I don't mind discussing that issue at all. But it's fruitless because your basic assumption is the only acceptable source text is the English wording of the King James. I can (and have) pulled out various texts that contradict your position. I've also used the King James to contradict your position, but because you insist on assigning your word definitions to the King James english (in essence reading the minds of the translators) you can't see the errors of your thought process.
You have shown nothing of the kind!
The word 'Easter' was used as late as 1916 in Luther's 1916 edition and recently in KJ21 (1994).
What you have to prove is that Easter cannot be used in Acts.12:4, that would make it an error.
Since Easter was used in all of the versions before 1611, it can be used for that verse as well.
That it was kept in the AV1611 for a purpose is evident by the parenthesis around vs 3.
But the word 'Easter' for any usage of the Greek word 'pascha' is not an error since they can be used interchangeably as well.
So, once again, you have to actually show that Easter cannot be in that passage, it is not an error just because you cannot figure out why it is in that passage.
[ But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord! ]
Scripture affirms time after time that Christians are under the new covenant: Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
You had better read that passage in the King James, it says New Testament.
You know why?
Because in Heb.9:16 it states that no Testament can be made without the shedding of blood and the death of the testator.
Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.
So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).
That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant has nothing to do with the Church, it is for Israel in the Millennium.
Hence, Heb.8:11, which you still haven't answered or explained.
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Not covenant, Testament
Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now I acknowledge, as Paul does, that not everyone is NOW under the new covenant. Only Christians are.
all of those verses should be translated Testament not Covenant, as they are correctly translated as such in the King James.
Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. So no, not everyone knows the Lord now, just as they didn't in Paul's time. But all Christians DO know the Lord.
Well, that is not what Heb.8:11 says now is it?
Moreover it says that no one is to teach others to know the Lord, so I guess you don't tell unbelievers how to get saved.
Clearly, as I suspected, you pick those verses you want to and simply ignore what is inconvenient to your theology.
Because covenant and testament meant the same thing?
Testament: From Merriam -Webster:
1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized
Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy?
From The Free Dictionary
5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God.
From dictionary.net
2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter.
From The Bible Glossary:
Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace.
From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary:
Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.)
I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.
Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.
So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).
Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?
2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all.
3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.
That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.
A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.
You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.