No major doctrines changed?

So that's why Pasch was translated as Easter once but 27 times as Passover. Well, that translation, meaning, was the same throughout the scripture?

Or we could just go with the BNW version (Brave New World) ....

dnt B fraid or discouragd, 4 tha LORD wl personaly lead u. He wl B W U; he wl neither fail u nor abndn u.” Deuteronomy 131v8

So I tel u 2 ask +U wl gt, srch +U wl fnd, nock n d door wl B openD 4 u. Luke 11:9

ll dis t%k plce 2 fulfill w@ d Lord had z thru d prophet: Mat 1 v22

N d Bginin wz d 1 huz cllD d wrd. d wrd wz wiv God n wz truly God. John1 v1



Easy peasy!!

The KJV translates Strong's H5927 in the following manner: (come, etc...) up (676x), offer (67x), come (22x), bring (18x), ascend (15x), go (12x), chew (9x), offering (8x), light (6x), increase (4x), burn (3x), depart (3x), put (3x), spring (2x), raised (2x), arose (2x), break (2x), exalted (2x), miscellaneous (33x).

Does this version come with crayons or pop-ups?

BNW
Brave New World Bible Edition, release date 2024 October

Non Brainer Press Text Publishers
Available for download (0.2 bytes of memory required)

Bringing the word of God relevantly, using fewest brain cells as possible, into the lives of a text message generation.
All content has been refreshed for today’s language and needs.

Super light only 43.56 pages, no leather cover available we are a super high rated ESG company.

That would be a wise addition for sure!!

Only in rainbow packs (no white). 😜

If you happened to read my previous post, the English "Easter" was first coined by William Tyndale, and almost of his Gr. Pascha was translated "Ester"/'Easter" to which 1 Corinthian 5:7 as 'Esterlamb'. The difference I am seeing so far is that the KJB translator retained the word 'Easter" to indicate post-resurrection. All major languages except English and German have resorted to transliterating the Hebrew Pesach to Greek Pascha, including the Latin translation into 'pascha' etc . Savile and the company did a good job refining Tyndale's work. English 'Passover" on the other hand was also later invented by William Tyndale because "Easter" is against the time if used in the O.T. he did come up with the new word "Passover" 5 years later.

Can you expound on this? I believe the KJB is not an error here. I might have misunderstood your statement. Thanks

I’m not trying to turn this into a John 3:16 debate, but this does help demonstrate the point I was making. The KJV’s “whosoever” statement has (in a subtle like manner) impacted our interpretation of the verse,

There is no Greek counterpart/equivalent to the English term “whosoever.” In fact, the author of the gospel of John never uses the term “whosoever” or any other variations of this English word anywhere in this text. Some translations say “whoever” instead of the traditional “whosoever,” but even the Greek term hos an (“whoever”), which is used in Romans 10:13, was not used by the author in John 3:16. The term “whoever” translates from the Greek hos an, but what we have here in John 3:16 is not hos an, but rather, pas ho pisteuoon — literally meaning “all the believing.” It is “all the believing” that will be gifted with eternal life, not “whosoever wills.” I believe the NET, NMB, and Lexham are amongst those that are closest to the authors intent.

With that being said, the term “whosoever” is a 13th century English possessive pronoun, which the KJV uses, and has been grossly misinterpreted into the modern English language. It did not mean “whoever wills,” as it could be construed in todays modern English (“whoever wants to come to the picnic, can come”). Rather, the term “whosoever” refers to certain qualities/traits of a group, or of a certain individual. For example, “whoever possesses these traits will be hired,” or “whoever has green skin will get a free car” — not “whosoever wills to have green skin will get a free car.”

That is the issue.

Well guess what. The GENEVA BIBLE -- strictly Calvinistic -- has the very same word! So your argument has no merit. The wording is almost identical to the KJV.

The Geneva Bible (1599)
John 3:16 For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The KJV doesn't say "whosoever wills."

So the KJV is wrong because it does not fit the Calvinist view?

Is this from John White?

James White: “He gave His only begotten Son, and here’s the purpose why He gave: The Son is given by the Father so that every believing one, notice not everyone, it’s every believing one, there is a limitation here, there is a particularity here, the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those in regard to those who who believe. …that’s why the Son is given.”

As I posted above "whosoever" was TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE to the Calvinists who put together the Geneva Bible. So every objection to this is invalid.

But the enemy of our souls wants to make sure that there will be division and dissension over this verse, since it totally undercuts (along with John 3:17) Five Point Calvinism. What probably even the Calvinists don't know is that when John Calvin was writing his commentary on this passage, he was being consistent with our understanding that salvation is offered to anyone and everyone -- all mankind. It is only in his Institutes that he made a 180 degree turn, and promoted Reformed Theology (which actually originated with a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic Augustine).

Agree, I just know from experience on this board those in the "Reformed Movement' have a way of changing word meanings, I was just prodding his view a bit.

Yep, Christ the Passover. The cross eliminated the Jewish Passover.

My statement is not about Greek words. It’s about the English words in the KJV.

The Jews still celebrate the Passover. Gentiles never celebrated the Passover, it was not our Passover.

What do you mean by eliminated the Jewish Passover?

I was afraid this was going to happen, hence, the disclaimer in the very first sentence of my previous post. As stated prior, I am not trying to turn this into a debate on Jn. 3:16. I am simply stating a matter of fact. There is no reason to try to turn this thread into a battle for/against Calvinism. That is not the point I was making at all, was it, Nehemiah? So let's set the subject of Calvinism to the side and address the actual point being made, which I will restate once more.

The entire point is that translations from the 16th c. period (including the Geneva, KJV, and other English translations from the period) used the term "whosoever" in a very different sense than modern readers use the term. Modern readers read too much into the term, and don't interpret it as it was used in earlier periods, as a possessive pronoun. It is not the fault of the KJV or the Geneva Bible for using the term, "whosoever." They were using it as it was understood in their time period (as a 13th c. possessive pronoun). It is the fault of the modern reader to read a modernization back into the text instead of understanding it in light of the English language of the time -- that's called, anachronism.

For that reason, your argument does not work. How does citing the Geneva Bible necessarily prove anything, but the very point I was making all along? Of course the Geneva Bible is going to use it!

The Geneva (like the KJV) used "whosoever" as it was intended in their time period (a possessive pronoun); it is after all, a translation done in the 16th c., when the term (contrary to today) was commonly understood as such (a possessive pronoun), i.e., "I will offer a position to whoever possesses these traits," not objective (as commonly understood today), i.e., to have the option to choose ("whosoever wants to come to the picnic, can come"). Hence, the Geneva, KJV are at harmony with the Lexham and NET, but used the language of their time to express it. It is the fault of the modern reader to place a modernized emphasis onto the term.

This doesn't prove Calvinism. Nor does it disprove Calvinism. This doesn't prove Arminianism. Nor does it disprove Arminianism. All this does it take a text that is often cited against Calvinism and makes it "neutral." People need to stop abusing the term "whosoever" in an attempt to push an agenda, and attempt to understand the term as it was understood in the period.

Now back to the topic (in which my comments are to be understood): the English language has evolved over time, and people are reading back into the translation, what the translators themselves did not intend.

No... in fact, you failed to (accurately) represent the argument I put forth. See my comments above. So this comment about my objection being "invalid" is quite a bit of non-sense.

Don't pretend you understood what I said, and then turn around and misrepresent what I had just got done saying.