_________________
Ron Bailey

The greatest expert on the Jewish custom of Christ's day is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Edersheim]Alfred Edersheim[/url]. In his "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" he addresses the question as to whether there is a disagreement between John and the Synoptic gospels on the timing of the Passover. (The quotes in the previous post illustrate the point) He then goes on to show how the whole period of the Unleavened Bread was regarded as the Passover. (Page 1382)

[color=009900]It is recorded, that they who brought Him would not themselves enter the portals of the Palace, ‘that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.’ Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance into a heathen house did Levitically render impure for that day - that is, till the evening. The fact of such defilement is clearly attested both in the New Testament and in the Mishnah, though its reasons might be various.5977 A person who had so become Levitically unclean was technically called Tebhul Yom (‘bathed of the day’). The other point is, that, to have so become ‘impure’ for the day, would not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since the meal was partaken of after the evening, and when a new day had begun.

In fact, it is distinctly laid down that the ‘bathed of the day,’ that is, he who had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related, when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem ‘immersed,’ and ate the Paschal Lamb. It follows that those Sanhedrists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal Supper.

The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted the expression ‘the Passover’ as referring to the Paschal Supper, and have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with that of the Synoptists. [u]But as, for the reason just stated, it is impossible to refer the expression ‘Passover’ to the Paschal Supper, we have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other offerings.[/u] And here both the Old Testament and Jewish writings show, that the term Pesach, or ‘Passover,’ was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especailly to what was called the Chagigah, or festive offering (from Chag, or Chagag, to bring the festive sacrifice usual at each of the three Great Feasts). According to the express rule (Chag. i. 3) the Chagigah was brought on the first festive Paschal Day. It was offered immediately after the morning-service, and eaten on that day - probably some time before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that, not on the eve of the Passover but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually prevented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or Chagigah. For, we have these two express rules: that a person could not in Levitical defilement offer the Chagigah; and that the Chagigah could not be offered for a person by some one else who took his place (Jer. Chag. 76 a, lines 16 to 14 from bottom). These considerations and canons seem decisive as regards the views above expressed. There would have been no reason to fear ‘defilement’ on the morning of the Paschal Scrafice; but entrance into the Prætorium on the morning of the first Passover-day would have rendered it impossible for them to offer the Chagigah, which is also designated by the term Pesach.
[/color]

_________________
Ron Bailey

N/A

_________________
Ron Bailey

Hi BlazedbyGod...

So upon what are you basing this assumption? If the greek word from the source text is translated as "Passover" and the KJV is one of the only major translations to use the word "Easter" (including other translations taken from the same source), then why would we assume that the translators of the KJV were "the only ones to get it right?"

This just seems like a cut and dry mistake. Yet people are so secure in the myth that the KJV is PERFECT that they invent arguments (or gather inventions) that substantiate such a claim.

If the KJV is so perfect and preserved, then what about the other examples that I included earlier? These are obvious ERRORS. Sure, those errors were included in the sources for the KJV, but they are undeniable errors. Of course, I have read some KJV-only advocates who ruthlessly defend those obvious errors to the point of creating a new doctrine that calls the KJV "infallible" and argues that any "error" can only come from our own interpretation of those verses.

Let me make this clear: I do not think that the KJV is PERFECT, although I think that it is a faithful translation by flawed men from the sources used.

_________________
Christopher

I do not know anything about Bible translation, nor do I understand greek or latin, but I am curious if waltern could provide other texts to prove that the KJV is the perfect translation or scripture.

The Acts example is the only one mentioned in this thred so far, and I am simply curious what other passages would support Waltern's stance.

Again, I am no authority in any of this, so I am not trying to make a point or argue in either direction (even though I do have an opinion of my own).

_________________
Ben Fuehrer

bump

[b]


[color=000000]To Philogos:

You are pulling at straws, trying to prove the improvable. You either have no knowledge of the Old Testament and the Feasts of the Jews, or you are trying to prove your point having full knowledge of the Old Testament.

This is nothing more than a combination of two feasts--the Passover & the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, & Ezra the timing is clear of these two separate Feasts of the Lord. The Passover is celebrated on one day, the 14th of Abib (Tishre), the day that God led the Jews out of bondage in Egypt, the same day that Jesus Christ became our “Passover”. The Feast of Unleavened bread followed the Passover, starting on the 15th and continuing for 7 days through the 21st.

The Passover, established by God in Exodus 12: 1-14 is a one day event that was to be celebrated forever. This event (the Passover) was so important that God had the Jews change their calendar. The first month had always been Nissan, since the beginning of time. Now God commanded them to change the calendar to make the 7th month, Abib (Tishre) their first month. Since He led them out of Egypt by signs and wonders he never wanted them to forget this specific event. the Jews accomplished this by having two calendars—a Sacred calendar, starting with Abib and then continuing in order for a total of 12 months. They also continued their regular calendar, starting with Nissan, the month of creation, the first month.


In any event, you are incorrect. The Passover occurs on one day, and one day alone. The day? The 14th of Abib (Tishre), the day that God led the Jews out of Egypt with a mighty hand. It is also the same day that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins, the day of Passover, the 14th of Abib (Tishre). He was crucified at the 3rd hour (9:00 A.M.), at the time of the MORNING SACRIFICE that had taken place at the Tabernacle, and later at the Temple since God commanded it in Exodus, and gave up the Ghost at the 9th hour (3:00 P.M.), the time of the evening sacrifice at the Temple.

Please check out the following for a full understanding of the Passover and when it was celebrated. Passover was commanded by God to ALWAYS be celebrated on the 14th of Abib (Tishre):

Exosus, Chapter 12; Leviticus 23:5-6; Numbers Chapter 9; Numbers Chapter 28; Numbers Chapter 23; Deuteronomy Chapter 16; Joshua, Chapter 5; 2nd Kings Chapter 23; Chronicles Chapter 35; Ezra Chapter 6

Christ is our Passover (1 Cor 1:5). Christ is our Firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:20).

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Original Passover picture, given to us in the Old Testament. Christ is the fulfillment of the Firstfruits, given to us in the Old Testament. Christ was sacrificed on Passover, the 14th of Abib and He resurrected from the dead on the 17th of Abib, the day of the feast of Firstfruits. Also, on the 17th of Abib the Ark rested on the mountains of Arat: Genesis 8:4. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

(God changed the 7th month to the first month, when He brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand on the 14th day of Abib, Passover, a day He commanded to be celebrated forever!) What is the work of the Christian? Our Work is to believe on Him who He has sent. We are commanded to rest in Him (Jesus Christ)-pictured by those who "rested" in the ark where God kept them safe- the ark- RUDDERLESS, and controlled by God HIMSELF.

Sincerely,

Walter

I repeat, Waltern...

If God "perfectly preserved" the KJV "down to the last dot and tittle" (as you have said before), then how come those mistakes exist in the text? Take, for instance, the difference between II Samuel 24:9 and I Chronicles 21:5. Notice a discrepency in the numbers here?

How about the differences in numbers between II Samuel 24:24 and I Chronicles 21:22-25?

I Kings 4:26 and II Chronicles 9:25?

I Kings 5:16 and II Chronicles 2:2?

I Kings 7:15-22 and II Chronicles 3:15-17?

I Kings 7:26 and II Chronicles 4:5?

I Kings 16:6-8 and II Chronicles 16:1?

II Kings 8:25-26 and II Chronicles 22:2?

How do you explain these obvious errors? If the KJV is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God -- then why did the translators include the Apocrypha? Why did they claim that their work was less than perfect in the version's preface?

Are you going to answer -- or simply continue to inform us that we are "pulling at straws" for failing to admire your own reasoning?

:-(

_________________
Christopher