KJV Bible and other translations of the Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

According to my Greek dictionary, the word pascha can mean the passover, but it can also mean Easter.

No, it cannot mean Easter. Easter is not even a Greek word, and has no basis in the Greek language. "Easter" is derived from the Saxon language and was in reference to Eostre who was their godess of love and fertility. She corresponds to aphrodite of the Greeks and Ishtar of the Babylonian religion. In all pagan religions this goddess of fertility was celebrated in the spring. There is no historic or linguistic connection between Easter and Pascha. In fact, Wycliffe uses the correct word Passover in Acts 12:4, so it was known prior to edition of the KJV that Passover was the correct word. The KJV tranlators chose, for whatever reason, to use the incorrect word.

With regard to your other question, those other English translations were not by God's divine hand. In other words, they were put out by sincere men, but were not divinely inspired.

How do you know?? What indicators do you have that KJV was divinely inspired? Actually, the doctrine of inspiration has never applied to translations. It only applies to original autographs.

The same question could be asked about the people still waiting on a translation in their language. Why don't they have it yet? It is not in God's timing.

Or maybe, men have fallen down on their job.

[Guest Biblicist]

Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?

Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.

[Guest shiloh357]

Passover is not a Greek word either. It is an English word. According to my Greek Dictionary, the word pascha can mean passover or Easter when translated to English. I'm just telling you what it says.

Passover is an English word translated from passcha. Easter is an English word tranlasted from from the Saxon language which takes its word from ancient Babylonian name, Ishtar. That is the difference. Passover has a biblical orgin but Easter does not and is not a valid translation of pascha.

Actually, the doctrine of inspiration has been applied to the KJV Bible by many Independent Baptists. I realize that is not the majority viewpoint, but it is a doctrinal belief of some, including myself, even though I am not Baptist.

Translations do not meet the criteria of "inspired."

[Guest Biblicist]

If I may ask, Shiloh, what are the criteria for inspiration?

Thank you.

[Guest Biblicist]

Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?

Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.

What they believed about their writings is irrelivant. John the Baptist didn't realize he was the one refered to as Elijah, but he was.

John the Baptist being refered to as Elijah didn't make him Elijah.

[Richard_yaash]

According to my Greek Dictionary, the word pascha can mean passover or Easter when translated to English. I'm just telling you what it says.

Dictionaries, while of value, are written by men.

Are some dictionaries/lexicons/concordances/etc. better than others? Yes.

Are all reference works without error? No.

Can reference works reflect the values/beliefs/etc. of those who write/compile them? Yes.

Am I speaking ill of reference works? No.

For myself, I do not use many reference works anymore. Those that I do use, are of the highest quality that I have been able to find. Does that make them perfect? No. Thus why I use three different reference works when necessary. I never rely upon a single reference/source.

Actually, the doctrine of inspiration has been applied to the KJV Bible by many Independent Baptists. I realize that is not the majority viewpoint, but it is a doctrinal belief of some, including myself, even though I am not Baptist.

Would you hold your Greek dictionary as being "Divinely Inspired"? For unless you do, you can not use it to 'uphold' the KJV as being accurate.

[jackie d]

Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?

Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.

What they believed about their writings is irrelivant. John the Baptist didn't realize he was the one refered to as Elijah, but he was.

John the Baptist being refered to as Elijah didn't make him Elijah.

actually Bibs it did make him Elijah..

Matthew 11 (KJV)

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 11 (NKJV)

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 and if you are willing to receive it, he IS Elijah who is to come 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

[WillingToDie]

According to my Greek Dictionary, the word pascha can mean passover or Easter when translated to English. I'm just telling you what it says.

Dictionaries, while of value, are written by men.

Are some dictionaries/lexicons/concordances/etc. better than others? Yes.

Are all reference works without error? No.

Can reference works reflect the values/beliefs/etc. of those who write/compile them? Yes.

Am I speaking ill of reference works? No.

For myself, I do not use many reference works anymore. Those that I do use, are of the highest quality that I have been able to find. Does that make them perfect? No. Thus why I use three different reference works when necessary. I never rely upon a single reference/source.

Actually, the doctrine of inspiration has been applied to the KJV Bible by many Independent Baptists. I realize that is not the majority viewpoint, but it is a doctrinal belief of some, including myself, even though I am not Baptist.

Would you hold your Greek dictionary as being "Divinely Inspired"? For unless you do, you can not use it to 'uphold' the KJV as being accurate.

No, the Greek Dictionary is not divinely inspired, but it is a useful reference tool. The purpose of a dictionary is only to give us the meaning of words. Shiloh claims that the use of the word Easter in the KJV Bible is incorrect, and my Dictionary shows it to be correct. I don't claim that my Dictionary proves me right, but only that it shows that Shiloh could be wrong. In other words, we are at a stale mate with regard to this argument. The reason I believe Easter is the correct word is because I believe the KJV Bible is innerant, therefore I would believe it was correct based on that alone.

So...circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works.

[OneLight]

Thank God For The Holy Spirit!

[Guest Biblicist]

Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?

Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.

What they believed about their writings is irrelivant. John the Baptist didn't realize he was the one refered to as Elijah, but he was.

John the Baptist being refered to as Elijah didn't make him Elijah.

actually Bibs it did make him Elijah..

Matthew 11 (KJV)

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 11 (NKJV)

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 and if you are willing to receive it, he IS Elijah who is to come 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

This is curious. So there were two Elijah's? OR was John the Baptist Elijah reincarnated? Maybe this proves reincarnation...

Sorry I know this is off topic.