Theology Club: Today Many in the Neo-MAD Camp are King James Only

[Danoh]

You finally got something right so why are you bitter?

You admitted that the KJV is not without error!

Good word - "bitter," as with aspects of that feast, you incompetent.

You asked:

In your mind do you think that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread precede the Passover?

In post 14 I said:

No, but I have plenty of Jewish friends who have over the years referred to either when referring to both, weeks in advance of either.

Further, unless I am off, there is agreement with the RT among various texts as to that KJV translation:

http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/26-17.htm

Now, could you please refrain from talking down to our own in your exchanges with them; it'd be great to have lots of them on here not having to have to deal with the distraction of that kind of treatment.

I was neither agreeing with you, nor asserting that passage is translated wrong.

My response to yours after that, was to your regrettable, once more attempted guile.

Fact is I do not believe that passage is translated wrong.

You have not proven otherwise.

All you have proven is what you have always proven - that you are an overzealous incompetent, but worse; one with an agenda much like that of the Adversary's in Genesis 3's "Yea, hath God said?"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I feel sorry for those like you who have been talked out of believing the words of the Lord are pure words (Psalms 12:6 KJV). What then, is your final authority?

Do you really believe that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread preceded the Passover?

Of course it didn't. The translators of the KJV added the following words in "bold" which are not found in any of the Greek manuscripts:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

So do you still think the the KJV is without error?

 

[lifeisgood]

I'll take the KJV over ALL the new versions any time, especially the ones who deny the Deity of Christ or do not translate 'hades' and 'sheol', e.g.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I was neither agreeing with you, nor asserting that passage is translated wrong.

As usual you cannot tell the difference between what is true and what is false.

I asked you:

In your mind do you think that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread precede the Passover?​

To this question you answered:

No, but I have plenty of Jewish friends who have over the years referred to either when referring to both, weeks in advance of either.

My point was that the translation at Matthew 26:17 couldn't be right because it has the first day of the feast of unleavened bread happening before the Passover. So when you answered "no" to my question you were agreeing with me!

And when you said that the first day of unleavened bread did not precede the Passover you were asserting that the KJV translation at Matthew 26:17 is in error.

Despite these facts you say:

I was neither agreeing with you, nor asserting that passage is translated wrong.

You were agreeing with me and you were also asserting that the translation is wrong!

Once again you prove that you are totally confused and incapable of having on an intelligent conversation about any verse which I bring up.

You need to stick to avoiding making any comments on the Scriptures because every time you do that you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[Danoh]

Fact is you are wrong on all counts.

Just as the fact is that I have not agreed, nor not agreed with you for sometime.

That all I focus on when dealing with you, is exposing you for the fraud you are.

Fact is you have yet to prove that passage was not properly translated.

Fact is, you do not know how to get the sense of anyone's words, including Scripture's, other than when your incompetence sooner or later ends up at the stopped clock principle.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Unbiased observer here. I agree that Danoh did not address the OP. I also agree that the KJV is not a "perfect" translation. Can you prove that Mid-Acts people claim the KJV is perfect? I have noticed that many of them use it.

(BTW, there are far better examples of the shortcomings of the KJV than the example you gave.)

The King James Version is fine. Personally, I read/study with the
New King James Version.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes, the translation in the KJV at Matthew 26:17 is wrong.

Says, the likes of YOU? I don't trust your opinions Jerry S.

 

[heir]

Do you

You don't believe we have the pure words of the Lord. So again I ask, what then is your final authority?

 

[Desert Reign]

In the KJV we see a translation at Matthew 26:17 which says that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread preceded the Passover:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (Mt.26:17; KJV).​

This translation is obviously wrong because the Passover always preceded the first day of unleavened bread:

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is the Lord’s passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to the Lord" (Lev.23:5-6; RSV).​

The "Passover" was a memorial to the events that happened when the Lord said that he would "pass over" the blood stained houses of the Israelites (Ex.12:13-14).

The feast of unleavened bread was a memorial to the time when the Israelites left Egypt (Ex.12:17).

So the memorial of Passover was in regard to events which took place IN EGYPT. On the other hand, the memorial called the "feast of unleavened bread" is in regard to events when the Israelites LEFT EGYPT.

Therefore, if we are to believe the Scriptures it would be ridiculous to argue that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread preceded the passive with all these facts before us.

So the translators of the KJV made a huge blunder by having the first day of the feast of unleavened bread precede the Passover.

I prefer to stick to the translation found here since it is obviously the correct translation:

"Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?” (Mt.26:17; RSV).​

A couple of issues here.
First and foremost: it is a very bad principle of translation to say that a text can't mean what it says because of some other extraneous concept. This is effectively what you are arguing. You are saying that because Leviticus 23 says that the feast of unleavened bread is after passover therefore Mt. 26:17 can't be referring to the feast.

It is true that the original Greek text does not use the word 'feast' (eorte). However, even your preferred RSV translation puts Unleavened Bread in initial capital letters. So this implies exactly the same thing and there is no difference in meaning between the two translations.

The reason for this is obvious: the plural use of the word literally unleavened breads. It is the same usage we say The feast of tabernacles and not feast of tabernacle. We only translate with the singular 'bread' because in English the plural of bread is bread. But in both Hebrew and Greek bread exists in both singular and plural forms and here, it is the plural form. The plural form is used to denote celebrations. So Tabernacles means the feast of Tabernacles and Weeks means the feast of Weeks and Unleavened Breads means the feast of Unleavened Bread.

So the translation feast of Unleavened Bread is perfectly valid.

However, this does pose a problem: how to reconcile this with Leviticus where where Passover precedes Unleavened Bread? So yes, you are quite right to raise it as an issue. And possibly a difficult one, but the job of a translator is to say what it means, not what you want it to mean based on some other text. What it says is undoubtedly 'On the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread'.

Secondly.
I have just been looking up several explanations of this discrepancy and they are mostly unsupported ideas. But the best one I saw was both simple and very well supported by Luke 22:1, which simply subsumes Passover in the overall feast of Unleavened Bread. So when they talk about the first day of Unleavened Bread they mean the preparation day of the passover.

 

[Tambora]

But the best one I saw was both simple and very well supported by Luke 22:1, which simply subsumes Passover in the overall feast of Unleavened Bread. So when they talk about the first day of Unleavened Bread they mean the preparation day of the passover.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

A good many are KJB believers, and a good many aren't.

 

[Tambora]

If I could only have one English translation, it would be the KJV.
It's the one I don't want to be without.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A couple of issues here.
First and foremost: it is a very bad principle of translation to say that a text can't mean what it says because of some other extraneous concept. This is effectively what you are arguing. You are saying that because Leviticus 23 says that the feast of unleavened bread is after passover therefore Mt. 26:17 can't be referring to the feast.

In a parallel verse we can see that the "first day" being referred to is the same day when they killed the Passover, the 14th.

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:10).​

Since the Lord Jesus knew that day was the 14th he would never think that the day was the 15th, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. So it never entered His mind to think that the day in question was the first day of unleavened bread and it is impossible that He would ever say these words in "bold" which appear in the KJV:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (Mt.26:17: KJV).​

Are you willing to argue that the Lord Jesus actually meant to say the words "feast of" at Matthew 26:17 knowing that would cause much confusion? I say that is impossible and therefore the translators of the KJV made an error when they added those words.

Secondly.
I have just been looking up several explanations of this discrepancy and they are mostly unsupported ideas. But the best one I saw was both simple and very well supported by Luke 22:1, which simply subsumes Passover in the overall feast of Unleavened Bread. So when they talk about the first day of Unleavened Bread they mean the preparation day of the passover.

if your idea is correct then this is the way which we should understand the translation of Matthew 26:17 in the KJV:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the feast of unleavened bread?"​

According to your ideas about this verse we must believe that it is saying that the feast of unleavened bread has already arrived but at the same time it remains in the future!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Fact is you are wrong on all counts.

Just because you say that I am wrong means nothing. Where is your evidence?

 

[Mocking You]

The King James Version is fine. Personally, I read/study with the
New King James Version.

Yes, the KJV is fine, however, it's not a "perfect" translation.

I used the KJV for 25 years, then went to the NKJV for about 5 years, now I'm on the NIV for last 5 years. (But this is somewhat off topic.)

 

[Desert Reign]

In a parallel verse we can see that the "first day" being referred to is the same day when they killed the Passover, the 14th.

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:10).​

Are you willing to argue that the "fist day of the feast of unleavened bread" was the same day as the "first day of unleavened bread"?

In ancient Greek, the English indefinite pronoun 'one' (or in modern usage 'you') meaning anyone, is represented by the use of the third person plural verb. In other words, in ancient Greek they say 'they', where we would say 'one' or 'you'. That is what the 'they' means here. Illustrative translation is 'When people killed the passover...' It is not referring specifically to the disciples.

It was the day of preparation for the killing. They had to make sure there was no leaven in the house, amongst many other things. The lamb itself was slaughtered and cooked in the evening or (if you want to be literal as Leviticus actually says 'between the evenings'.) In practice what that meant was any time after the sun started to go down. So it was definitely the same day because they did the preparation in the morning and they slaughtered the lamb in the evening. The evening however counted as the 14th after sundown.

if your idea is correct then this is the way which we should understand the translation of Matthew 26:17 in the KJV:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the feast of unleavened bread?"​

According to your ideas about this verse we must believe that it is saying that the feast of unleavened bread has already arrived but at the same time it remains in the future!

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. I have highlighted the part that you got wrong. The preparation was to prepare the Passover, not to prepare the feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke 22:1 shows this.

 

[Danoh]

A couple of issues here.
First and foremost: it is a very bad principle of translation to say that a text can't mean what it says because of some other extraneous concept. This is effectively what you are arguing. You are saying that because Leviticus 23 says that the feast of unleavened bread is after passover therefore Mt. 26:17 can't be referring to the feast.

It is true that the original Greek text does not use the word 'feast' (eorte). However, even your preferred RSV translation puts Unleavened Bread in initial capital letters. So this implies exactly the same thing and there is no difference in meaning between the two translations.

The reason for this is obvious: the plural use of the word literally unleavened breads. It is the same usage we say The feast of tabernacles and not feast of tabernacle. We only translate with the singular 'bread' because in English the plural of bread is bread. But in both Hebrew and Greek bread exists in both singular and plural forms and here, it is the plural form. The plural form is used to denote celebrations. So Tabernacles means the feast of Tabernacles and Weeks means the feast of Weeks and Unleavened Breads means the feat of Unleavened Bread.

So the translation feast of Unleavened Bread is perfectly valid.

However, this does pose a problem: how to reconcile this with Leviticus where where Passover precedes Unleavened Bread? So yes, you are quite right to raise it as an issue. And possibly a difficult one, but the job of a translator is to say what it means, not what you want it to mean based on some other text. What it says is undoubtedly 'On the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread'.

Secondly.
I have just been looking up several explanations of this discrepancy and they are mostly unsupported ideas. But the best one I saw was both simple and very well supported by Luke 22:1, which simply subsumes Passover in the overall feast of Unleavened Bread. So when they talk about the first day of Unleavened Bread they mean the preparation day of the passover.

Again, though the first day of the feast of unleavened bread does not precede the feast of Passover, at the same time, within Jewish culture - all the way back to way back when - at times, either the words Unleavened Bread or Passover are used when referring to both.

The reason for this is a very simple one and is supported not only by that passage itself, exactly as rendered, but by other passages in Scripture.

Time to roll up one's sleeves pack all one's books but THE BOOK, put them in the garage, come back, put a Do Not Disturb sign on the door, and Get - In - The - Book!

While I am at it, A9D aka Mid-Acts people, would do well to ever keep in mind that the assertions of others against a thing - even of some within our own camp - are not always with our well-being in mind.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In ancient Greek, the English indefinite pronoun 'one' (or in modern usage 'you') meaning anyone, is represented by the use of the third person plural verb. In other words, in ancient Greek they say 'they', where we would say 'one' or 'you'. That is what the 'they' means here. Illustrative translation is 'When people killed the passover...' It is not referring specifically to the disciples.

No, the psassiver lambs were killed at the same place where the Passover Seder was eaten::

"Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the Passover" (Ex.12:21). ​

It was the day of preparation for the killing. They had to make sure there was no leaven in the house, amongst many other things. The lamb itself was slaughtered and cooked in the evening or (if you want to be literal as Leviticus actually says 'between the evenings'.) In practice what that meant was any time after the sun started to go down. So it was definitely the same day because they did the preparation in the morning and they slaughtered the lamb in the evening. The evening however counted as the 14th after sundown.

The same day as what?

It is also obvious that this day happened before the Passover and thus before the first day of "the feast of unleavened bread":

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12).​

So it is obvious that the words "feast of" in this verse were added in error:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (Mt.26:17).​

Are you willing to argue that the Lord Jesus actually meant to say the words "feast of" at Matthew 26:17 knowing that would cause much confusion? I say that is impossible and therefore the translators of the KJV made an error when they added those words.

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. I have highlighted the part that you got wrong. The preparation was to prepare the Passover, not to prepare the feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke 22:1 shows this.

So are you saying that this verse is referring to the day before the Passover?

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" (Jn.10:15).

If your answer is "yes" then how do you explain the fact that by that day the Lord Jesus had already eaten the Passover with His Apostles? Here is an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "preparation of the Passover" written by Sir Robert Anderson:

"But does not St. John expressly state that it was "the preparation of the Passover," and must not this necessarily mean the fourteenth of Nisan? The plain answer is, that not a single passage has been cited from writings either sacred or profane in which that day is so described; whereas among the Jews "the preparation" was the common name for the day before the Sabbath, and it is so used by all the Evangelists. And bearing this in mind, let the reader compare the fourteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter of St. John with the thirty-first and forty-second verses of the same chapter, and he will have no difficulty in rendering the words in question, "it was Passover Friday" (Anderson, The Coming Prince [Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics, 1957], 112-113).​

This is a valid argument since it is obvious that they had already eaten the Passover by the time of John 10:15. Otherwise, you will have to argue that the night before the events of John 10:16 the Lord Jesus did not eat the Passover with His Apostles. Are you willing to argue that?

 

[Danoh]

No, the psassiver lambs were killed at the same place where the Passover Seder was eaten::

"Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the Passover" (Ex.12:21). ​

The same day as what?

It is also obvious that this day happened before the Passover and thus before the first day of "the feast of unleavened bread":

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mk.14:12).​

So it is obvious that the words "feast of" in this verse were added in error:

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (Mt.26:17).​

Are you willing to argue that the Lord Jesus actually meant to say the words "feast of" at Matthew 26:17 knowing that would cause much confusion? I say that is impossible and therefore the translators of the KJV made an error when they added those words.



So are you saying that this verse is referring to the day before the Passover?

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" (Jn.10:15).

If your answer is "yes" then how do you explain the fact that by that day the Lord Jesus had already eaten the Passover with His Apostles? Here is an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "preparation of the Passover" written by Sir Robert Anderson:

"But does not St. John expressly state that it was "the preparation of the Passover," and must not this necessarily mean the fourteenth of Nisan? The plain answer is, that not a single passage has been cited from writings either sacred or profane in which that day is so described; whereas among the Jews "the preparation" was the common name for the day before the Sabbath, and it is so used by all the Evangelists. And bearing this in mind, let the reader compare the fourteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter of St. John with the thirty-first and forty-second verses of the same chapter, and he will have no difficulty in rendering the words in question, "it was Passover Friday" (Anderson, The Coming Prince [Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics, 1957], 112-113).​

This is a valid argument since it is obvious that they had already eaten the Passover by the time of John 10:15. Otherwise, you will have to argue that the night before the events of John 10:16 the Lord Jesus did not eat the Passover with His Apostles. Are you willing to argue that?

Keep proving your incompetence.

Sheesh - and this is so simple to solve for by that paasage as is, as well as by other passages - simply by quoting the relevant ones - no need to make them say something else.

You are an incompetent, a deceiver, and an accusser of the brethren through and through.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are an incompetent, a deceiver, and an accusser of the brethren through and through.

When you cannot answer the message you attack the messenger.

You are an embarrassment to Christianity.