV updated edition because of what KJV believers have said in regards to how the KJV exalts Jesus more. I was able to borrow the NIV 1978 online for free at Archive.org (via a free sign up). I need to check the first edition of the NAS next. Then I will check other popular Modern Bibles if the NAS is guilty, as well.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Granted, I still may not use this as a reason for the KJB seeing it is not a slam dunk.
Select Modern Bibles do exalt Jesus greatly (Even if they were to later make this change based on what KJB believers said over the years). The KJV does exalt Jesus more in other ways that the Modern Bibles are simply not capable of doing (Like with the number 7). But this falls more into the realm of Mathematical Miracles in the KJB (i.e., Biblical Numerics).

 

[Dino246]

Hot news update:

I just checked the NIV 1978 (full complete edition) and the English word “Jesus” appears approximately 957 times, which is less than the KJV. Note: I had to subtract the title headings that referred to Jesus.

The later NIV has the name of Jesus in it more, but like I said, it’s a strong possibility they added the word “Jesus” to the NIV updated edition because of what KJV believers have said in regards to how the KJV exalts Jesus more. I was able to borrow the NIV 1978 online for free at Archive.org (via a free sign up). I need to check the first edition of the NAS next. Then I will check other popular Modern Bibles if the NAS is guilty, as well.

Counting instances of “Jesus” in various translations does nothing to establish which “exalts Jesus more”. The translation doesn’t exalt Jesus; the translator does.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Counting instances of “Jesus” in various translations does nothing to establish which “exalts Jesus more”. The translation doesn’t exalt Jesus; the translator does.

If a translation is from man (like with Modern Bibles), this would be the case (for the most part), if the translation was from God, then it would be the work of the LORD under the preservation of GOD, and the content of such an inspired translation, would faithfully convey the words, the teachings, message, and spirit of Jesus Christ, which would indeed exalt Him.

God after all magnifies His word above His own name (See: Psalms 138:2 KJV).

Praise the Lord!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

The Jewish ‘days of unleavened bread’ refers to the 15th day after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It commenced evenly with the resurrection day for another long week celebration as indicated in Leviticus 23:6, Numbers 28:17, and Joshua 5:11. Luke the writer mentioned that the persecution was to the church and how the Jews were pleased with killing James. King Herod himself had his testimony that he also intended to kill Peter, yet put him in prison intending after (pasha)…

Let’s cut it there and here is the question, Is Luke's pascha still pointing to the Jewish Passover, or does Luke reference the Resurrection which coincides with the days of unleavened bread?

The phrase ‘after Easter’ in the KJB still corresponds to the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ being the 15th day or the first day of the week after the celebration of the Jewish Passover. It might be Tyndale who invented the English word ‘Passover’ and who sees that it would not fit on the ‘days of the unleavened bread’ so Easter is the correct one.

Biblical Easter connects to the Sun of Righteousness rising in the East or the day dawn rising in the East. I do also think that it is almost exactly agreed to the Jewish Passover but it’s not the same. God bless

In collecting my thoughts this morning, I now see the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 involving the KJV as a four part explanation (Which involves proper study or resources to investigate such truths to see).

I. The English word "passover" was invented by Tyndale, and we see it is a synonym used interchangeably in Textus Receptus Bibles that predate the KJB. This is also mentioned in an older dictionary. I would recommend the book, "Don't Passover Easter" by Bryan C. Ross (Source).​

​

II. When approaching Acts 12:4, one needs to properly understand the Passover and the days of unleavened bread. Passover is not only just the 14th (a day), but it can refer to a seven day celebration (i.e., Passover Week). This seven day celebration of the Passover also includes the eating of unleavened bread, and thus can also be called the day of unleavened bread. I would recommend the article titled "Passover is a Feast, and a Holy Convocation" by IronSharpeningIron.com (Source).​

​

III. Looking at the other occurences of the English word "passover" in the New Testament after the resurrection, we see that these are in reference to the famous Passover day (the 14th) (See: 1 Corinthians 5:7) (Hebrews 11:28). Whereas in Acts 12:4, it is a reference of the Passover week (a.k.a. days of unleavened bread). This seven day Passover week would include the Crucifixion and the Resurrection Day of Jesus Christ.​

​

IV. Looking at the origin of the English word "Easter" at Eytomology online, we can see such definitions as: "east, toward the sunrise" or as: ""to shine," especially of the dawn." (Source). In Jesus' resurrection, He rised from the grave and out of the tomb made in part by the earth. Jesus rose and came out of the Earth. Involving dawn, or the sun rising each day, it appears like the sun is rising out of the Earth from our perspective and it also ends the darkness. Jesus is the Light of the World who ends the darkness (John 8:12). Jesus is the sun of righteousness referred to in Malachi 4:2. As you know, this is a parallel. Jesus is like the rising of the dawn or like when the sun rises each day (out of the East). So Easter (a picture of the dawn and Christ's resurrection) takes place in the seven day Passover WEEK and not the 14th (the first famous Passover Day). Christians celebrated Easter for many generations and did so in celebration of His resurrection. How perfect is the King James Bible in it's word usage here.​

Praise be unto our risen LORD and for His Word.

May God bless you this fine day that He has made.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In collecting my thoughts this morning, I now see the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 involving the KJV as a four part explanation (Which involves proper study or resources to investigate such truths to see).

I. The English word "passover" was invented by Tyndale, and we see it is a synonym used interchangeably in Textus Receptus Bibles that predate the KJB. This is also mentioned in an older dictionary. I would recommend the book, "Don't Passover Easter" by Bryan C. Ross (Source).​

​

II. When approaching Acts 12:4, one needs to properly understand the Passover and the days of unleavened bread. Passover is not only just the 14th (a day), but it can refer to a seven day celebration (i.e., Passover Week). This seven day celebration of the Passover also includes the eating of unleavened bread, and thus can also be called the day of unleavened bread. I would recommend the article titled "Passover is a Feast, and a Holy Convocation" by IronSharpeningIron.com (Source).​

​

III. Looking at the other occurences of the English word "passover" in the New Testament after the resurrection, we see that these are in reference to the famous Passover day (the 14th) (See: 1 Corinthians 5:7) (Hebrews 11:28). Whereas in Acts 12:4, it is a reference of the Passover week (a.k.a. days of unleavened bread). This seven day Passover week would include the Crucifixion and the Resurrection Day of Jesus Christ.​

​

IV. Looking at the origin of the English word "Easter" at Eytomology online, we can see such definitions as: "east, toward the sunrise" or as: ""to shine," especially of the dawn." (Source). In Jesus' resurrection, He rised from the grave and out of the tomb made in part by the earth. Jesus rose and came out of the Earth. Involving dawn, or the sun rising each day, it appears like the sun is rising out of the Earth from our perspective and it also ends the darkness. Jesus is the Light of the World who ends the darkness (John 8:12). Jesus is the sun of righteousness referred to in Malachi 4:2. As you know, this is a parallel. Jesus is like the rising of the dawn or like when the sun rises each day (out of the East). So Easter (a picture of the dawn and Christ's resurrection) takes place in the seven day Passover WEEK and not the 14th (the first famous Passover Day). Christians celebrated Easter for many generations and did so in celebration of His resurrection. How perfect is the King James Bible in it's word usage here.​

Praise be unto our risen LORD and for His Word.

May God bless you this fine day that He has made.

On point II. , I meant to say it can also be referred to as "the dayS (days) or unleavened bread" and not day.

Also, I misspelled the word “occurrences.” It is double rr and not a singular r.