Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

Recommended Posts

Ok Mr Robycop....

List em out for us.

Every single one of them so that they can be addressed.

We need it clear, concise, and fully referenced, chapter and verse, and precisely why you think each one is a goof or a booboo.

And if possible each one separated so that it can be easily addressed in isolation.

You are making the accusations - let's see the goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  OK, let's start with "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

    First, Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".  Next, if the date of Jesus' resurrection was openly observed in Jerusalem then, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please woul;d've left off dealing with Peter to have observed it.  Next, Acts 12:3 tells us that PASSOVER was then going on. And Ezrekiel 45:21 as well as John 18:28 tells us that the whole week-long observance is called "passover". And the Greek word 'pascha' is a transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", the name GOD called passover. (Yes, I know pascha NOW can mean either passover or Easter, depending on the context, but the translation is supposed to reflect LUKE'S thoughts, not those of the translators.

   The AV makers clearly knew the difference in Easter & passover. They placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611. And they considered Easter, along with Christmas, to be one of the 2 holiest days of the year. Now, had they rendered pascha as Easter all 29 times it appears in the NT Koine Greek, we could chalk it up as an archaism, but the ONE-TIME USE can only be a goof, as there was no reason to use Easter there.

(I'll move on to another goof after this one is vetted. That's all I have time for today. Meanwhile may God bless each of you!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on  Mr Roby, let's get on with it.

You keep claiming goofs and booboos yet you have not given any apart from one single one that you have mentioned a couple of times which is totally wrong anyway.

List them out for us so we can address ALL THESE goofs and booboos that keep claiming.

There are apparently so many by the way you are spouting off about it.

Give us a few.

Or are you only interested in causing trouble, mis-answering direct questions, and misrepresenting what people say?

Lay it out clearly so we can answer.

And you better have a lot of them - or is it all just bluster and wind?

So far that is all we have seen - opinion based on your own brilliance, intellect, and knowledge.

Don't leave us waiting - if you have got anything, then lay it out clearly for us.

Let's leave off all this side issue stuff and get stuck right in.

I know you think you have the authority over the Word of God to pick, choose, and decide what God really means, but let's test out your so far unsubstantiated claims.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

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

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

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

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

Tyndale used Passover and Easter interchangably in his text. In fact Tyndales NT said Christ is our Easter lamb. 

The anglo saxon NT used the word Easter every place where the Greek word “Pascha” was used.

Easter is the same as Passover in Acts 12.

And no the days of unleavened bread starting does not mean it could not have been Passover.

Ezekiel 45:21 KJV
[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.

I dont think William Tyndale was so stupid that he thought Christ wasn’t the passover lamb. Its clear from his translation, and the anglo saxon bible that Easter at one point in the English language was a synonym for passover. 

This rediculous idea about a Pagan holiday being called by the same Greek name in NT time as the Jewish Passover is nonsense and it makes it hard for people to take us seriously when we defend the KJV

Easter in Acts 12 is not a pagan holiday and neither is it a “goof”, It was simply a synonym for Passover in the English language at that time. 

 

According to Webster 1828

E'ASTER, n.

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

According to Smiths Bible dictionary 
 

Easter. Act 12:4. In the earlier English versions, Easter has been frequently used as the translation of pascha, (Passover). In the Authorized Version, Passover was substituted in all passages but this; and in the new Revision, Passover is used here. See Passover.

Easton:

In the early English versions this word was frequently used as the translation of the Greek pascha (the Passover). When the Authorized Version (1611) was formed, the word “passover” was used in all passages in which this word pascha occurred, except in Acts 12

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained:

Eze 45:21-23
(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.
(22)  And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
(23)  And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
 

If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread.

There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days".

Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not.

That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times.

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says.

In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DaveW said:

(My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....)

Oh my - the old Easter issue.....

Have you READ the Bible sir?

Acts 12

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

 4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread?

That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread.

It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true.

Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested.

Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread.

Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself.

Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense.

Strike one, try again.

 Well, actually, Sir, passover WAS ongoing when Herod busted Perer, & here's the proof, straight from your KJV:

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. Remember, this is a quote of the words of GOD HIMSELF.

 And here's further proof that passover is 7 days long:

John 18: 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

  Jesus, His disciples, & the other Jews had eaten their paschal lambs the previous evening. So, the 'passover' the Jews who'd busted Jesus were hoping to eat were the special unleavened meals to be eaten all week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go and study the matter of the Passover and report back.

The Passover is a single DAY, the feast of unleavened bread is SEVEN DAYS.

So who was doing the Passover wrong? Jesus or the Pharisees and the priests? Look it up and see what the Bible actually says about the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread?

Someone was doing it wrong...…… who do you reckon it might have been?

And which one aligns with the Biblical point of the Passover being a Day, and the Feast of unleavened bread being seven days that starts by the way with an "Holy Convocation" or Sabbath day, the day after the Passover, which was NOT A SABBATH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DaveW said:

Go and study the matter of the Passover and report back.

The Passover is a single DAY, the feast of unleavened bread is SEVEN DAYS.

So who was doing the Passover wrong? Jesus or the Pharisees and the priests? Look it up and see what the Bible actually says about the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread?

Someone was doing it wrong...…… who do you reckon it might have been?

And which one aligns with the Biblical point of the Passover being a Day, and the Feast of unleavened bread being seven days that starts by the way with an "Holy Convocation" or Sabbath day, the day after the Passover, which was NOT A SABBATH.

  I just quoted SCRIPTURE which proves otherwise. GOD, not man, called passover "a feast of seven days".

And, had Jesus observed passover on the wrong day, it woulda been a sin, and also the Jews woulda had their "legitimate" excuse to murder Him. Jesus observed passover at the CORRECT time, & any other time woulda been incorrect. But if the Jews thought he was observing it at the wrong time, they would have taken out His disciples also for the same "sin".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you refuse to do the basic study which explains the scripture you quoted doesn't say what you think it does. And in fact I already showed the explanation, so you don't even have to do any work.

All you had to do was read two more verses, but you don't care because that would show you are wrong.

DO THE STUDY OF THE PASSOVER AND THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.

How about you move on to another so called error....... since you refuse to do the basic study required to answer this one.....

 

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DaveW said:

Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained:

Eze 45:21-23
(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.
(22)  And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
(23)  And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
 

If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread.

There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days".

Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not.

That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times.

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says.

In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

So you think Tyndale was so stupid that he didnt know that Christ was not an Easter (in our modern sense) lamb?

Perhaps William Tyndale understand the word Easter differently then 21st Century English Speakers....

Why would you so horribly and viciously misrepresent my words?

What I said about Tyndale was this:

18 hours ago, DaveW said:

As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says

Not actually about Tyndale at all, and not about his intelligence or his understanding. 

This an entirely unjustified personal attack - I would expect such from certain others here, but not from you.

I know you don't have much respect for me (and I possibly have earned that lack of respect), but I thought you had a decent level of basic respect generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leviticus differentiates passover and feast of unleavened bread: Leviticus 23: 5-8.

"On the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.  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.  In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.  But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

This instruction clearly shows us that the Easter mentioned in Acts is not the same as Passover, as Dave has pointed out.  While I do not accept any modern versions, both the NIV and the NASB are clear as to the difference as well.

Easter has always been a pagan festival, in homage to Ishtar, the fertility goddess. It has NOTHING to do with Christ, so Tyndale got it wrong. Period. Christ is our Passover Lamb, not our fertility lamb. And before you jump on me as you did Dave, Jordan, rest assured that I don't believe Tyndale was stupid in any way. Just wrong to call Christ our Easter Lamb. Just as wrong as the modern translators who were wanting to refer to Christ as the "pig of God" because the people of Papua New Guinea didn't know what sheep were and held pigs as sacred.

There is no mistake about Easter in the KJV. "Pascha" means Easter, and is the word used in Acts. "Pesach" means Passover. Two different words, two different meanings. The feast of Eostre (Ishtar, Easter) took place around the same time as Passover. Herod was referencing Easter - the festival of Ishtar - not the resurrection of Christ nor even Passover. Herod was an Edomite. His ancestors had converted to Judaism, but that doesn't mean Herod did. By his referring to the feast of homage to Ishtar, it is clear he was a pagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto Jim. On my part, it has only been 21-22 years of being Kjvonly (though leaning that way for several years before I actually started doing personal research on the matter). I especially focussed on Bible difficulties - and have never found an “error” that couldn’t be reconciled in some way - whether by studying out the exact English words of the passage or by comparing related passages. And inthe same manner, have proven over and over that other versions do have errors - whether by omissions creating a contradiction or difficulty or by reading the exact wording of that verse or passage in that modern version to see there is a conflict (and not finding the same error or conflict in the Kjv).

For the record Robycop, it is one thing to prove there is an error and another thing to just say there is. Just because you disagree with how someone reconciles or explains a Bible difficulty does not prove there is actually one. You’ve already explained your issue with the word Easter in Acts 12, now list or show us the myriad other actual errors you have personally found - if in fact you have found some. I can guarantee that the believers in the authenticity of the Kjv here can defend the Kjv from all those supposed errors, and show from each passage or related passages that our King James Bible is not in error. Can you do that with your favourite modern Bible version(s)? If not, you are just creating more smokescreens and being a stumbling block to the faith of any believer following your philosophy. For someone who claims to love the Lord and His Word, that should be something that you would strive against.

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Roby is clearly only here to cause trouble, and he is making hollow claims about errors in the KJV. If he has as he has implied many errors in the KJV why is it that he has now been more than 24 hours since posting his next error?

If there are so many (as he implies) then it should be a simple matter to just list them off - shouldn't take any great amount of time to find the next one and present it - since he has spent 40 years ridiculing the KJV (note the use of "goofs and booboos" - which sounds very much like what he accused NoNics of in another thread) he should be an expert on such things.

Then again, if he really has investigated the matter, he would have thoroughly studied the matter of the Passover, which it is evident that he has not from his poor counter to the answer presented here on that point.

No, I doubt very much that he has any good intent - he is here to damage the faith of some, which is the result that comes when people are driven to the MV's by such as he - so many doctrines are softened or removed by the MV's, and the simple fact that many MV's promote doubt of God's Word ("not found in the better manuscripts") damages men's faith in the Word of God.

This is my assessment of this man - he has lied, he has misrepresented, he has ridiculed, he has stated that he will not give plain respect, and yet he DEMANDED respect from us.

Let me make this plain - I am NOT AFRAID of any so called "proofs" that he can post here, because I know that they can all be answered.

I am also confident that no matter how solid the proof against him, he will not accept it.

The matter of Easter/Passover has been answered - you refuse to accept what is presented, and we refuse to accept your mispresentation of Scripture.

Later readers can assess for themselves what has been presented on that matter and decide that Mr Roby is wrong for themselves.

It is time to move on to the second error of the implied many that there are...…..

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jerry said:

 

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. 😉

Jerry! It's SO good to "see" you again as well! I hope you're here to stay for a while? I've thought about and prayed for you often. Are you still in the same place? If so, we aren't too far from your neck of the woods now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to Abbotsford, BC (near Vancouver) in October 2011.

As for sticking around, we will see. I am not fighting depression like I was when I last visited, so I am willing to give these boards a try again. I look forward to fellowshipping over the Word of God and helping others dig into the Scriptures to answer issues we face here and in our own lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...