Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members
16 hours ago, Alan said:

Scott,

Thank you for your opinion.

Seeking to change a word in the scriptures and saying "...it needed to be changed" is not the same. I never stated that Jordan, using the 2nd. person personal pronouns that you quoted in your post, is the equivalent to stating that Jordan said, "...it needed to be changed." It seems to me that that issue is a "straw man" to get past the main issue. The main issue is the implication, by Jordan and the linked Easter study, that Miles Coverdale was more consistent, and therefore correct, than the KJV translators.

And, let us not forget, it seems to me that throughout his whole thesis, including the link, which does not have an author or another means of checking the source, that Jordan is implying that the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is not consistent in the etymological use of the word, or correct and that John, me, and others, who do not agree with Jordan's teaching is "intellectually dishonest."

Also, another very important matter that Jordan did not mention, nor did you mention, that Jordan accused John that he was "intellectually dishonest."

If this discussion is to continue on a even keel, I would like the following:

1. Who is the author of the link in Jordan's first post.

2. An apology for calling John, and those who believe what he posted, as  "intellectually dishonest."

Alan

Alan, did you not see where I CLEARLY said that the KJV is not in error? 

 To be quite blunt I am not claiming the King James is in error, I am claiming that people like you and John are on error in your understanding of the English Language. The fact that you want to act like I am questioning the accuracy of the KJV is troubling to me.

And no I will not apologize for my accusation against John. Maybe the language is rather strong, But I dont trully believe people are being honest with the evidence that I have presented.

The argument that Easter as a word being used rather than passover and that must  denotes some other meaning simply on the basis of word difference is intellectually dishonest because it is clear from historical evidence that the word was used as a synonym for passover, therefore if you want to say its different the word difference alone is not a sufficient argument. Therefore to use an argument of that nature is NOT an honest argument. 

Alan, respectfully, based on your comments: I dont think you even understand the points I made in that paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/8/2020 at 4:01 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

As already referenced in the paper, you are in error to assume that because the translators left easter it means something distinct from passover because A. They admitted to doing things of this nature and B. Historical usage of the word shows English speakers of that time using the word as a synonym for passover. The issue is not what they did with words GENERALLY or what the common man of that day may have used as a synonym for Passover but rather what Easter meant to the translators in Acts 12.

if you want to assert that “Easter”/“pascha” in that context somehow means something different from Easter then the burden of proof is upon you and not me. In my comments I've provided my proof already by showing the context of the chapter was about persecuting the christian events of the Passover week and therefor the use of the distinctly christian word Easter over that of the general word Passover. Your paper merely asserts your position of a synonym (ie. you would have no problem if the translators wrote "Passover" instead)  but does not show actual contextual proof or specific evidence that was their reason for the variant word. Your paper is simply weak in that regard and you need to make it better if your reasoning is to be recived. In regard to it being your paper making the case, the proof IS upon you to make your case.

I think it is intellectually dishonest for you to say that since they used the word Easter in Acts 12 it must be something different and then assume a Christian meaning to the word. Intellectual dishonesty would be me trying to make "Easter" something other than a distinctly Christian event. Easter IS the Passover week fulfilled in Christ. To make it anything other than that would be intellectual dishonesty.

To be consistent will you apply that same reasoning to Coverdale in the places of the Old Testament where he used the word Easter in places where it clearly is the Jewish passover? To be consistent will you “address that choice of the distinctly Christian event word Easter" by Coverdale? Was Coverdale incompetent or wrong? Or did he know something about the word Easter that you seem unwilling to aknowledge? Each English version had their own reasoning for their word choice and previous versions were not always consistent or accurate. English Christians always viewed the Passover week in context of its Easter fulfillment so never called it Passover. It was only when Tyndall made the distinction between OT Passover and NT fulfilled Passover (Easter) that the versions even considered the issue. Before Tyndall it was the same word for OT and NT events, Hence the tradition of saying the Jews Easter. As time progressed they would use the Christian Easter in places where a Christian element (Christ) was referenced in the OT type. Each version made that determination for each passage. Distinctly OT references became Passover and those with Christian types would retain Easter. Eventually it was. the KJV that standardized to all references to Passover except Acts 12:4 because of the very strong focus on the Christian events that Herod was attacking. It was retained because the OT Passover events were not in focus but rather Easter Resurrection of Christ, a uniquely Christian and final event of the Christian Passover week held on the Firstfruits Sunday after the week of unleavened bread. Only the accuracy of the KJV retains that distinction. 

An additional resource I would like for you to study is a sermon on the Easter tradition kept by the church preached by one of the translators Lancelot Andrews. In it he gives the understanding of what "Easter" meant to them in their day and the church in general throughout history and to which was received from the early church and the apostles themselves and is similar to what I advocate. If I am being intellectually dishonest then you will have to consider the translators to be as well.

http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v2/easter1618.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Alan, did you not see where I CLEARLY said that the KJV is not in error? 

 To be quite blunt I am not claiming the King James is in error, I am claiming that people like you and John are on error in your understanding of the English Language. The fact that you want to act like I am questioning the accuracy of the KJV is troubling to me.

And no I will not apologize for my accusation against John. Maybe the language is rather strong, But I dont trully believe people are being honest with the evidence that I have presented.

The argument that Easter as a word being used rather than passover and that must  denotes some other meaning simply on the basis of word difference is intellectually dishonest because it is clear from historical evidence that the word was used as a synonym for passover, therefore if you want to say its different the word difference alone is not a sufficient argument. Therefore to use an argument of that nature is NOT an honest argument. 

Alan, respectfully, based on your comments: I dont think you even understand the points I made in that paper.

Jordan,

Thank you for for being intellectually honest and letting me know that you were the author of the paper.

I acknowledge that you think John, myself, and those who are persuaded in like thoughts concerning the word Easter in the KJV in Acts 14:2 is proper, correct, and should not be changed,  but are in error, not honest, find my responses troubling, intellectually dishonest, not correct in handling what you consider historical evidence, and do not understand your teaching in the linked paper.

For your information. I do understand your linked paper and find it wanting, one-sided, disparaging the KJV translators, casting doubt on the veracity of the KJV translation and the honestly and intellectual capacity of the translators, and is biased against the KJV

I am not going to argue, nor continue a discussion with you Jordan. Since you are persuaded that I am in error, not honest, find my responses troubling, are intellectually dishonest, not correct in handling what you consider historical evidence, than I find no common ground to continue a discussion.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, John Young said:

An additional resource I would like for you to study is a sermon on the Easter tradition kept by the church preached by one of the translators Lancelot Andrews. In it he gives the understanding of what "Easter" meant to them in their day and the church in general throughout history and to which was received from the early church and the apostles themselves and is similar to what I advocate. If I am being intellectually dishonest then you will have to consider the translators to be as well.

http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v2/easter1618.html

Brother John, thank you for offering this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Alan said:

Jordan,

Thank you for for being intellectually honest and letting me know that you were the author of the paper.

I acknowledge that you think John, myself, and those who are persuaded in like thoughts concerning the word Easter in the KJV in Acts 14:2 is proper, correct, and should not be changed,  but are in error, not honest, find my responses troubling, intellectually dishonest, not correct in handling what you consider historical evidence, and do not understand your teaching in the linked paper.

For your information. I do understand your linked paper and find it wanting, one-sided,disparaging the KJV translators, casting doubt on the veracity of the KJV translation and the honestly and intellectual capacity of the translators, and is biased against the KJV

I am not going to argue, nor continue a discussion with you Jordan. Since you are persuaded that I am in error, not honest, find my responses troubling, are intellectually dishonest, not correct in handling what you consider historical evidence, than I find no common ground to continue a discussion.

Alan

Well Alan, since this is now at least the 3rd time that I am saying the KJV is NOT in error for using Easter, and yet you continue to insist over and over to the contrary, then yes I would agree that we have no common ground to continue discussing.

Neither you nor any other reader will find anywhere in my paper where I assert that the KJV is in error, or where I question the competency of the translators or the veracity of the translation. To be quite frank I find your insistence that I am doing so to be slander Alan, you are twisting my words to make me say something that I never said. 
 
From my paper

“This does NOT however, mean that the King James Bible is in error for using the word Easter in Acts 12:4 though, as we will see.”

“Why did the King James translates use the word Easter here instead of passover in Acts 12:4?” That is what many King James Bible believers ask.
“Surely there must have been a reason?” They say.
It wasn’t because they made an error. It also wasn’t because they were trying to denote a pagan holiday. Then why did they use the word “Easter”?”

”No the King James is NOT in error by using the word Easter in Acts 12:4, but neither is Acts 12:4 a pagan holiday or Christian celebration of the passover. Easter when the King James Bible was translated, was used as a synonym for Passover, and Easter in the Acts 12:4 in the King James Bible, is simply passover.”

Error: : an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy, an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done

Alan, I use only the King James Version and have never preached or taught from another one and I have zero plans of accepting a new English version. Whether intentional or not, you are slandering me if you are going to insist that I am “disparaging the KJV translators, casting doubt on the veracity of the KJV translation and the honestly and intellectual capacity of the translators, and is biased against the KJV. “

8 hours ago, John Young said:

An additional resource I would like for you to study is a sermon on the Easter tradition kept by the church preached by one of the translators Lancelot Andrews. In it he gives the understanding of what "Easter" meant to them in their day and the church in general throughout history and to which was received from the early church and the apostles themselves and is similar to what I advocate. If I am being intellectually dishonest then you will have to consider the translators to be as well.

http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v2/easter1618.html

Thank you for this response John. I hope you understand that my statements earlier were not meant as personal attacks. Perhaps instead of saying “intellectually dishonest“, I should say something like “not logical”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

May I respectfully suggest that perhaps this thread end at this point? This subject seems to have deteriorated into the realm of "he said she said". I hate to even have to moderate this because the parties involved are and have always been, well respected members of this community. It would seem that everything that can be said on this subject has been said.

One other reason to perhaps just let this subject lie is that it is bordering going against board rules. One specific one that I am referring to is:

8. We will not allow the following
a) Bashing of other message boards. 
b) Bashing of your pastor or church. ** Online Baptist is a place for fellowship, disagreements you may have with others should not be handled here.
c) Members that come just to argue doctrine instead of fellowship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

May I respectfully suggest that perhaps this thread end at this point? This subject seems to have deteriorated into the realm of "he said she said". I hate to even have to moderate this because the parties involved are and have always been, well respected members of this community. It would seem that everything that can be said on this subject has been said.

One other reason to perhaps just let this subject lie is that it is bordering going against board rules. One specific one that I am referring to is:

8. We will not allow the following
a) Bashing of other message boards. 
b) Bashing of your pastor or church. ** Online Baptist is a place for fellowship, disagreements you may have with others should not be handled here.
c) Members that come just to argue doctrine instead of fellowship.

But Jim is this really “he said she said”? Look at Alans accusations against me in this thread you can see them for yourself. He over and over contrary to my paper and my own statements is baselessly accusing me of attacking the KJV. Is this kind of behavior acceptable on this board? Have people not been banned or at least warned for this kind of behavior in the past? 

At this point the “Easter” discussion can be left alone. However this matter of Alan blatantly slandering me should be dealt with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. Jordan, I have made my position clear and will not allow myself to be actually dragged into the controversy. I simply see no need for moderator banning, warning, or other actions when it is so easy for our members to police themselves and just agree to let the controversy drop. This kind of discussion looks bad for us as Independent Baptists when visitors see it. It may even be best in the interest of IFB unity if this whole thread just went away completely.

We are Christians and well able to practice Christian discernment. Mt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mt 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mt 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

In this respect I am going to bow out of any moderation of content or persons and let BroMatt deal with this or not as he sees fit. I administer as a help to BroMatt and I do not feel that any warnings or banning on this thread would be in the best interest of BroMatt as the owner of this board. As I suggested it would be best for those involved to simply let the thread die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am passionate about this topic and I'm more than happy to discuss the topic at hand based on the material presented. However, I have no interest in "defending my honor" or accusing other members of ill intent on this forum or ever encouraging such line of thinking. It is only when we allow self presumed and intended slights, born out of self pride to distract us, that productive conversation suffers. That is the primary reason advances in helpful information, and the truth of the matter, suffers on most forums. I would like to encourage the other members to simply focus on the topic and not on each other's presumed intents for posting their opinion or observation of a topic.

Most of us on this forum are not random, unknown trolls, or drive by sensationalist posters. We all are known to have a love for God and the scriptures and for the most part have very good doctrine. We have great opportunity to refine our right doctrine if we honestly and compassionately consider each other's contribution to a topic here on Online Baptist. So, let information stand and fall on its own. There is no need for us to tarnish ourselves with assumptions of each other's character, regardless of the topic at hand.

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Ecclesiastes 10:4 If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.

Corinthians 6:3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

Acts 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

James 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  I'll be the first to admit that Easter and pask, etc. were once used interchangeably in English. But Tyndale coined the word 'passover C. 1534, & that word had come into general use for pask by the time the KJV was made.

 

  Now, if the observation of the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection had been observed at the time Luke wrote "Acts", neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please would've observed it, nor left off in their dealings with Peter because of it. And, had the KJV rendered pascha as Easter often, we could simply chalk it up as an archaism.

 

  And, BTW, I completely dismiss Hislop's stuff about "Eostre/Ishtar/Easter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Archaism VS. Synonym. Here also is the issue with the original post document argument for Easter merely being an "synonym" of the Jewish Passover rather than holding that Easter is specific to the Christian faith and the Passover fulfilled in Christ.

4 hours ago, robycop3 said:

chalk it up as an archaism.

Using the exact same logic as the original document's conclusion, Pro-KJV will call it a synonym and Anti-KJV advocates will call it an Archaism/archaic or an error on the translators part. Pretty much relegating it to a matter of personal opinion. Brother Jordan, this is why your paper needs to be stronger in its conclusion. As it stands it ends with an opinion and not on a matter of fact. Using your same concluding facts, three groups of opinions have arisen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
43 minutes ago, John Young said:

Archaism VS. Synonym. Here also is the issue with the original post document argument for Easter merely being an "synonym" of the Jewish Passover rather than holding that Easter is specific to the Christian faith and the Passover fulfilled in Christ.

Using the exact same logic as the original document's conclusion, Pro-KJV will call it a synonym and Anti-KJV advocates will call it an Archaism/archaic or an error on the translators part. Pretty much relegating it to a matter of personal opinion. Brother Jordan, this is why your paper needs to be stronger in its conclusion. As it stands it ends with an opinion and not on a matter of fact. Using your same concluding facts, three groups of opinions have arisen.

I posted a reply to this, but I think it might be anonymous as I was not signed in when I replied. I think it's also awaiting moderator approval because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/8/2020 at 6:28 AM, Alan said:

Jordan,

Jordan, you stated in your first post, "As a preview, I take neither the position that it is an error nor that it is a pagan holiday." If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

One of, not all, of the reasons why I said this statement was that if Jordan did not think that the word was an error or a pagan holiday, than why change it? Why? It seems to me that there is more than what meets the eye in the intentions of the linked study on why Easter should not be in Acts 14:2 than is presented in the linked study.

3 hours ago, John Young said:

Archaism VS. Synonym. Here also is the issue with the original post document argument for Easter merely being an "synonym" of the Jewish Passover rather than holding that Easter is specific to the Christian faith and the Passover fulfilled in Christ.

Using the exact same logic as the original document's conclusion, Pro-KJV will call it a synonym and Anti-KJV advocates will call it an Archaism/archaic or an error on the translators part. Pretty much relegating it to a matter of personal opinion. Brother Jordan, this is why your paper needs to be stronger in its conclusion. As it stands it ends with an opinion and not on a matter of fact. Using your same concluding facts, three groups of opinions have arisen.

John Young is correct in all of his comments.

Among other problems in the study that I do not care for, the linked study has three groups of opinions. Which one is correct? What is Jordan really trying to accomplish? Should Easter be taken out out of Acts 12:4 and Passover be substituted?

Brethren,

If you really study out the issue, and check out that the newer translators are writing, and how most of the proponents of changing the "archaic" KJV version, than you will find out that once you change the word Easter for any reason, than other "archaic" words in the KJV are next in line.

As for me, I have studied every word of Jordan's linked study twice and still find it "wanting" in numerous places, leaves out important information, has three opinions as John Young brought out, and disparages the KJV translators, while praising the Coverdale edition.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...