Calvinism: God is waiting on God to finish saving sinners before moving forward

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Marginal notes in the NKJV lend support to the flawed Greek that has its origin in the unsound Sinaiticus.
Granting for the sake of argument that such a flaw actually exists, it isn't nearly as flawed as 16th century English is different in both usage and meaning from modern English. In effect, the entire KJV is flawed because we no longer think, read or speak 16th century English.
 

marke

Well-known member
Granting for the sake of argument that such a flaw actually exists, it isn't nearly as flawed as 16th century English is different in both usage and meaning from modern English. In effect, the entire KJV is flawed because we no longer think, read or speak 16th century English.
I have no problem understanding the KJV English and neither do our Christian school students.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Problem? No, not really a "problem" as though I can't understand it but that doesn't mean it doesn't sound foreign or that it isn't more difficult than it needs to be, especially when trying to read longer passages. Also, for the uninitiated, the King James can be quite difficult indeed.


The KJV has some problems, much like ANY translation. Like the fact that the entire thing is translated into 15th century English, where there's not just individual words but whole phrases that are no longer used at all and/or the usage and meaning of which have changed significantly.

Also I don't understand why you'd have a problem with something as mundane as Acts 12:4 where doctrine isn't effected. What's so wrong with it anyway....

(KJV) Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.​
(NKJV) Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.​

The NKJV seems better to me! The two rendering are very nearly the same except that there was no such thing as "Easter" when Acts was written and and so the use of "Easter" was wrong from the start*, and I know intuitively what "four squads of soldiers" means but I've never heard the word "quaternions" used ever in my whole life except in this passage of the King James Bible and neither has anyone else. Even the KJV only uses that word one single time and so it was obscure even in 1611.

Regardless, at the end of the day, a passage like Acts 12:4 is trivial. No one bases any doctrine on that passage. No one does anything at all based on that passage. How about looking at something more important like in the Ten Commandments...

(KJV) Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.​
(NKJV) Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.​

How many hundreds of thousands of people protest the death penalty based on that single verse? How many millions of people have seen the television footage of someone holding up a sign at these protests with the King James version of that verse plastered on it for the world to see?
Does Acts 10:13 contradict Exodus 20:13 or is one of them translated poorly? (Rhetorical question.)


So, two thing...

First, I indulged this line of thinking just to demonstrate that it can go both ways. The real fact of the matter is, however, that there isn't anything wrong with the NKJV that can hold a candle to the fact that the KJV is translated into a form of English that is no longer being used. Not only that, but, since the advent of the internet, the English language has been evolving further and further away from it at an accelerated rate to the point that you often need to literally translate a passage from the KJV into modern English for larger and larger portions of the audience to understand what is being said.

Secondly, it wasn't my intention to derail the thread with this topic and so if we want to continue we should probably move it to another thread.

Clete

*The passage is NOT referring to the ancient fully pagan version of Easter. The KJV was making reference to the Christianized version that is celebrated to this day. The KJV itself renders the Greek here as "Passover" 28 times and "Easter" only once. "Passover" is definitely the correct translation.
The reason the the KJV renders it Easter is because that is the correct rendering. Passover is wrong. That is where a wooden literal word-for-word translation fails.

Do you really think that Herod was looking forward to waiting an entire year to "intend to bring him before the people"? I sure don't.

Over and out.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
I'll answer twice....

1. What if EVERY SINGLE Greek (and Hebrew) word in the entire bible was translated into a version of the English language that is no longer being used?
No translation does that. So why do you ask?
2. Errors are obviously possible and we can hope for a perfect translation but at the end of the day, its a translation and so it can't be perfect, by definition. Not only that, and more importantly, the bible is a really big book and so a small number of relatively trivial translation errors are overcome by the bible's sheer volume. In other words, individual mistakes aren't going to destroy the message and any serious bible scholar is going to be making regular referrence to the original language anyway.
Agreed. But again, a wooden literal word-for-word translation is not always correct. It is as you said, a large volume that must be understood together with itself. That is why "Passover" is incorrect in Acts 12:4.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No translation does that. So why do you ask?
The KJV does exactly that.

Agreed. But again, a wooden literal word-for-word translation is not always correct. It is as you said, a large volume that must be understood together with itself. That is why "Passover" is incorrect in Acts 12:4.
Not a chance that Easter is the correct translation with or without a woodenly literal word for word translation paradigm. In 1611 the word Easter had the same meaning that it has today. It's referencing the Christianized version of Easter, not the ancient Pagan version that had nothing to do with either Passover or Christianity. Not only that, but even if that weren't the case (which it is), there is nothing in the text to indicate that its referring to anything other than Passover and, further still, the readers of the KJV would certainly NOT have been thinking of the ancient pagan version of Easter when they read that passage and so either way cut it, its an erroneous translation. An erroneous translation, by the way, that makes precisely zero difference in anyone's doctrine or religious practice and so can hardly be held up as an example of the KJV's superiority over the NKJV.

Pascha (Greek: Πάσχα): Pascha is a transliteration of the Greek word, which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic pascha, from the Hebrew pesach meaning Passover.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The reason the the KJV renders it Easter is because that is the correct rendering. Passover is wrong. That is where a wooden literal word-for-word translation fails.

Do you really think that Herod was looking forward to waiting an entire year to "intend to bring him before the people"? I sure don't.

Over and out.
Why would it need to indicate anyone was going to wait an entire year?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why would it need to indicate anyone was going to wait an entire year?
Because Passover was already past.

Acts 12:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:3) And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The "days of unleavened bread" comes after Passover.

So if it's "Passover" in verse 4, it's either redundant or it's next year. Neither of which makes much sense.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Because Passover was already past.

Acts 12:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:3) And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The "days of unleavened bread" comes after Passover.

So if it's "Passover" in verse 4, it's either redundant or it's next year. Neither of which makes much sense.
Okay, so this is why I hesitate to even get into this kind of discussion on this topic. It's just silly.

Let's say you're right and that it's referring to a Pagan Greek festival which was not commonly observed in the Roman Empire. Fine! You're going to tell me that this is the reason you think the KJV is superior to the NKJV?! You're willing to over look "kill" vs. "murder" but ignoring the error of "Passover" vs "Easter" is a bridge too far? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Okay, so this is why I hesitate to even get into this kind of discussion on this topic. It's just silly.

Let's say you're right and that it's referring to a Pagan Greek festival which was not commonly observed in the Roman Empire. Fine! You're going to tell me that this is the reason you think the KJV is superior to the NKJV?!
I never said that one was superior to the other.
You're willing to over look "kill" vs. "murder" but ignoring the error of "Passover" vs "Easter" is a bridge too far? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
As you mentioned earlier, the Bible must be understood as a whole. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with "kill" in that verse. We do not take that single verse in isolation. It is clear that the meaning is murder even thought that English word is not used in that verse.

I did not mean to upset you or offend your choice of the NKJV.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I never said that one was superior to the other.
Then what are we talking about?

As you mentioned earlier, the Bible must be understood as a whole. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with "kill" in that verse.
Except that "kill" is NOT the correct English word for what is meant in that sentence. It wasn't right even in 1611!

We do not take that single verse in isolation.
But we do Acts 12:4?

It is clear that the meaning is murder even thought that English word is not used in that verse.
Then why didn't they use the word murder?

It is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Jeremiah 7:9 (and elsewhere) where the KJV translates it correctly...

Jeremiah 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;​
The point there being not to start a debate about that particular translation but to point out that there's just as many "issues" in the KJV as there are in any other translation of the bible (not that some aren't worse than others, by the way) and that the principle difference between the KJV and the NKJV has far and away more to do with the fact that the later is written in English that is less than 50 years old while the former is several centuries old and that no pin point translation differences can come within a mile of overcoming that issue in regards to the bible's readability and ease of study.

I did not mean to upset you or offend your choice of the NKJV.
Oh, listen, I'm not upset at all. This is the first stimulating disagreement I've had with an intelligent and intellectually honest human being in a very long time. Don't take pointed questions as me being upset. I'm surprised and even a little incredulous, yes, but I'm not upset in the least.

Clete
 

Right Divider

Body part
But we do Acts 12:4?
NO, that's why I continue to mention Acts 12:3! Acts 12:3 makes it clear that the following verse should be Easter and not Passover.
Oh, listen, I'm not upset at all. This is the first stimulating disagreement I've had with an intelligent and intellectually honest human being in a very long time. Don't take pointed questions as me being upset. I'm surprised and even a little incredulous, yes, but I'm not upset in the least.
I always appreciate your interactions here.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
NO, that's why I continue to mention Acts 12:3! Acts 12:3 makes it clear that the following verse should be Easter and not Passover.
Again, even if I were to grant this completely insignificant point, it doesn't begin to compare with the massive and undeniable changes that the English language has undergone in the last 400+ years.

The NKJV is translated from basically the exact same texts as was the KJV. That alone makes the NKJV better than ANY other modern translation. Are there questionable translations in the NKJV? Sure! But, the same is true of the KJV as well and none of the translation issues come within a light year of overcoming the single most important advantage the the NKJV has which is the fact that it is translated into modern English that even small children as well as totally uninitiated adults can read and understand. Thus, the preponderance of evidence leans heavily in favor of the NKJV being superior for common usage (like in a public discussion forum, for example).

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with using the KJV. I don't think there's anything wrong with using pretty much any translation of the bible so long as its being done honestly. It's more or less a matter of personal preference in most circumstances. It's just that if you had to pick one that was going to sit as king of the mountain of English bibles, it would have to be the NKJV.

I always appreciate your interactions here.
Back at ya! (y)
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
God is not willing that any should perish. Calvinists believe God is longsuffering, waiting for God to save whomever He is going to save because God is not willing that any should perish.

2 Peter 3

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Excellent take. "God is waiting on God." Perfect.
 
Top