No major doctrines changed?

Here's a thing to ponder....after the resurrection, there was no more Jewish Passover. Christ had become the Passover Lamb. The King James Bible translators did not have some sort of a collective "senior moment", and though they translated the Greek word paska as Passover some 28 times, suddenly they had some sort of a memory slip and make it Easter this one time in Acts 12:4. They knew exactly what this word means and it means EASTER, particularly when it applies to the yearly celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is what they wrote. Christ is the fulfillment of the Passover!

You seem to misunderstand that the Passover and Easter are two separate events.

The Passover is not a celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You are bound to translate the Koine Greek occurrence of 'Pascha' as Passover, all through the New Testament.

Now that I remember, I actually remember what you are talking about.

Not true! I can read Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew, along with French, German and I'm learning Ukrainian. I've read the Bible completely in French, working through in German, the whole NT in Greek several times, and many books of the OT in Hebrew. I studied a few Shakespeare plays in high school. But I didn't learn grammar, nor the obsolete and obscure words.

Sure, the thy, thous etc are simple second person pronouns. But what about the verbs? I don't know how to conjugate them. I really don't know which pronoun goes where. Plus, the KJV tended to follow the Greek word order, which is technically impossible, because Greek relies on cases for word order, and English relies on word order in a sentence. It's why the KJV is not technically correct, because English can't use Greek word order. German, Ukrainian & other languages that use cases are very easy to follow Greek word order. Reading the Bible in German is a pleasure, because it follows Greek word order.

Then there are those obsolete & archaic words in the KJV . I'm a scholar. I would need probably a couple of years studying Early Modern English to understand it well enough to read the KJV. Why would I do that, when there are so many better modern versions, esp where the added parts that are not in the earliest manuscripts, have been eliminated! I've read quite a few modern versions, in my 55 times reading the complete Bible. Some I liked, (HCSB)!others were stilted & wooden (NASB) some were beyond the pale, like the Message and the Living Bible. Some were too close to the KJV (ESV, NKJV). In the Living Bible, I was enjoying the rather open ended look at the words, when I came across something that was just wrong. I got out my more traditional, Word for Word Bibles, and it was wrong. I closed that Bible up and never read it again. So, I do want accuracy in my Bible. I've been reading the NET Bible for a few years. I don't always agree with the translations, but the 66,000 footnotes do explain why the choices were made. I'd like to read the CSB next read through.

So, to accurately read KJV English, you need a LOT more than a few Shakespeare plays in high school, over 50 years ago. I'm not willing to let go of the need to understand the full text. The worst theological errors I find people make almost always come from someone reading the KJV without understanding the words or word order! In fact, this is not the KJV's fault, totally, it is the fault of people who don't know Early Modern English, have never studied it, and commit eisegesis by reading into the text something it doesn't say. The only way to practically remedy that, is to read a modern Bible, in a language you understand, your heart language. No one in the world has early modern English as their heart language.

I love reading the Bible in different languages I have studied. But for really hearing from God, I need a modern version, translated closer to word for word than thought for thought, but following the rules of modern English grammar, not 16th century rules of grammar, which I have never been taught or studied or Greek grammar.

That is not to say that no one understands KJV English. In this forum, there are a number of people who read & understand the KJV well. They should continue to read the KJV, as really, there are no major doctrinal differences between the KJV & modern versions, although there are a lot of added verses, and partial verses in the KJV, because of all those corrupt, late manuscripts with so many scribal
Additions in the Byzantine empire copyist schools.

The rest of us need to read modern versions, to get the full benefit from reading in the language we have studied and used for years and decades! Since the KJV is neither perfect nor inspired, people should be free to read Bibles they actually understand, not an older Bible which has had a lot of false things attributed to it!

The NIV is an excellent translation--solid cross-denominational scholarship with language that is up to date with contemporary society.

I love the KJV, too, as it ties into my classical literature roots. The Old English can be intimidating to audiences today, however, so I generally quote from the NIV when addressing a general audience.

The NASB might be a textually accurate translation; unfortunately, the Greek text it follows isn't as great as many suppose. I certainly wouldn't rely on it exclusively. Back in the day, before I knew any better, I attended a church that was affiliated with a Christian college where I lived. All the egghead professors there always said the NASB was the most accurate translation of God's word available. It wasn't until years later I realized the truth.

At the time being written of, no one was using the term easter. The Israeli people were not celebrating, or observing, nor did they even have the thought of Easter, niether did Herod. He was waiting for the passover to be over.
The use of the word Easter by the KJV translators was intentional, not an error or typo or mistake. But Herod was indeed not waiting until after Easter was over. He was waiting for thier passover traditional observances to be over.

The KJV writers were codifying Easter in scripture to secure it in tradition.

You have research, otherwise all of what you posted is your opinion.

We all have a right to an opinion.

A long diatribe rebutting things I never stated.

People can read what they want.

My opinion is there are people who can comprehend the KJV.

Since you are a scholar you should know comprehension is not just about the text it is about the skills of the reader.

Since you have not conducted any research on the skills of the readers and how they interact with the text across various groups all you have is an opinion as do I.

I am not really interested in this topic, as I stated in one post, obviously there some high level emotions attached to this topic and it does not really interest me all that much, neither do I see the value since opinions generally go nowhere.

Yes I understand this and so did the KJV translators, but God lead them to translate it as Easter since at that time in history, there was no such thing anymore as Passover. In God's eyes, the Passover no longer existed because the Passover Lamb had come.

Here is the only other usage of the term Passover as referred to after the cross. This is what Easter is all about.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Something indeed led them to include Easter.

I don't for a moment believe it was the True Most High God..

I would call it man's Tradition who created the idealism behind Easter, a Latin/English term, nowhere found in the translation of either the Hebrew nor the Greek.

God did not inspire that to be added. Let's try to be ummm logical here for a moment.

Let me ask you, does Passover still exist? or was it done away with at the cross?

You're asking a KJV-only advocate to be logical?

smh...

As a day of slaughter and blood shed for present sins, No, but as a Reminder of Egypt and the Messiah, Absolutely!

I celebrate Easter and the cross, not the Israelites coming out of Egypt. If you want to celebrate Passover, go for it.

I am not celebrating the exiting of Egypt, but rather the Passing Over the Blood that represents the Messiah.

But seeing you Don't possess the discernment to understand the obvious, I can see why this topic is confusing.

There's a term for this...Easter.

No harm brother, it's not a cause of division. Have a blessed day!

Yes, there are people that can understand it. I can understand it.
You implied that we shouldn't disparage the KJV, because "anyone who read Shakespeare in high school can understand it".
Not only is that statement misguided, there is also the point that not everyone studies Shakespeare in school. In fact, I would bet that MOST people don't study it any more.
Which leads back to Angela's (and all of our) statements that the KJV is NOT the best version to read, for the general public.
It's fine, if you can understand it, but too often it creates difficulties in understanding that don't need to exist.

The seasonal celebration of Easter doesn't offend me but it's quite a stretch to pretend it's some holy thing authorised by God.
If you throw out the pagan trappings you still don't have a replacement for Passover.

Passover is a foundation on which much prophecy is built. The 2nd coming of Jesus is illustrated in The Passover story.
It isn't limited to his first advent. He asked the apostles to have the Passover meal in his memory.
Passover is key to understanding many of The Revelation prophecies.

If there is one overarching theme concerning The Passover in scripture it is;

Remember.

Remember.


..... and do not forget !!!

It can't be brushed aside by inserting the title of a de-paganised spring fesival.
Jesus does fulfill Passover yes, but we are yet to see it's conclusion.

It's a shame if your translation has airbrushed it out of the NT. Consider that at best, a poor translation choice.
But quite possibly deceptive meddling.

Using 'Easter' in place of Passover is certainly enough evidence to establish that The KJV is not a perfect work.