Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
You are reckoning that...as did the Sadducees. Many folks today do the same, as it then lines up perfectly with the "Easter" mythology of the Roman Church.
My preference is the Pharisee method, as that is what Our Lord told us was correct. [Matthew 23:1-3] 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
He called them hypocrites.....but He said......at least they preached the right doctrine. [Leviticus 23:15-16] 15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
The question is.....which Sabbath are they speaking of in verse 15? Is it the weekly Sabbath.....or the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread....the 15th of Nisan/Abib? Verse 11 says the waving of the sheaf shall be the day after the Sabbath. Again....which Sabbath? Well.....the Hebrew identifies the Sabbath because the word is Shabbatot in verse 15 and in verse 16 it is ha-Shabbat. So we are informed by the Hebrew of two distinct types of Sabbaths.
Shabbatot in the Hebrew designates a High Sabbath...such as Unleavened Bread. The weekly Sabbaths in the Hebrew are called ha-Shabbat.....so we now know that the "Count of the Omer" began on the 16th....the day after the High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread which always falls on the 16th. Pentecost would therefore fall on Sivan 6 as it always does. The Hebrew Festivals do not float. They always fall on the same date.....not the same day!
For further study on this subject.... Count of the Omer
It all boils down to this. Do you want to keep Pentecost as Our Lord and the Apostles did.....or do you want to observe some type of convoluted Roman observance. The choice is yours.
Except, in the context, “Easter” does not make sense. There would have been no event called “Easter” until well after the writing of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. To “retrofit” the text with the word “Easter” is unwarranted.
Correcting a poor sentence structure......"The High Sabbath of Unleavened always falls on the 15th.....not the 16th as my post could be construed to say!"
That is the English translation of the word, true.
However, it is a curiosity that in most every (modern) language other than germanic ones that the word is a variant of the pasch.
The fact of the matter is that there is a small, but very vocal minority who like using the origins of the word “Easter” as a slam against the Catholic Church, when it should be considered a slam against the English and German languages.
And the Greek word "pasch" is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew.
If Erasmus’s original KJV of 1611 was “incorrupt” then why did it undergo a reprint in 1612 to correct “errors”? It was then reprinted in 1613 to correct errors from the prior 2 editions. By this time, it now had 300 differences from the original version of 1611. After the 1613 edition, it was again revised in 1629 because of further criticisms. Then again, in 1638, an attempt was made to re-authenticate this bible because of additional errors noted from the 1611 edition. Yet another call was made in 1653 for errors in printing, language and translation noted in the previous versions, but nothing resulted from this proposal. In 1675, a spelling revision was made. In 1762 another “corrected” edition was released, and yet another in 1769. In fact, the KJV Bible has undergone over 75,000 corrections since the 1611 edition.
So which KJV is correct??
To the contrary, The Word of God is without error.
If someone is a KJV-only believer, they have placed all of their faith and Salvation in a fallible book, translated by fallible men, proven to contain errors. Whatever church or denomination they belong to can never lay claim to the deposit of knowledge passed down from the apostles and early Christians needed to properly teach and interpret this scripture.
Jesus left us a Church, not a Bible, whether it be the Latin Vulgate, Douay Rheims, or the KJV, all of which contain human errors, introduced by fallible humans.
Jesus’ Church was endowed by him with full authority for the teaching, intrepretation, and spreading of His Word. The “Bible” is the human product of His Church, but by no means in itself a final authority in the teachings of His Love and our Salvation. There has and continues to exist only one single institution from the moment Jesus died on the cross that can lay claim to preserving, interpreting, and teaching the word of God. This would be the Church that retains the unbroken line of successors to the original 12 apostles - the Roman Catholic Church.
And it is only because of the Roman Catholic Church that the essential and many truths relevant to our salvation can be found in other Christian denominations - denominations which only originated in the last 500 years.
To summarize, it’s not necessarily which version of the Bible you choose to seek the truth of God’s Word, but rather which Church do you consult to provide the guidance in interpreting His Word.
I don’t put a lot of stock in opinions that don’t value studying the words used to write the Bible.
And the Epistles won’t mean nearly enough until you understand the Book of Acts and the 8 uses of the figure of speech ‘symperasma’.
If you choose to ignore the fine details of the words there is no way you can be a good workman as Paul exhorts Timothy to be.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
***It all boils down to this. Do you want to keep Pentecost as Our Lord and the Apostles did.....or do you want to observe some type of convoluted Roman observance. The choice is yours.***
All of your arguments and posts reminds me of the theological argument in Umberto Eco’s THE NAME OF THE ROSE. “Did Christ or did he not own the clothes he wore”.
What I can’t understand is how someone can truly claim to be a student of the Bible and reject solid reference material.
The New Testament wasn’t written in Greek but Estrengelo Aramaic...and yes, I do have some Aramaic text work, most notably a Lamsa Bible.
If you don’t have several versions, or at least a parallel Bible, a Strongs or Youngs, an interlinear and a couple maps of the areas then you aren’t really seriously interested in research.
Greek really isn’t that hard to learn to read, at least to the point of recognizing root words and prepositions. But since I’m not a Greek scholar I have to rely on those that are. That is where a Stephen’s Interlinear comes in handy.
And where did you come up with that nonsense?
If you don’t have several versions, or at least a parallel Bible, a Strongs or Youngs, an interlinear and a couple maps of the areas then you aren’t really seriously interested in research. Greek really isn’t that hard to learn to read, at least to the point of recognizing root words and prepositions. But since I’m not a Greek scholar I have to rely on those that are. That is where a Stephen’s Interlinear comes in handy.
If you can't read Greek you have no business attempting to change the translations of those who did.
Understanding a language is far more difficult than simply recognizing some forms.
First, Erasmus had nothing to do with the King James Bible.
He was long dead.
His text was the basis of Luther's and Tyndales work.
By the time the King James came out in 1611, there were additional editions of the TR, along with Erasmus, that were used, such as Stephenus and Beza.
All the reprints that followed the 1611 edition were corrections in printing errors, and upgrading in spelling and grammer.
The text itself was never changed.
I belong to the true church, the one you can only get into by being born again, not by useless rituals and prayers to idols.
And the Greek word "pasch" is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew.
So?
And it is no concidence that the Reformation began in Germany and the greatest Bible was translated in English.
It makes perfect sense to the English readers of that era who understand what Easter meant.
The day that Herod was waiting for had nothing to do with the Jewish passover, but some pagan feast dealing with a fertility goddess.
The readers of that day would know it as Easter, as we see many of the same fertility elements mixed with the modern Easter.
That is why dynamic equivalents are used in translations.
Now, what basis do you have of saying that 'better reading would be 'matters' when the context of the chapter is spiritual gifts (vs.4)?
As it would dealing with this verse: Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. If you look up the literal translation in an interlinear you’ll see that it disagrees with the KJV in a way that challenges traditional teachings. You can also look this up in Bullinger’s Companion Bible. I don’t understand your reluctance to use a valuable research tool.
Because you haven't shown them to be of any value whatsoever.
John 19:18 says that Christ was crucified with two others, one on either side of him and he was in the middle.
Well, the apocrypha books should be judged like any noncanonical books.
It is not Herod, but the English of the early 1600’s that the KJV is aimed at. The term “Easter” was not known during Herod’s time. Dynamic equivalence is not translation.
The AV1611 is what is in print today.
There is nothing difficult about reading the original 1611 and no meanings are changed.
The current King James Bibles updated spelling and grammar do nothing to change the fact that it is the same Bible as the original AV1611.
The text has remained the same.
Jesus said the “Good News” was to be preached in all the earth, would you require everyone learn English in order to read God's Word or could they use a modern Bible in their own language? If the latter then as I said, ‘the truth of God's Word doesn't depend upon a particular translation’. God didn't demand that you and I learn Koine Greek or Hebrew to read His Word did He?
No one said that there weren't excellent translations in other languages, made from the TR and also translated directly from the King James Bible itself.
So, once again, you bring up a red herring, with nothing to do with the central issue of final authority.
As for “corrupt readings” can you cite one or two and state why these readings are corrupt?
In the Greek text or in the English translations?
In the corrupt Greek text of W/H/Nestle 1Tim.3:16, the Greek word Theos is left out and replaced with 'os' (who) and nonsense is made of the verse in both Greek and English.
In the English, modern translations in 1 Cor.1:18 have people perishing or being saved, when in fact, a person is either spiritually dead or spiritually alive, it is never a process.
When you are born again, you move from spiritual death to everlasting life.
But it shows that the Greek word can be translated as such, by the fact that man who coined the term Passover did so.
That Bibles began to remove the word Easter and replace it with Passover doesn't change the fact that the Greek word was originally used for both.
Now, the King James translators knew full well what the Greek word was and translated it as passover in every other place except Acts.12:4 because they saw the context of the verse.
Do you see them in the Bible?
Those are pagan practices that have crept into Christian traditions because the celebration of the Resurrection was mixed with the spring fertility celebration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.