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

[Desert Reign]

Jerry, this is how simple it is:

The translator is not wrong. He is just a messenger, telling you what the original Greek text says. And there are no translation issues here. Everything is well understood both lexically and grammatically. This is why I said your first onus is to show that the translation is wrong. You have never done this. You have argued that the content of the verse is wrong, but you cannot argue that the translation is wrong.

So either
1. The author of the text (Matthew) was wrong or
2. The disciples were wrong or
3. Jesus was wrong or
4. You are wrong.

Please answer the question: which of the above is it, 1, 2, 3 or 4?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, this is how simple it is:

The translator is not wrong. He is just a messenger, telling you what the original Greek text says. And there are no translation issues here.

That is what you say but you just ignored the Scriptual evidence which PROVES that you are wrong.

This is why I said your first onus is to show that the translation is wrong. You have never done this.

I certainly have.

First, I demonstrated that these two verses are speaking about the same exact day:

"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).​

"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; KJV).​

You did not even attempt to prove what I said about these verses is not correct. Here we see exactly what was being referred to as the Lord's Passover:

"And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's Passover" (Ex.12:11).​

Common sense dictates that the Passover lamb had already been killed by the time when the Lord's Passover was eaten. That happened on the 14th:

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD" (Num.28:16).​

The Passover lamb was killed on the 14th and so this verse is describing the events which happened on 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.14:12).​

You did not even attempt to prove that I am in error when I said that.

Therefore, this following verse, which is speaking about the same exact day, also happened on the 14th day:

"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).​

We can know that it was an error when the KJV translator added the words "feast of" to this verse because the "first day of the feast of unleavened bread" did not begin until the 15th:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:5).​

You have said absolutely nothing which refutes anything which I said. In fact, you did not even attempt to prove anything I said is in error. Why is that?

All you said is that I have not proved anything. Where is your evidence to back up that assertion, my friend?

Why don't you tell me specifically where you think I made an error?

You can repeat saying that I haven't proved anything until you turn blue in the face but that does not prove that I am wrong when I said that the translation at Matthew 26:17 in the KJV cannot possibly be correct.

And if you do not even attempt to prove that any of my particular points are in error then it becomes clear that you cannot find any fault in what I said and therefore what I said stands as the truth and you are proven wrong.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Desert Reign,

I am still waiting for you to address my points because you have not yet proved that even one of the things which I said is in error.

 

[Tambora]

On the very first Passover in Egypt, the blood of the slain Passover lamb was used to put on doorposts.

What was done with the blood of slain Passover lambs on the Passovers after that first one?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

On the very first Passover in Egypt, the blood of the slain Passover lamb was used to put on doorposts.

What was done with the blood of slain Passover lambs on the Passovers after that first one?

Surely you have some reason for asking this question so tell us what point you are trying to make.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

ok,you talked me into it,,, lets say I'm Greek no one in my genealogy was ever in Egypt,they never painted the lambs blood above their door post,they never passed down to me to eat bitter herbs and spices in remembrance of the Passover and then several generations later this guy named Paul converts me to Christian,,,should I eat the Passover even if none of my forefathers were in Egypt and he never actually passed over them?

No, the ordinance of the Passover was a part of the law of Moses, and the Gentiles were never under the law of Moses.

 

[Tambora]

On the very first Passover in Egypt, the blood of the slain Passover lamb was used to put on doorposts.

What was done with the blood of slain Passover lambs on the Passovers after that first one?

Surely you have some reason for asking this question so tell us what point you are trying to make.

To see if anyone has an answer.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To see if anyone has an answer.

Then start a new thread and perhaps someone will answer it for you. I do not see how the answer to that question has anything to do with the subject of this thread which I started.

If you want to derail a thread go do it to someone else's thread.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Back to the original topic, I would ask why it matters whether many Neo-MAD adherents are KJ-Only. If you were to draw a Venn diagram how would it look? Both KJ-Onlyism and MAD (as a whole, without even bothering to sort out Neo-MAD from classical MAD, or Acts 9 dispies from Acts 13, etc.) are both fringe movements in Protestantism. I imagine KJ-Onlyism is bigger, though.

So, ultimately, what's the point you're trying to make? Is there something inherently errant in the KJ-Only that misshapes the Neo-MAD movement? I think Bob Enyart is Neo-MAD (correct me if I'm wrong), and he's far from KJO, last I checked. Unless you have evidence leading to the conclusion that Neo-MAD errors are based on the error of KJ-Onlyism, I would be forced to come to the conclusion that you've committed the fallacy of conflating correlation with causation.

 

[Danoh]

Then start a new thread and perhaps someone will answer it for you. I do not see how the answer to that question has anything to do with the subject of this thread which I started.

If you want to derail a thread go do it to someone else's thread.

Yeah, Tambora :rotfl:

Don't do what Jerry does to every single thread and or subject he can get around to derailing into his "well, of course we know that" this, that, the other, that I, Jerry' alone, the Lord High of Know It All am right about...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, ultimately, what's the point you're trying to make?

Sometimes I will quote a verse from some other translation and then someone from the KJO camp will say, "That translation is wrong because it differs from the one found in the KJV and the KJV us without error."

So I decided to prove that the KJV is not without error. And no one has been able to demonstrate that my proof is in error.

Like I said, many in the Neo-MAD community are KJO and I hope that my proof results in many of them changing their opinion about the KJV.

 

[Tambora]

Have we not been talking about Passover in this thread?
Yes, we have. My question is not a derail.

 

[Desert Reign]

Desert Reign,

I am still waiting for you to address my points because you have not yet proved that even one of the things which I said is in error.

I have already answered you.

I don't care whether your points about Leviticus were right or wrong.

Your claim is that the translation is wrong.
However, your argument totally ignores the translation and basically consists of 'the text is wrong'.
So you are just being deceptive. You are probably just confused.

If the translation is the problem, then you need to address the following:

Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ
Do you agree that this is the dative case, indicating time when: 'on the first (day)'?
Yes or no?

Do you agree that the feminine form of the adjective is being used here and the Greek word for 'day' is feminine and that in accordance with standard Greek usage, this refers to 'the first day'? Thus do you agree that the word 'day' is assumed?
Yes or no?

τῶν ἀζύμων
'of the unleavened (breads)'
Do you agree that the word 'breads' is assumed?
Yes or no?

Do you agree that the plural form indicates a feast, festival or celebration, in keeping with standard Greek syntax?
Yes or no?

If you answer 'no' to any of the above, please give a reason, with grammatical, syntactical or lexical explanations.

NO OTHER KIND OF EXPLANATION IS ACCEPTABLE TO JUSTIFY A CLAIM OF A WRONG TRANSLATION.

Remember your claim was that the translation was wrong. You said this yourself.

What you are really doing is claiming that the text itself is wrong. But because you daren't accuse the author of being wrong, you blame it on the translator. Which is actually quite despicable because the translator probably spent years studying and also probably did the translation without charge because he felt he was doing God's work, only for someone like you to come along, who knows nothing of ancient Greek, to rub his nose in the dirt and transfer your petty insecurities and doubts onto him.

So answer my questions above with a yes or a no and if a no, do what I asked by showing why you think the translation is wrong.

Otherwise I am going to say nothing more to you on the subject.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM THE TRANSLATION WAS WRONG. YOU MUST UPHOLD THAT.

 

[Danoh]

Sometimes I will quote a verse from some other translation and then someone from the KJO camp will say, "That translation is wrong because it differs from the one found in the KJV and the KJV us without error."

So I decided to prove that the KJV is not without error. And no one has been able to demonstrate that my proof is in error.

Like I said, many in the Neo-MAD community are KJO and I hope that my proof results in many of them changing their opinion about the KJV.

Not that anyone has ever proven to Jerry's profound vanity that he is wrong - God forbid!

But the real issue for Jerry is his need to prove others wrong. He does not really care if they are or not. His real issue is his need to prove that he is right.

Heck, he doesn't even care if he is right. Impression management is his deceptive game.

Why else would he so disrespect every thread and or subject, and no matter how many times he has been asked by posters not to do so - why else would he so derail every thread with this absolute Neo-Mad nonsense of his?

He is, in short, a hypocrite.

I, for one, while I am on these threads, shall continue to do the same to his every post, until he either cuts this nonsense out, or drops dead (gets lost).

I suspect he will drop dead first - be that due to some other matter that calls him away, or he drops out of sight to some other context he ends up believing his know it all gnat like existence might be better served by.

 

[Danoh]

Have we not been talking about Passover in this thread?
Yes, we have. My question is not a derail.

Not if he can get away with saying otherwise...

 

[Tambora]

Jerry might be one of those folks that has the argument all worked out in his mind before he ever posts. And if anyone veers from the way he thinks the argument should go, he's lost.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry might be one of those folks that has the argument all worked out in his mind before he ever posts. And if anyone veers from the way he thinks the argument should go, he's lost.

You put me down despite the fact that you have yet to prove that anything I said here is in error:

First let us look at this translation from the KJV in a little more detail:

"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?... Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me" (Mt.26:17-18,20-23).​

Now let us look at the same exact event described in the book of Mark:

"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?... And in the evening he cometh with the twelve....And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mk.14:12,17-20).​

It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the the events described in Matthew which I quoted are the same exact events described in Mark which I quoted.

You have not even attempted to prove what I said there is in error.

And these words from Mark prove that the day spoken of is not the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, as you imagine:

"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; KJV).​

Here we see exactly what was being referred to as the Lord's Passover:

"And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's Passover" (Ex.12:11).​

Common sense dictates that the Passover lamb had already been killed by the time when the Lord's Passover was eaten. That happened on the 14th:

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD" (Num.28:16).​

The Passover lamb was killed on the 14th and so this verse is describing the events which happened on the 14th, and not the 15th, 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).​

You did not even attempt to prove that I am in error when I said that.

Therefore, this following verse, which is speaking about the same exact day, also happened on the 14th day:

"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).

We can know that it was an error when the KJV translator added the words "feast of" to this verse because the "first day of the feast of unleavened bread" did not begin until the 15th:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:5).​

You have said absolutely nothing which refutes anything which I said. In fact, you did not even attempt to prove anything I said is in error. Why is that?

 

[Desert Reign]

I wait patiently while Jerry goes away and looks up some grammar books or Strongs lexicon in the hope of finding some crumb he can take out of context, misunderstand, and use to show his ignorance again. Anything, no matter how tiny or insignificant, to use as an excuse to tell the world how foolish he is. Jerry, if you buy cheap goods, they usually don't last long. It is high time you invested in some real wisdom by learning ancient Greek.

 

[Vaquero45]

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).​

I can only name 3 people who I'm sure are KJV-only types, and also believe the biblical truth of "MAD". I only know them from TOL. (at least two of them would be on my short list of TOL favorite posters). I know a lot of "MAD" believers who are not KJV-only people. I love how easy the KJV is to memorize because of the language, and I have a wide margin KJV full of notes, but my preferred version is the NASB.

(I'm one of those "MAD" weirdos, to put my beliefs in a nutshell I'll borrow a line from an old poster here, I'm "acts9, 12-out". Also YEC, and Open Theist, and don't believe in Eternal Torment)

Do you think you have made some kind of dent in the "MAD" understanding by pointing out that some of the people who hold the belief are KJVO?

I did not read the thread, I'm up late, bored, and the title caught my eye. Feel free to ignore me if you feel like you covered this already.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I wait patiently while Jerry goes away and looks up some grammar books or Strongs lexicon in the hope of finding some crumb he can take out of context, misunderstand, and use to show his ignorance again.

Once again you run and hide from the evidence FROM THE SCTIPTURES which proves that you are in error when you assert that the translation of Matthew 26:17 in the KJV is not in error.

Your idea is easily shown to be in error and that is why you haven't even attempted to address my points which are based on the teaching FOUND IN THE BIBE. First let us look at this translation from the KJV in a little more detail:

"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?... Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me" (Mt.26:17-18,20-23).​

Now let us look at the same exact event described in the book of Mark:

"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?... And in the evening he cometh with the twelve....And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mk.14:12,17-20).​

It is obvious to those WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES that the events described in Matthew which I quoted are the same exact events described in Mark which I quoted. You did not even attempt to address these BIBLICAL FACTS and instead you continue to run and hide from the truth!.

These words from Mark prove that the day spoken of is the day that the Passover lambs were killed, and that happened prior to 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).​

The observance of the Passover Seder was on the 14th so the Passover lamb must be killed by that day so it can be eaten:

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the LORD" (Num.28:16).​

The Passover lamb was killed before the 14th was over, not the 15th, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread:

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (Lev.23:6).​

That contradicts your idea that Mark 14:12 and Matthew 26:17 are describing events of the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. That completely destroys your ideas and once again you refuse to even attempt to address this EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE! You just run and hide from the truth!

Therefore, it is impossible that you are right when you assert that the words "first day of the feast of unleavened bread" is the correct translation in this verse:

"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).​

All you do is make excuses why you refuse to address the evidence FROM THE SCRIPTURES which I presented. You did not even try to prove that I took anything out of context. You talk big but when it comes too actually addressing the meaning of the VERSES FROM THE BIBLE which I quoted you absolutely refuse to say anything about them.

You just run away from the truth like a dog with his tail between his legs!