“Easter” in the KJV: Argument Settled?

How much dif­fer­ence does one word make? It isn’t often that a word stirs up as much con­tro­ver­sy among oth­er­wise ratio­nal Chris­tians than does the word “East­er” as placed in Acts 12:4 in the King James Ver­sion of the Bible. Let’s see what that verse says accord­ing to the trans­la­tors of the KJV:

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.

In the con­text, Herod had already killed James the broth­er of John, pleas­ing the crowd before him. See­ing this, he decides to cap­ture Peter as well, and he throws him in jail, intend­ing after East­er to bring him before the peo­ple. These events took place dur­ing the “days of unleav­ened bread” (Acts 12:4).

This “East­er” of course is a trans­la­tion of a Greek word, pascha, which occurs 29 times in the New Tes­ta­ment, and in all but one instance (above), it is trans­lat­ed “Passover.” Only once did the King James trans­la­tors choose to ren­der the word as “East­er.”

King James Only­ists, such as Ter­ry Watkins of Dial-the-Truth Min­istries, may insist that because the KJV is the only trans­la­tion to right­ly trans­late Acts 12:4, the use of East­er “ends the argu­ment once and for all.”:”(Terry Watkins, accord­ing to his home­page as of June 29, 2006.)”:

But is Acts 12:4 the ulti­mate proof of the KJV’s per­fec­tion, or does it con­tain a mis­trans­la­tion? It is very pos­si­ble that the King James Only tra­di­tion stands or falls upon this verse. If it is a mis­trans­la­tion, noth­ing else the Only­ists say con­cern­ing their posi­tion matters.

I have looked at the claims of two King James Only­ist defend­ers, a Mr. Jack A. Moor­man and a Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. Both men insist that “East­er” is the prop­er trans­la­tion of pascha in Acts 12:4, and they both do so for the same reason.

Moor­man says,

It is pre­cise­ly in this one pas­sage that “East­er” must be used, and the trans­la­tion “Passover” would have con­flict­ed with the imme­di­ate con­text. In their rush to accuse the Autho­rized Ver­sion of error many have not tak­en the time to con­sid­er what the pas­sage actu­al­ly says: “(Then were the days of unleav­ened bread.)…intending after East­er to bring him forth to the people.”

And Dr. Gipp like­wise states (empha­sis his),

It must also be not­ed that when­ev­er the passover is men­tioned in the New Tes­ta­ment, the ref­er­ence is always to the meal, to be eat­en on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleav­ened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remem­bered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not sev­en nights in a row.

These argu­ments make sense. If Passover rep­re­sent­ed the begin­ning of the Feast (or days) of Unleav­ened Bread, then it would­n’t make sense for Herod to be wait­ing until after the Passover in Acts 12:4 for it had already passed and the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread was underway.

Dr. Gipp pro­vides numer­ous scrip­tures in his attempt to show that the Passover always pre­cedes the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread, but it can be summed up as he stat­ed above, “The days of unleav­ened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover.”

That is an absolute state­ment. It comes from one with a doc­tor­ate in the­ol­o­gy. And though many may be inclined to believe it, it is an error, and may be a bla­tant (may I be so bold?) lie used sole­ly to vin­di­cate the King James Only­ist position.

For­get­ting the claims of Moor­man and Gipp for a moment, let us turn to the word of God. We’ll use the King James Ver­sion so we can­not be accused of using a “faulty ver­sion” for this. Watch what God says:

In the first month, in the four­teenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of sev­en days; unleav­ened bread shall be eaten.:”(It is very inter­est­ing that in all the pro King James Only mate­r­i­al I have read con­cern­ing the “East­er” issue, I have nev­er seen Ezekiel 45:21 men­tioned. Numer­ous vers­es are list­ed show­ing a dis­tinc­tion between Passover and the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread, but this verse which com­bines them is con­ve­nient­ly ignored. I used to be a King James Only­ist, and I was hon­est­ly shocked when I stum­bled upon Ezekiel 45:21. Should King James Only­ists sep­a­rate what God has joined togeth­er in order to defend their posi­tion? NAY!)”: Ezekiel 45:21, empha­sis mine

What was that? Did you catch that? How can that be, if the Passover is strict­ly a one night affair? How can that be if the week­long feast is sep­a­rate from the Passover?

God Him­self defines the Passover for us as “a feast of sev­en days,” shat­ter­ing the claims of Moor­man, Gipp, and oth­er KJV Only defend­ers that the Passover was a sin­gle night fol­lowed by the days of unleav­ened bread.

Let the word of God stand on its own:

And when he had appre­hend­ed him, he put him in prison, and deliv­ered him to four quater­nions of sol­diers to keep him; intend­ing after pascha to bring him forth to the peo­ple. Acts 12:4

The pre­vi­ous verse tells us that the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread was going on. Ezekiel tells us that the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread is known as Passover. Know­ing these things, what do you think Luke was inspired to write in Acts 12:4?

Log­ic and con­sis­ten­cy demands that the Passover is meant in Acts 12:4; there is no con­tex­tu­al rea­son to assume that Luke meant some­thing dif­fer­ent in using pascha than it meant in the oth­er 28 times it is used in the New Testament.

This is an error in the trans­la­tion of the King James Ver­sion, one which has failed to be cor­rect­ed in the ver­sion’s numer­ous revi­sions. I am not say­ing that you should not use a King James Bible or even that you should not believe it is a won­der­ful and most­ly accu­rate ver­sion. It is those things. How­ev­er, it is not per­fect, and you are deceiv­ing your­self (and per­haps oth­ers) in think­ing so. We do not have a per­fect ver­sion; only God does, for His word is set­tled in Heaven.

118 thoughts on ““Easter” in the KJV: Argument Settled?”

    1. God: “I’m going to lay down the rules to the let­ter, how­ev­er, I’m not going to give you an exact copy of those rules for you to fol­low. I’ll keep those here in heav­en where you can’t access it”
      Some “God” who can cre­ate the entire uni­verse with his spo­ken word and yet can­not even pre­serve his word per­fect­ly for those he cre­at­ed to read? It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Unless of course it makes for a con­ve­nient way to put ques­tion on God’s word and gives the flex­i­bil­i­ty to “inter­pret it” since we sup­pos­ed­ly don’t have an exact copy. Espe­cial­ly when the first attack in the bible was to put a ques­tion on God’s word when Satan said, “Yea, hath God said?” i.e. “should it real­ly say East­er?” That in of itself says a lot. Ears up, radar on kind of words. The first thing he attacked was God’s word. And he ques­tioned it in much the same way. Did God real­ly say that? Again, ears up, radar on. I smell a rat and the wind isn’t com­ing from God’s direc­tion. I don’t ques­tion what God says because I don’t under­stand why he said it. I just believe what he says. Jesus told us in John 8:44 how to rec­og­nize these tac­tics. Same tac­tics, dif­fer­ent century.

    2. Writ­ten with a clear bias. One verse in Ezekiel, that can be read either way, is not proof of the issue. If there was no dif­fer­ence between the Passover and the days of unleav­ened bread why did God men­tion ” (verse 3) these were the days of unleav­ened bread” why not say, “these were the days of the Passover”? We can­not jet­ti­son all the oth­er wit­ness­es for Ezekiel 45:21; the oth­er vers­es give the cor­rect mean­ing to this verse. An exam­ple of this is found in the gospels when the cloak they put on Jesus is referred to as pur­ple in one Gospel and scar­let in anoth­er. These two seem­ing­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry accounts reveal to the read­er the cloak was both scar­let and pur­ple, the colours of the King. “Every word of God is pure” (Prov 30:5)

  1. I real­ize this is an old­er post, but I came upon it as I searched for this issue. I think your log­ic is good and the verse in Ezekiel does sup­port your posi­tion on the passover includ­ing the entire 7 days. 

    How­ev­er, I also know that when one says “Hap­py East­er” in Greek they say “Kalo Pashcha!” (beau­ti­ful East­er). So Pashcha is trans­lat­ed as Easter.

    I then searched for “pascha” in the Scrip­tures and found it used 29 times. Of those 29 times only 3 were after the res­ur­rec­tion of Christ. One is of course the verse in Acts. Anoth­er is in 1 Corinthi­ans 5:7 where it refers to Christ being our passover — as he did come to take the place of that year­ly sac­ri­fice and save us (become the pro­pi­ti­a­tion for our sins). And then in Hebrews 11:28 which is a ref­er­ence to Moses and the ini­tial passover. 

    So to me it does seem fit­ting to say “East­er” when the Greek word does indeed also mean “East­er” and this verse is clear­ly refer­ring to a time after Christ’s res­ur­rec­tion — and the passover feast has already been men­tioned. We know that his­tor­i­cal­ly the res­ur­rec­tion did occur at the end of the Passover. The two are intrin­si­cal­ly linked and if it weren’t for changes in cal­en­dars would occur togeth­er each and every year. 

    I’m maybe not good at writ­ing out all my thoughts on this, but if you take a look at this com­ment I would like your feed­back on the issue, as to me it seems that the trans­la­tion is fine as is, and is indeed not in error, even with Ezekiel tak­en into consideration.

    1. Part of the issue is that pascha was not meant to mean “East­er,” nor did it for quite some time after the events of the New Tes­ta­ment. The tra­di­tion of East­er is root­ed in pagan­ism and has been “ret­conned” into New Tes­ta­ment his­to­ry where it does­n’t belong. This is part­ly why East­er is a mov­able feast rather than being tied to Passover, like it would be if it were an actu­al bib­li­cal fes­ti­val (which is not — no one in the New Tes­ta­ment is ever said to mark the anniver­sary of the res­ur­rec­tion; rather, we have the Lord’s Sup­per as often as we will).

      Greeks today may say “Hap­py Pascha!” for “Hap­py East­er!,” but there was a time in ear­ly church his­to­ry where peo­ple did­n’t wish peo­ple “Hap­py East­er!”; there was the Passover, and there was the Lord’s Supper.

      1. So is your argu­ment that we should­n’t indeed both­er cel­e­brat­ing East­er? I know that it is not a Bib­li­cal Feast ;) How­ev­er, I also don’t see the harm in cel­e­brat­ing and com­mem­o­rat­ing it. I see it as some­thing dif­fer­ent than the Lord’s Sup­per (which I under­stand we are to take when we wish to, so long as we do not make it a time to sim­ply indulge as the Church was doing in Corinth)

        Because the East­er events are tied to the passover — it is clear in the Bible when they hap­pened, and it is in rela­tion to Passover. It’s not some assigned date like Christ­mas is. 

        Maybe bun­nies and baby chicks and eggs are part of the Pagan fes­ti­vals but is cel­e­brat­ing the res­ur­rec­tion of Christ real­ly con­sid­ered pagan? What I’m say­ing is that we know when the res­ur­rec­tion occurred. The Bible does not for­bid remem­ber­ing that day (indeed our atten­tion is brought to those events over and over). Does the fact that some per­son with poor judg­ment some­where in his­to­ry decid­ed to bring Pagan sym­bols into the “East­er” deal negate the fact that we know exact­ly when the res­ur­rec­tion occurred, and that if we choose to remem­ber that day when it his­tor­i­cal­ly occurred, we are cor­rect in plac­ing it right after the Passover meal?

        I’m ask­ing because your response feels as if it is heav­i­ly laden with mal­ice for the entire cel­e­bra­tion of the res­ur­rec­tion. Indeed hav­ing the Lord’s Sup­per and remem­ber­ing that his body and blood were giv­en for us is impor­tant — but the fin­ished work of Christ lies in the fact that he rose again and ascend­ed to the right hand of God.

        I see though where you are com­ing from in say­ing that “east­er” per say did not exist as “East­er” in the NT times when Acts was writ­ten. I think I will go back and re-read all the sur­round­ing pas­sages again. It is still inter­est­ing to me that this one time it is trans­lat­ed as such is indeed after the res­ur­rec­tion when there could have been a mark­ing of the day Christ died. Sure­ly his dis­ci­ples remem­bered the day as we remem­ber the day of a friend’s death. Sure­ly many, many peo­ple remem­bered the day, being so sig­nif­i­cant and such a big spec­ta­cle, as we remem­ber trag­ic world events on their anniver­saries even today. It did­n’t take long at all for “911” to mean some­thing oth­er than an emer­gency num­ber to every one in the Unit­ed States…

        Thank you for your reply.

        1. I don’t have a prob­lem cel­e­brat­ing the risen Sav­ior; if I boast, let it be in Him.

          My issue is that I believe the Lord was wise enough to instruct us how to wor­ship — in oth­er words, I believe in the reg­u­la­tive prin­ci­ple, which teach­es that when we wor­ship, we should not only not do those things He for­bids but we should also only do those things which He commands.

          When we make up annu­al fes­ti­vals, add tra­di­tion upon tra­di­tion to church ser­vices, and so on, we obscure sim­ple, bib­li­cal wor­ship — and we often neglect it in the process. Altar calls? Christ­mas ser­vices? Pul­pits? Mem­ber­ship rolls? Corny tracts?

          None of that is Chris­tian­i­ty, at least not bib­li­cal Chris­tian­i­ty. And I take excep­tion to it because I respect what the Lord has said in His Word.

          I don’t mind if a Chris­t­ian wants to cel­e­brate a par­tic­u­lar day — in the keep­ing of sab­baths and fes­ti­vals, I can­not judge — but I can encour­age those that do so to admit that these are sim­ply tra­di­tions, not true aspects of the Chris­t­ian faith.

      2. Edward Chapman

        You might want to read my post. It is a dif­fer­ent take on the word East­er in the KJV.

        1. It is a dif­fer­ent take, though it seems entire­ly based on an assump­tion that the King James Ver­sion is cor­rect, work­ing back­wards from there. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, that isn’t how schol­ar­ship works.

      3. If any­one com­pares the greek words instead of the eng­lish it is obvi­ous that east­er does not belong.
        If you read the let­ter to the read­ers which was writ­ten by the 1611 trans­la­tors. They open­ly admit they done their best and it is not per­fect but as close as they could get.
        Any fur­ther argu­ment is vain!!!!

        1. So your assump­tion is that in 400 years, no schol­ar has been able to exceed the trans­la­tors of King James’ Bible, a Bible which was open­ly “trans­lat­ed” using lan­guage which was had no busi­ness being in there, such as “bish­op,” but which fit the church poli­ty of the king.

  2. Edward Chapman

    A few years ago, I did an exten­sive inde­pen­dant study on why the word East­er is in the King James Ver­sion. Any­time any­one states that the King James Ver­sion is Unin­spired in any way, I take the oppo­site posi­tion on the sub­ject mat­ter. First, we must acknowl­edge that the Bible was writ­ten by Jew­ish peo­ple only, not Gen­tiles. This is impor­tant, as many Gen­tile inter­pre­ta­tions occur when dis­cussing issues per­tain­ing to Jew­ish Tra­di­tions that Gen­tiles can only spec­u­late on, twist­ing the mean­ings, end­ing in a rede­f­i­n­i­tion. Then, we must learn every­thing we can per­tain­ing to every detail about the Jew­ish Passover. Then, we must deter­mine, from a con­cor­dance, about the Eng­lish Lan­guage that was spo­ken in 1611, and not to pre­tend that the words used in 1611 have the same mean­ings as they do in 2009. Then we can take all details of every­thing we learn, from inde­pen­dant study, and final­ly put ALL of Acts chap­ter 12 into con­text, rather than just con­sen­trat­ing on one verse, that is, Acts 12:4.

    The Eng­lish words, Passover, and Days of Unleav­ened Bread are indeed the same. They both begin AT the same time. The Jew­ish day begins at sun­set. Accord­ing to Leviti­cus 23:5, Passover begins on the four­teenth day of the first month (Nisan) at even(ing). That is the same as say­ing Nisan 15 (not Nisan 14). Luke 22:1 states “Now the feast of unleav­ened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”

    Passover, which is indeed called the Feast of unleav­ened bread, is a sev­en day feast, not a one day feast.

    So, in Acts 12:4, it was indeed passover, as the Greek word trans­lates. But it begs the ques­tion, which day of the passover, the first, sec­ond, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or sev­enth day?

    Now, we see the word “After” in Acts 12:4! Some will see that word, and auto­mat­i­cal­ly assume that this word, “after” means when passover ends.

    Wrong! This par­tic­u­lar word, “after” means “AMID”, which means “dur­ing”. Acts 12:4 is dis­cussing a PARTICULAR day with­in (amid) the Sev­en Day Feast of Unleav­ened Bread, oth­er­wise known as Passover. But which Par­tic­u­lar Day?

    Why would it please the Jews to have the dis­ci­ples of Jesus killed dur­ing Passover? Would it be because they were preach­ing the res­ur­rec­tion of Christ? Yes…it would! And which day of Passover might that be? Could it pos­si­bly be East­er? Absolute­ly. The third day of the Feast of Unleav­end Bread! 

    The rea­son why the word East­er is used in the King James Ver­sion, is to denote a PARTICULAR DAY of the Passover, called the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread. It is NO mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion, for it is there for a reason.

    If I get a reply, we can fur­ther this dis­cus­sion, as well as look deep­er into the rea­son why the word “East­er” exists, rather than lis­ten­ing to the wack jobs say that it was because of some pagan god­dess named Istar, the god­dess of fer­til­i­ty. That is so absurd.

    So, if cel­e­brat­ing the Resurec­tion of Christ is a sin, please show me the 614th law (out of 613) that states that it is a sin to cel­e­brate the resurec­tion of Christ.

    1. You state that you try to look at things as the Jews do and also admit that Pascha is the Passover; you then have to make the non-Jew­ish assump­tion that one use of Pascha is used to refer to the Sun­day of the resurrection.

      I’m okay with the fact that you use assump­tion to defend your stance, but I hope no one is gullible enough to be con­vinced to King James Only­ism by it.

      I high­ly rec­om­mend the work The King James Only Con­tro­ver­sy by James White.

      Believe me when I tell you that lib­er­at­ing your­self from adher­ing to the extra-bib­li­cal tra­di­tion of King James Only­ism opens up a much more vibrant Bible study life. (At the very least, I no longer had to pre­tend like King James Only­ism was a bib­li­cal teach­ing anymore.)

      1. Whether or not it is the way that schol­ar­ship works, I think it is more impor­tant that it is the way that the Holy Spir­it works, and teach­es, as scrip­ture states that we need not that any man teach us. I say this Humbly, but bold­ly that I enjoy look­ing deep­er into scrip­ture to find the spir­i­tu­al things, rather than the car­nal. For exam­ple, the life of Joseph was NOT about Joseph, even though it was about Joseph. No, the life of Joseph was about Jesus, not Joseph. My point is, I don’t care about schol­ar­ship. The fool­ish­ness of Jesus out­weighs the knowl­edge of the schol­ars! So, yes, I still hold the point that the King James Ver­sion is cor­rect. What your orga­ni­za­tion does, is spend more time telling us why the word “East­er” should not be there, rather than giv­ing the one good rea­son why it should be there. Not only that, you have yet to con­sult the sourse of the rea­son why it was put there in the first place. You are quick to say that it is wrong, rather than research­ing why it is there. Who put it there and why is the ques­tion we all must research. What dis­cus­sions were there and why was there a con­sens­es to keep it there. Who object­ed, who agreed. If peo­ple would spend more time ask­ing the “who, what, why, where, when, and how” ques­tions, we would find the answers.

        In addi­tion, Passover is a “sev­en” day feast, not a one day feast. Passover was already under­way, so it was not dis­cussing the first day of the passover. Not only that, but, the word “AFTER” does NOT mean when Passover has con­clud­ed. The Greek word used for the word “AFTER” is “META”, which means “AMID”. Now, I was a sailor at one time, and I remem­ber the term, “Amid-ships”, which means in the mid­dle of. Meta means “in the midst of”, which means any­where between the first day of the passover and the sev­enth day of the Passover. You want to sep­a­rate the word Passover from the phrase “Feast of Unleav­end Bread”. You can­not do that.

        Final­ly, you don’t ask the tough ques­tions, such as, Why would it please the Jews, who saw the cru­ci­fix­ion of Jesus, to have the dis­ci­ples of Jesus killed “DURING” (amid), not at the con­clu­sion of, the Passover (a sev­en day feast, not a one day feast). When a twelfth dis­ci­ple was being sought out to replace Judas, that twelfth HAD TO BE A WITNESS of the RESURECTION of Jesus. The Jews, who saw the cru­ci­fix­ion of Jesus did not like the fact that any­one would preach the resurec­tion of the same. 

        And final­ly, yes, Jesus did instruct us on how to wor­ship when he said that God is a spir­it and we are to wor­ship him in spir­it and in truth. What does that mean? That means that we don’t have to go to Jerusalem on a par­tic­u­lar day of the week, as God resides in us. We wor­ship God any­where, any­time. You seem to think that we can only wor­ship God based on the break­ing of bread and drink­ing wine at com­mu­nion? No! That’s what cults say in order to tell peo­ple not to cel­e­brate Christ­mas and East­er. They tell them that “God instruct­ed prop­er worship…blah, blah, blah, and it does­n’t include Christ­mas and East­er. My com­ment to them is, study to show thy­self approved! Let the Holy Spir­it guide you, and not a the­olog­yn, or a schol­ar. Remem­ber the fool­ish­ness of Jesus over­rides the scholars.

        1. The word “East­er” is there for a rea­son. What is that rea­son? To say that it should­n’t be there is not the answer to my ques­tion. My ques­tion to you is, “Why is it there?”

          1. Because in one def­i­n­i­tion of the word “after”, the word “Amid” and “After” are syn­onyms. For exam­ple, read the fol­low­ing sentence:

            “The bank man­ag­er resigned his posi­tion (Amid/After) alle­ga­tions that he embezzeled money”. 

            And, yes, that Greek word, Meta, real­ly does mean “amid”.

            1. Can you give an exam­ple from the KJV of the word ‘after’ mean­ing ‘amid’ (besides Acts 14:2, of course)? I know that the Greek word can mean ‘amid’, but the KJV trans­la­tors seemed to make the deci­sion that here it means ‘after’.

              1. The King James Ver­sion trans­la­tors also assumed that the love of mon­ey is the root of all evil. ;) It’s as if by the time they got to the New Tes­ta­ment, they for­got that mon­ey had­n’t even been invent­ed at the time of Adam, Eve, and Cain’s evil.

                Or maybe Adam and Eve bartered fruit from one anoth­er using palm leaves as cur­ren­cy? Such an absur­di­ty must be assumed for King James Only­ism to be a ten­able posi­tion, after all; oth­er­wise, the Only­ists must admit that their ver­sion con­tains a bla­tant lie, and only the most tena­cious of adher­ents would actu­al­ly do that!

                1. Rick, by your com­ment, I see that you are not a seri­ous stu­dent of the Bible. You mock peo­ple by your sar­casms. Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit!

                  1. Jesus, Paul, and God Him­self used sar­casm through­out the Scrip­tures; don’t lim­it your­self by avoid­ing it.

                    I see by your com­ment, though, that you tend to avoid actu­al issues in order to cir­cu­lar­ly rea­son oth­ers into accept­ing your tra­di­tions. As a for­mer King James Only­ist, though, you can con­sid­er me immune to such tactics.

                    1. Oh, no, I nev­er avoid a good argu­ment. I used to like to watch Han­ni­ty & Colmes on Fox news. The dif­fer­ence here is, you show a lot of igno­rance in your argu­ment, there­fore, it is wise to not engage in sar­casm with you, as you don’t bring to the table any facts. So, a debate, yes, if you have knowl­edge about facts, and not mak­ing them up as you go along. God tells us to rea­son. Ask­ing ques­tions, and research­ing the answers. You do nei­ther. You dic­tate. Stop being a know-it-all, tear­ing down those of us who do learn much more than you will ever learn from the KJV. Jesus nev­er used sar­casm to his dis­ci­ples, as you seem to believe (again, no facts to back up your state­ment) and Jesus nev­er avoid­ed them in their ques­tions about things. He wel­comes ques­tions. He did­n’t take to kind­ly to those who thought that they knew it all, like you seem to think. That is called “Pride”.

                2. Con­text, Con­text, Con­text. Choos­ing one verse to twist is what cults do VERY well, with­out putting the whole chap­ter into con­text to fig­ure out what was being said. The con­text of the pre­vi­ous verse of 1 Tim­o­thy 6:10 (verse 9), WHICH YOU FAILED TO REFERENCE (anoth­er cult trick), was about rich peo­ple. They love mon­ey. THEY (The Rich), being the key word. Rich peo­ple love mon­ey, do they not? To those who love mon­ey, it is indeed the root of all of their evil. THEIR being the key word. For the love of mon­ey is indeed the root of ALL EVIL for those who love mon­ey. Do you see how twist­ed you can be in your sar­casms? Adam and Eve could­n’t love mon­ey. Oh, and by the way, God did not man­date any rules or reg­u­la­tions to them about how to wor­ship God. They were igno­rant, just like a child, and God was pleased. It was Satan that want­ed them to have “Knowl­edge” of both Good, and Evil. Is it a sin to be naked in the Gar­den? Yes. Did God put them in the Gar­den naked? Yes. Oh, and anoth­er word that God changed was Immanuel to Jesus.

                3. King James ver­sion isn’t the only one that says it i can give you 10 trans­la­tion­so and they’d all say the same thing I guess they all are wrong and on the same page as the king James trans­la­tors then. There are no errors in God’s word sir.

              2. The fol­low­ing site gives very good insight to your question:

                http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3326.

                You will see the word “Amid” used in the NAS ver­sion, and for those who can’t stand the KJV, I scoff at “thee” (KJV Humor) since the word “amid” is used, instead of the word “after”. But, if you do your research, you will under­stand that the word “after” and “amid” are inter­change­able. We must also real­ize that the Eng­lish that we use today is cor­rupt. The ear­li­er the Eng­lish, the more pure the English.

                1. I see nowhere in an old Eng­lish dic­tio­nary that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’. Yes, the Greek word meta can mean both ‘after’ and ‘amid’, but that does not mean that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’. If the word here does real­ly mean ‘amid’ as you claim, the KJV is incorrect.

                  (I believe, how­ev­er, that the word is prop­er­ly trans­lat­ed here ‘after’, so the KJV is cor­rect in that. The NASB also has ‘after’ here.)

                  You can­not claim that the KJV is per­fect and then use exter­nal claims and rea­son­ings to explain it. If the KJV were per­fect you wouldn’t need to try to explain away any of its word choices.

                  1. First of all, I don’t “claim” any­thing. I can­not argue a dic­tio­nary def­i­n­i­tion of the Greek word Meta. It means “Amid”. Amid means “dur­ing”. Did I invent that? Hardly! 

                    You said that “Yes, the Greek word meta can mean both ‘after’ and ‘amid’, but that does not mean that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’.”

                    What? If meta can mean after or amid, that does indeed mean that you can use either word and it means the same thing. Meta does not have mul­ti­ple mean­ings. Meta has mul­ti­ple Eng­lish words that can be used, how­ev­er, and Eng­lish words have mul­ti­ple meanings. 

                    The word, “After” was used in the KJV, so what? We don’t live in the year 1611. Our Eng­lish is dif­fer­ent and cor­rupt than it was then. The KJV trans­la­tors used the word “After” because it meant “Amid” (mid) in their day. Why are we telling them how to trans­late THEIR words, or why are we telling them that they used the wrong word? Who are we? Did the Eng­lish Lan­guage begin in the twen­ty first cen­tu­ry? We need to under­stand them, rather than them under­stand us. They are the experts, we aren’t. 

                    I will find an exam­ple for you, though. I will reply when I find it.

                    1. The Greek word gyne can mean either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’. Does that mean that the Eng­lish word ‘wife’ can there­fore mean ‘woman’? I believe the case is sim­i­lar with meta. I hold that ‘after’ has nev­er meant ‘amid’, 1611 or 2009.

                2. “The ear­li­er the Eng­lish, the more pure the English.”

                  Then why do you use the King James Ver­sion? Eng­lish was spo­ken for over six hun­dred years pri­or to the trans­la­tion of the King James Ver­sion; does­n’t that mean there is six hun­dred years of lan­guage cor­rup­tion in it? Also, there are ear­li­er Eng­lish trans­la­tions; would­n’t that nec­es­sar­i­ly make them pur­er as well?

                  The very fact that lan­guage is dif­fer­ent today than it was four hun­dred years ago is a very strong argu­ment why the King James Ver­sion isn’t a “end all be all” Eng­lish trans­la­tion. The argu­ment that “lan­guage is cor­rupt” is mean­ing­less; trans­late the Bible into today’s Eng­lish, and all the prob­lems dis­ap­pear — except those which come with deal­ing with tra­di­tion-bound King James Onlyists.

                    1. And your reply shows your refusal to deal with reality.

                      Peo­ple have asked me why I refer to King James Only­ism as a cult; it’s because those who hold to those beliefs are blind to sim­ple real­i­ty, to any­thing which might shat­ter the alle­giance which holds them to the King James Ver­sion. Your reply is evi­dence of that, and I implore you to open your eyes and think out­side of the nar­row­ly defined box of an Onlyism.

                      “One Lord, One Faith, One Bap­tism,” but nev­er “One Trans­la­tion.” The impor­tant truths are expound­ed upon repeat­ed­ly in the Scrip­tures and are made crys­tal clear to those who have been quick­ened by the Spir­it; giv­en the amount of effort spent by King James Only­ists to defend their beliefs to oth­ers, one would expect that God men­tioned some­thing like “Thou shalt useth only trans­la­tions which forceth you to talk like Shakespeare.”

                      Too bad that isn’t in there. Only­ists have to resort to trans­la­tion his­to­ries or any of a num­ber of oth­er things to defend their claims, all the while sac­ri­fic­ing sola Scrip­tura on the iron­ic altar of defend­ing what they believe to be the purist Scriptures!

                    2. Why do KJO make nasty com­ments when in a debate ? It seems to be some­thing you all do.

                3. This is a very old post, and I don’t usu­al­ly com­ment with my opin­ions, but here is fac­tu­al­ly infor­ma­tion that is being gross­ly mis­rep­re­sent­ed by some­one who obvi­ous­ly is a com­plete igno­ra­mus when it comes to Greek. I hate to be that blunt, but it is true. You real­ly have absolute­ly no idea what you are talk­ing about, but you want to por­tray your­self that you do. And God is not deceived by it. But unfor­tu­nate­ly, I have to answer because some men might be deceived by your mask.

                  Sim­ply try­ing to read some sort of con­cor­dance with­out learn­ing the lan­guage itself leads many many peo­ple to many many false con­clu­sions. You actu­al­ly need to take class­es on the Greek syn­tax and start read­ing it in mul­ti­ple con­texts and from mul­ti­ple Greek doc­u­ments to begin to get a feel of it. Just because a word can tech­ni­cal­ly be trans­lat­ed with more than one mean­ing, does­n’t mean that that mean­ing is avail­able for that word for every con­text, and the trans­la­tors are not ran­dom­ly pick­ing and choos­ing when this word is trans­lat­ed one way and then trans­lat­ed anoth­er way.

                  When “meta” is cou­pled with a gen­i­tive noun, it means “with” and when it is cou­pled with an accusative noun, it means “after”.

                  The noun “to pasxa” in Acts 12:4 is an accusative noun. There­fore in Acts 12:4, “meta” means “after”. It must be ren­dered “after the Passover.”

                  (I am not a King James Only per­son by any means. Hav­ing learned Greek, I can say that the clos­est I have found is the New Amer­i­can Stan­dard — which espe­cial­ly ren­ders many of the ‘char­ac­ters’ ques­tions prop­er­ly (in Greek there is a way to ask a ques­tion that expects a “yes” or “no” answer, but this is not por­trayed by any trans­la­tion except for the NAS or mine own per­son­al trans­la­tion), but ithe NAS still falls short in many areas.)

            2. So Ed, you have proven the KJV is flawed, after is an error and amid is cor­rect. Hmmm. And fur­ther­more you now have the text say­ing some­thing real­ly weird.
              You have the text say­ing: intend­ing amid East­er to bring him forth to the peo­ple. That does not even make any sense. Of course one could argue that it could read: intend­ing amid passover to bring him forth to the peo­ple. How does one do some­thing “amid East­er”. KJV is just sim­ple wrong, incor­rect and in error. It is not per­fect. I used to be a KJV only­ist once myself, but I repent­ed of that and now know bet­ter. Praise YWHW he has shown me the truth.

        2. You’re being too incon­sis­tent to reply to, at least in any way that would do any good.

          For instance, you crit­i­cize my study­ing the Scrip­tures to deter­mine how I am to wor­ship by telling me to study the Scrip­tures, and you tell me to study the Scrip­tures while at the same time defend­ing extra-bib­li­cal tra­di­tions like East­er and Christmas.

          You’ve also done noth­ing to defend the King James Ver­sion’s use of East­er — or why we should only use the King James Ver­sion. You’re not alone; no King James Only­ist can answer my King James Ver­sion Only Chal­lenge sim­ply because it is an extra-bib­li­cal tra­di­tion that can­not be defend­ed scrip­tural­ly. It must be assumed, yet assump­tions are not what God told us to build our faith upon.

          God was very spe­cif­ic that the Scrip­tures are suf­fi­cient, and if King James Only­ism could not be deter­mined from the Scrip­tures in the year, oh, 712, then there’s no way that the doc­trine is there today. It’s some­thing tra­di­tion­al­ists have made up, yet they are too blind­ed or scared or what­ev­er to admit it. 

          Last, whether the Jews were mak­ing plans for “after” or “dur­ing” Passover is real­ly of no effect for your argu­ment. Even if “dur­ing” or “amid” is the intend­ed mean­ing in this instance, there’s still no rea­son to assume that “East­er” is nec­es­sar­i­ly the prop­er translation.

          Do you have any argu­ments for your posi­tion that aren’t cir­cu­lar or non sequiturs?

          1. Where is my incon­sis­tan­cy? You preach schol­ars to me, and I preach Holy Spir­it to you. I think that God would be pleased about that. Have you not read I Cor. chap­ter one? And you preach that it is a sin to cel­e­brate “East­er”. “East­er” is NOT extra bib­li­cal. It is a fal­la­cy to preach to peo­ple that the first cen­tu­ry Chris­tians did not cel­e­brate East­er. It is also a fal­la­cy to preach to peo­ple that East­er has a pagan ori­gin. I will get to that top­ic in time (my time, not yours), but are you will­ing to research things from a believ­ers stand­point, rather than lis­ten­ing to wack jobs that claim that we are not to cel­e­brate East­er or Christ­mas? Yes, I do criti­size your wor­ship, but from a bib­li­cal stand­point. God did NOT estab­lish rules and reg­u­la­tions for Chris­tians in the wor­ship­ping of Him. We do wor­ship God, the God of Abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob, cel­e­brat­ing East­er and Christ­mas. If that stum­bles you, you have NO FAITH! 

            And your argu­ment about Hol­i­days is ter­ri­ble in light of the Jew­ish Hol­i­day Purim. Who estab­lished it and why? What does Purim rep­re­sent? Was it cel­e­brat­ed in the days of Jesus? Is it still cel­e­brat­ed today? Find out in the book of Ester.

            Last, you say that it is real­ly of no effect for my argu­ment whether it is dur­ing or after passover. YES IT IS! My ques­tion to you, which you refuse to answer is:

            WHAT DAY of the Passover was King Herod going to kill Peter? 

            The answer to that ques­tion is extreme­ly impor­tant! But, you say that it is of no effect. I high­ly dis­agree with you on that.

            But, you can’t answer that ques­tion, can you? Or will you even research it? If you don’t research it, how can you con­clude that the word East­er should not be there? In Chap­ter 13 of Acts, the Apos­tle Paul was PREACHING the resurec­tion of Jesus. In I Cor. 15, a Chris­t­ian must believe in the resurec­tion. You have a prob­lem with the KJV, that’s fine, but don’t tell us KJV only­ists that the KJV is wrong. It isn’t. But if you want to use unin­spired ver­sions, i.e., the NIV, then go ahead.

            It is NOT out of char­ac­ter for God to change words in the Bible. He changed Abram’s name to Abra­ham, which changed the mean­ing. He changed Jacobs name to Israel. He also changed many oth­er words, as well, many words. We also use the Eng­lish words, “The Lord” in replace­ment of the Hebrew word YHVH. Where is your argu­ment there? I don’t care what ver­sion you use. Only a select few will ren­der YHVH with Yah­weh or Jeho­vah, and one of those is the New World Trans­la­tion of the Jeho­vah’s Wit­ness­es. Should we, or should we not use the words “The Lord” in the Old Tes­ta­ment? You are quick to argue the word East­er, so how about the words, “The Lord”? Again, I ask, where is my inconsistancy?

            1. Your incon­sis­ten­cy is that while you dis­agree with my appeal to schol­ar­ship, you are quick to appeal to schol­ars — the authors of con­cor­dances and dic­tio­nar­ies, for instance — to make your case. In oth­er words, if you were con­sis­tent and dropped the appeals to schol­ar­ship, your argu­ment would be “East­er is in the King James Ver­sion because it is in the King James Ver­sion.” Obvi­ous­ly such a cir­cu­lar argu­ment isn’t going to stand, so you must do a lit­tle bit of schol­ar­ship, which is just fine. I’m will­ing to allow your use of schol­ar­ship, but you seem to hate mine; that, Ed, is inconsistency.

              I believe that we must wor­ship God in truth — which is defined in the Bible — and that tra­di­tions tend to obscure the truth. That is why I don’t accept East­er or Christ­mas (or Chris­t­ian tithing or full-time pas­tors or church-to-church evan­ge­lists or all sorts of oth­er such things) as Chris­t­ian. I believe that God was wise enough to instruct us on how to wor­ship Him and that we dis­hon­or Him when we instead fol­low our own paths of wor­ship. To this end, God gets the glo­ry whol­ly and com­plete­ly. I find no evi­dence in the Scrip­tures that God desired us to keep an annu­al memo­r­i­al to the cru­ci­fix­ion or the res­ur­rec­tion or the birth of Christ; rather, we are to at all times preach Christ cru­ci­fied and boast in His res­ur­rec­tion. There is noth­ing annu­al about it; there is sim­ply “in sea­son and out of season.”

              1. What does schol­ars have to do with def­i­n­i­tions of words? No, you are wrong to say that I appeal to the schol­ars. I don’t. I don’t know where you get that, but you are wrong. The BIBLICAL def­i­n­i­tion of the word Truth, is “Jesus”. We wor­ship God in Spir­it (Father), and Truth (Jesus, the Son (the Body). That is what the Holy Spir­it teach­es. You can take your schol­ar­ship else­where. Well, since you don’t accept Chris­t­ian “tra­di­tions”, I con­sid­er you wicked. You have a twist­ed insight to what God is dis­cussing in His Word. “Tra­di­tions of men” has noth­ing to do with your top­ic of Christ­mas or East­er cel­e­bra­tions, or Birth­days, or Tithing, or all of the oth­er things you men­tioned. Have you not read Colos­sians chap­ter thee? You set rules upon your­self, “touch not, taste not, han­dle not”, that is not God­like. As the Book of Gala­tians states, who bewitched you? Do you know what “LIBERTY” means? FREEDOM! Do you know why Abra­ham did­n’t have the Law? So, tell me, as well. Do you cel­e­brate your aniver­sary with your wife? Or did she divorse you due to your wacky inter­pre­ta­tions of scrip­ture? I, too, can be sar­cas­tic. But that is part of my charm.

                1. Noth­ing at all wrong with sar­casm; Jesus was, Paul was… It makes mak­ing a point all the easier.

                  Tithing… is bib­li­cal, if it involves giv­ing a tenth of one’s increase to the tem­ple in Jerusalem for the nour­ish­ment of the Levites. The New Tes­ta­ment does­n’t pre­scribe tithing for the Christian.

                  Hol­i­days… we have free­dom in. We can cel­e­brate East­er and Christ­mas and Sab­bath days and what­ev­er we want. I cel­e­brate quite a few hol­i­days, though not as many as oth­ers sim­ply because so many are so sil­ly (“Sweet­est Day”? Real­ly? lol). How­ev­er, to say that Christ­mas or East­er is bib­li­cal, well, that’s what I take excep­tion with. I pre­fer to wor­ship God accord­ing to what the Truth (the Word of God, not just Jesus, as you erro­neous­ly state) states, which allows for a much sim­pler wor­ship struc­ture. If you’re not allow­ing me that free­dom, then it is you who is heap­ing up the rules by adding tra­di­tions unto the Scriptures.

                  1. When you under­stand from the New Tes­ta­ment, that we, as Chris­tians, are Kings and Priests, and that Jesus preached the “King­dom” of God, and you under­stand what a King­dom is, and the con­cept of a King­dom, then you will under­stand the need for tithing. Not only that, we Chris­tians may not be in Jerusalem, yet we are the TEMPLE of God. And, As God’s Chil­dren, we need to help one anoth­er, AS NEEDED. Remem­ber Anna­nias and Saphi­ras? Some peo­ple don’t believe in tithing, so they give 20% instead of 10%. But, God loves a cheer­ful giv­er. If you don’t give from the heart, but rather make it an oblig­i­to­ry func­tion of life, you have missed the mean­ing of “GOD’S KINGDOM”. Do you know what a King­dom is and it’s func­tions? We know that God judges the heart, and not the deed. There is a NEED for tithing. If you want to hoard your mon­ey, then God does­n’t want your mon­ey. In the Spir­i­tu­al sence, WE (Chris­tians) are the Levites, so that we, as Chris­tians, can help the poor, feed the hun­gry, clothe the naked, house the home­less, vis­it the wid­ows and orphans. We, as Levites, or priests (Chris­tians), do Gods will (service/minister/serve). That takes $$$$. It takes $$$$ to “GO YE” into all the nations. But, I can tell that you are a self­ish indi­vid­ual, and self cen­tered, as you despise Valen­tines Day, or as you call it Sweet­est Day. Where is your Love? Where is your com­pas­sion? You are so dog­mat­ic on the “Prop­er” way to wor­ship, that you miss the whole point of “real” wor­ship. Lov­ing oth­ers is Lov­ing God, as when we sin against anoth­er, we sin against God.

                    You hold a belief that is unbib­li­cal! Cel­e­brat­ing East­er means to cel­e­brate a Bib­li­cal Jesus that Bib­li­cal­ly rose from the dead. I applaud that, and you despise that, as you think it is unbib­li­cal. If your son had died on the oper­at­ing table, and three days lat­er rose from the dead, would­n’t that be cause for cel­e­bra­tion? Would you cel­e­brate his death? Or would you cel­e­brate his Life? And where do you come up with garbage that states that cel­e­brat­ing these things get in the way of wor­ship? What non­sense is that com­ing from? 

                    Oh, and the Bib­li­cal Def­i­n­i­tion of the Word of God is Jesus. The Bib­li­cal Def­i­n­i­tion of the word Truth is JUST Jesus. I guess that you are one of those New Agers that believe that there are MANY Truths? It’s All About “JUST” JESUS.

  3. Mic­ah John, You said:
    “The Greek word gyne can mean either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’. Does that mean that the Eng­lish word ‘wife’ can there­fore mean ‘woman’? I believe the case is sim­i­lar with meta. I hold that ‘after’ has nev­er meant ‘amid’, 1611 or 2009”.

    My response is this: Is a wife a woman?

    1. Of course, but that doesn’t mean that you can read ‘woman’ instead—or vice ver­sa. Take Eph­esians 5:23, for exam­ple. You can real­ly mis­in­ter­pret it by read­ing ‘The man is the head of the woman’. Sim­i­lar­ly, to read ‘wife’ instead of ‘woman’ in oth­er places would also cause problems.

      1. Well, at least we know that the man is the head of a ‘gyne’. Now, we should know that Eve was a woman. Eve was also Adams wife. In the con­text of your argu­ment, the word woman refers to the wife, not a sin­gle woman. If it were a sin­gle woman, what man would be the head of her? No man would. Think about what is being dis­cussed first, then you would know which word to use. In either case, what was the Greek word? That is unchange­able. If you want to argue the mean­ing of the Greek word, I can’t, as it is self explan­i­to­ry when read­ing the top­ic of the conversation.

        1. In oth­er words, either word (woman or wife) could have been used to con­vey the same mean­ing, in your example.

          1. Final­ly, if it were a sin­gle woman, a dif­fer­ent Greek word would have been used…remember that for future reference.

        2. But the point is, that the KJV has ‘after’, and ‘after’ in Eng­lish does NOT mean ‘amid’. If the KJV real­ly is per­fect, ‘after’ means ‘after’ and would not need to be cor­rect­ed to ‘amid’ using exter­nal evidence.

          1. Wrong!! You keep a premise that the word “after” does not mean “amid”. That is an incor­rect state­ment. I gave you an exam­ple of the use ear­li­er. The exam­ple is:

            The bank man­ag­er resigned his posi­tion (amid/after) alle­ga­tions that he embez­zled money.

            Either word can be used. I have seen this exam­ple in dic­tio­nar­ies. I will find it and post it when I find it, OK?

            1. “Amid” and “after” have two dif­fer­ent mean­ings in that sen­tence. If the bank man­ag­er resigned after the alle­ga­tions, that implies that the alle­ga­tions have ceased or have oth­er­wise been resolved.

              If the bank man­ag­er resigned amid the alle­ga­tions, that implies that the alle­ga­tions are still ongoing.

              “Amid” means — and has meant since its ear­li­est usage in Old Eng­lish, pre­dat­ing the King James Ver­sion by quite a bit — “in the mid­dle of” (source); “after” — also from an Old Eng­lish word — nev­er means “in the mid­dle of” but instead means “at a sub­se­quent time” or sim­i­lar (source). Even Web­ster’s 1828 Dic­tio­nary, which did a lot to help bring sense and con­sis­ten­cy to the Eng­lish lan­guage and was large­ly influ­enced by word usage in the King James Ver­sion, states that after always means “sub­se­quent to,” not “in the mid­dle of.”

              Are there any dic­tio­nar­ies — from any year, for that mat­ter — that define “after” as “in the mid­dle” rather than “sub­se­quent to”?

              1. Let me ask you some­thing! Does not the word “after” also appear in all of the oth­er trans­la­tions, as well as the KJV? Yes, it does! Your argu­ment holds no water, there­fore. Why? Because we all know that the Greek word used is Meta, which means “AMID”. This is not a KJV Only­ist argu­ment. It is a def­i­n­i­tion argu­ment. Is not the word “Meta” defined as “AMID”? You can­not argue that. So, again, I ask…(when are you going to stop avoid­ing the actu­al ques­tion?) Which day of the passover (1−7) was King Herod going to kill Peter?

                1. Can you pro­vide a sin­gle source where meta is trans­lat­ed as “dur­ing” or “amid”? That’s the chal­lenge, which you seem to be missing.

                  You can claim it means the same thing until you’re blue in the face, but you’ve pro­vid­ed no evi­dence of that. Even the King James trans­la­tors knew that the word meant “after,” a word which has been shown above to always mean “next” or “past the con­clu­sion of” or sim­i­lar, nev­er “dur­ing.”

                  Which day of the Passover? No, no, the text says “After the Passover.” If you dis­agree with that, your issue is not with me but with the lan­guage experts behind a myr­i­ad of trust­ed translations.

                  And if you want a tru­ly informed con­ver­sa­tion, I’d invite you to dis­cuss the mat­ter with James White. He’s much more knowl­edge­able than I am, and much bet­ter at artic­u­lat­ing that knowl­edge that I could ever hope to be. (Don’t wor­ry, though, I won’t be sur­prised if you decline to take the mat­ter to some­one like him; you would­n’t be the first King James Only­ist to shy away from a true chal­lenge… David Cloud has whole arti­cles on his site about why he refus­es to defend his Bible beliefs against some­one who so obvi­ous­ly knows better.)

                  1. The Eng­lish word may say “After”, yet we know that the New Tes­ta­ment was writ­ten in Greek, not Eng­lish. We have to take it to the Greek def­i­n­i­tions of words, not Eng­lish def­i­n­i­tions. Why do you keep con­vert­ing to the Eng­lish def­i­n­i­tions, when it is the Greek we have to con­form to? The Greek word is “Meta”. You define it as some­thing that it is not. Meta means “Amid”. And I am blue in the face. How many times can I say that Meta means amid. I don’t care what the word “After” means. It is irrel­e­vant. I only care what the Greek word is defined as. THIS is where we learn that the word AMID can also mean AFTER. Or did­n’t they teach you that in schol­ar­ship school?

                  2. Look up the Greek word, Meta. Your defence of the def­i­n­i­tion of the word AFTER does not equate to the def­i­n­i­tion of the Greek word, META. I DON’T HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANYTHING, as you beg me to do. All YOU have to do is define META. I can­not change def­i­n­i­tions of words. Cults do that.

                  3. Strongs Greek Con­cor­dance #3326

                    meta
                    (met-ah’)
                    a pri­ma­ry prepo­si­tion (often used adver­bial­ly); prop­er­ly, denot­ing accom­pa­ni­ment; “amid” (local or causal); mod­i­fied var­i­ous­ly accord­ing to the case (gen­i­tive asso­ci­a­tion, or accusative suc­ces­sion) with which it is joined; occu­py­ing an inter­me­di­ate posi­tion between apo — apo 575 or ek — ek 1537 and eiV — eis 1519 or proV — pros 4314; less inti­mate than en — en 1722 and less close than 4862):–after(-ward), X that he again, against, among, X and, + fol­low, hence, here­after, in, of, (up-)on, + our, X and set­ting, since, (un-)to, + togeth­er, when, with (+ ‑out). Often used in com­po­si­tion, in sub­stan­tial­ly the same rela­tions of par­tic­i­pa­tion or prox­im­i­ty, and trans­fer or sequence.

                    1. Look here.
                      First thing: Look care­ful­ly at Strong’s.

                      “amid” (local or causal); mod­i­fied var­i­ous­ly accord­ing to the case (gen­i­tive asso­ci­a­tion, or accusative succession)

                      Note that last phrase: ‘or accusative suc­ces­sion’. That means, when meta is used with the accusative case rather than the gen­i­tive it indi­cates suc­ces­sion (‘after’) rather than asso­ci­a­tion (‘amid’). Yes, words can mean more than one thing. Fur­ther, in Greek the case is more impor­tant than the prepo­si­tion: the prepo­si­tion mere­ly clar­i­fies the mean­ing of the case while hav­ing less of an intrin­sic mean­ing of its own (see Davis’ grammar).

                      Sec­ond: If you real­ly were right that meta can only mean ‘amid’, you are explic­it­ly stat­ing that the KJV has an error.

                  4. Imme­di­at­ly fol­low­ing “less close than 4862” you will see “:–”.

                    When you see a colon with dash­es, that means that the words to the right of the colon and dash­es are the Eng­lish words used for the Greek word. I am sur­prised that you, as a schol­ar, did­n’t already know that.

                  5. Meta only means ONE thing, yet many Eng­lish words are used to con­vey that par­tic­u­lar mean­ing. The word “after” just so hap­pens to be one of them. I am sure, that you as a schol­ar, would know that the Greek Lan­guage is so pre­cise in it’s words, inso­faras def­i­n­i­tions, that there is no way pos­si­ble to miss the mean­ing of what is being said. Tell ME Mr. Schol­ar­man, how many def­i­n­i­tions can you get from the Greek word, Meta? If it is more than one, then you are incor­rect. That would go on your per­ma­nent record.

                  6. And, Rick, I am NOT a KJV Only­ist. I do com­par­i­son study, yet default to KJV. For many years, many peo­ple only had a KJV. Do you mock them, too? Does God like it when we mock peo­ple like you do? The Good news is the Cross of Christ. That is in the KJV. The Bad news is in the Bible as well. The Deity of Jesus is clear­ly defined in the Bible. And YES, the words TRINITY and RAPTURE are indeed in the KJV Bible. The KJV is the Word of God. It was the Word of God in 1611, and still is today. I sup­pose that you haven’t con­sid­ered the strange trans­la­tions of the NIV, which a lot of church­es use these days, yet I don’t con­sid­er one of them to be a cult. Yet, nei­ther are any of the KJV Only­ist. We are ALL BELIEVERS in Christ Jesus. We know WHO Jesus is. Why do you pick on the KJV Only­ist? You are say­ing that none of the KJV Only­ist are Chris­tians when you define them as a cult. You, sir, are wicked. You have a lot to learn. Jesus would nev­er mock believ­ers in him. Why do you?

                  7. Who is James White? And to say that he is more informed than you are, tells me that you don’t rely on the Holy Spir­it to guide you. You rely on mankind (James White) to guide you into weird truths, which are not truths at all. I believe that it is a sin for Chris­tians to beat up Chris­tians. Any­thing that is not of faith is sin. What I mean by the last two sen­tances, is that you have no faith, as you beat up oth­er Chris­tians, call­ing them cults. A cult is a Jeho­vah’s Wit­ness, Mor­man, etc., who rede­fines Jesus, sin, sal­va­tion, evil, etc. A cult is not per­sons who pre­fer one trans­la­tion of the Bible over anoth­er. Some­one has bewitched you, and you need to get faith.

    2. “gyne” lit­er­al­ly means woman. Usu­al­ly in Greek, when some­one is being referred to as a “wife” (a word which they actu­al­ly do not gen­er­al­ly have), a Greek writer would state “the woman of Abra­ham” or “the woman of his” or “his woman”. There­fore, “woman” still always means woman. One can­not sim­ply choose “woman” or “wife” when and where he pleas­es. You would have to derive that infor­ma­tion from the con­text. And many times there is not enough con­text to deter­mine the idea that is to be portrayed.

      There­fore, I per­fer to ALWAYS trans­late this word to “woman” and NEVER “wife”. The trans­la­tors only trans­late it to “wife” when they decide that they want it to mean that (unfor­tu­nate­ly), or that the con­text clear­ly sug­gests that. So, the Greek read­er would ALWAYS see the word “gyne” or “woman.” The con­text of the sen­tence will then tell the read­er when the idea of “wife” is meant. How­ev­er, many times this is vague. There­fore, I pre­fer to leave the word as “woman” in all cas­es, and let the con­text of the sen­tence (as it would for any orig­i­nal Greek read­er) to deter­mine whether a “woman” or “a woman of a man” is meant. Oth­er­wise, if I choose “woman” in all vague con­texts, and “wife” only in con­texts that I think that the idea of “wife” is meant, then I risk that some­one may not under­stand that “wife” could pos­si­bly be meant in a vague sit­u­a­tion where I leave it as “woman”. There­fore, leav­ing it as “woman” in all cas­es allows the con­text of the sen­tence (as any Greek read­er would have to allow it to do — the Greek read­er must deter­mine this by the con­text, he does­n’t have to words to choose from as they do in Eng­lish) to deter­mine if a “woman” or “a woman of a spe­cif­ic per­son” (i.e. “a wife”) is meant. I would rather allow the orig­i­nal con­text to tell me that, instead of a trans­la­tor’s decision.

      Love in Christ,
      Andrew

  4. Hey Mic­ah John,

    There are oth­er Greek words that are used for the Eng­lish word “after” as well, which have a dif­fer­ent def­i­n­i­tion than meta, and more close­ly is defined as what you want the word “after” to mean. Why was the Greek word Meta used instead of the oth­er Greek words avail­able that mean what you are try­ing to con­vey to me? Do you have a strong’s? How many Greek words equate to the word “AFTER”? Why was Meta used in Acts 12:4 instead of the oth­ers list­ed? If they real­ly want­ed to get our atten­tion to the fact that when Passover was over, then why Meta, when we know that then were the days of the FEAST of UNLEAVENED BREAD, which is called the Passover, and that there were oth­er Greek words avail­able to PRECISELY con­vey that when the Feast of Unleav­ened Bread was com­plet­ed, then King Herod would Kill Peter. So which days was the days of the feast? His­tor­i­cal­ly, that is impor­tant. How can you con­clude, giv­en the def­i­n­i­tion, that it is when Passover was con­clud­ed, rather than in the midst of Passover? Even your own expla­na­tion states that the Greek word Meta has more than one mean­ing. So which was it? Amid, or After? And why do you con­clud­ed that? I, myself, do not con­clude that Meta has more than one mean­ing. I, myself con­clude that Meta means amid, based on many fac­tors, and that the KJV trans­la­tors got it right when they translit­er­at­ed Pascha to East­er, which would be “AMID” (AFTER) Passover.

    1. Hey Mic­ah John,

      Here is the exam­ple that you are look­ing for:

      Did Jesus rise from the dead ON the third day? Or did Jesus rise from the dead when the third day was already com­plet­ed? Jesus him­self states that “after three days I will rise again.” Yet we all know that Jesus rose ON the third day. This is one exam­ple that shows that the word after and amid are one in the same. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the fourth day, which would be “after” three days.

        1. Excuse me, WHAT???? Did I SAY that “ON THE THIRD DAY” equates to the word “meta”? NO! What I said was, that we all KNOW from scrip­ture that Jesus rose from the dead ON THE THIRD DAY. He did NOT rise from the dead on the FOURTH day. When Jesus stat­ed in Mark 8:31, “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suf­fer many things and be reject­ed by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”, he said, “and AFTER three days rise again.” It is this word, “AFTER” that is the Greek word, META.

          So, I will try again, did Jesus rise from the dead ON the third day, or did Jesus rise from the dead on the fourth day, which would be “after” three days. 

          1 Corinthi­ans 15:4 states the fol­low­ing (KJV) “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day accord­ing to the scriptures:”

          So, again, I make my point that “AFTER THREE DAYS” means “ON THE THIRD DAY”. Why? Because the Greek word used for the word “After” is, again, “META” which means, AMID.

          If Jesus had risen, based on your inter­pre­ta­tion of “META”, then Jesus would have risen from the dead on the fourth day, your “after three days.”

      1. Again, WHAT? NO, I admit only that YOU and your kind have a mis­con­cep­tion of the word “AFTER”. I con­tin­ue to say that the KJV is cor­rect. It is peo­ple like you who say that the KJV is incor­rect, due to your igno­rance of, and hatred of, King James Eng­lish. THIS gen­er­a­tion does­n’t even talk like we do. This gen­er­a­tion has say­ings that were unheard of a hun­dred years ago. “My Bad”, for one. What does that mean to some­one from the ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry? But, if they use that today, and record it, is the next gen­er­a­tion going to attempt to tell them that their lan­guage was wrong? NO! It was right for the time that it was used. Who are you to try to con­vince me that the Lan­guage that KJ used was wrong? No, they weren’t wrong. It was their lan­guage, not ours. You are wrong for telling them that they were wrong.

  5. As I said, it’s the case in Greek that’s impor­tant. Have you stud­ied Greek? One of the first things you learn is that most Greek prepo­si­tions have more than one mean­ing depend­ing on the case that goes with it. For exam­ple, δια means ‘on account of’ with the accusative case but ‘through’ (some­thing com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent) with the gen­i­tive. υπο can mean ‘by means of’ with the gen­i­tive and ‘under the author­i­ty of’ with the accusative. προς means ‘at, on, near’ with the dative but ‘to, toward, for the sake or pur­pose of’ with the accusative.

    One must real­ize that no lan­guage is 100% log­i­cal. We have many dif­fer­ent words that express more or less the same con­cept (e.g. ‘amid’, ‘amidst’, ‘dur­ing’, ‘while’ and ‘as’ can mean the same thing). Greek is no different.

    1. Since when has the Eng­lish Lan­guage been Log­i­cal? Have you ever watched Gal­lagher? He states, “What’s with this i before e stuff, as Ein­stein has it wrong twice in his name.” One, or won. Two, or to, or too. What is with the words “off” and “on” on a light switch. If it’s on, you can see it’s on, if it’s off, you can’t see to read. It is the Eng­lish words that are not log­i­cal. Greek was explicite. You ask me if I study Greek. As much as the Con­cor­dance will allow, I do. No for­mal study. I know you haven’t yet either, oth­er­wise, what is your cre­den­tials. But I do know some­one who has. Her name is Pas­tor Melis­sa Scott. She is a lin­guist, and knows many, many, many lan­guages, and speaks, and writes them flu­ent­ly. She has an hour show each week­night on the ION net­work. She comes on late at night (1:00–2:00 AM). You can also find her online. Her hus­band, Dr. Scott, was also a lin­guist. On her show, she has THE man­u­scripts, and the oth­er lan­guages writ­ten on the dry erase chalk­board, which takes up the whole stage. Wheter it be in Greek, Hebrew, Cop­tic, Ethiopic, and a whole slew of oth­ers. She knows them. And she teach­es from the KJV. NOT the NIV, or oth­ers. I would rather learn from her, than to lis­ten to all of the ama­ture expterts out their cut­ting and past­ing the Greek let­ters, mak­ing it sound like they are the experts at Lan­guage. All I do is research the def­i­n­i­tions. I don’t need schol­ar­ship to do that.

  6. Mr Ed Chap­man: You are the one throw­ing around the word ‘cult’. You direct­ly addressed Rick Beck­man, on whose site you post, as ‘wicked’.

    Yes, the KJV is the word of God, but so are the NIV and ESV. The KJV is a fine translation—but noth­ing more. None of us wor­ships it or bash­es it. This blog post was only to counter an argu­ment of extreme KJV-Only-ists.

    I sug­gest that you read the pref­ace to the King James Ver­sion. The trans­la­tors here defend vari­ety of trans­la­tions and explain some of their rea­son­ing. (You can read it here or here.)

    1. Yes, I do believe that the things that Rick prop­a­gates is indeed wicked. If that offends him, well, the Gospel offends. And since you your­self admit that the KJV is indeed the word of God, then what are you doing? If KJV Only­ist exist, let them be. It is by Grace, THROUGH faith, that saves. If we would con­cen­trate on that, Grace, Mer­cy, and Faith, we would find com­mon ground with the KJV Only­ist, rather than to antag­o­nize them. No, but Rick wants to con­cen­trate on rules and reg­u­la­tions of wor­ship, of which, there is no rules or reg­u­la­tions for Chris­tians. God would­n’t live in our bod­ies if there were. Are there rules and reg­u­la­tions for you in lov­ing your spouse, or chil­dren? Yes — LOVE. Define Love for me!

  7. Ed Chap­man: “Pas­tor Melis­sa Scott” — Oh, well there’s part of your prob­lem. At the risk of being told I adhere to far too many rules or what­ev­er to wor­ship, I trust what the Scrip­tures say: a woman should not teach the church (1 Tim­o­thy 2:12) and that church lead­ers must be the hus­band of one wife, explic­it­ly exclud­ing women from the posi­tion (1 Tim­o­thy 3:2).

    You’ve post­ed a lot to reply to, which I don’t have time to get to at the moment, so here are but a few quick points from your comments:

    1) You crit­i­cize me for ref­er­enc­ing James White for being more knowl­edge­able than I am, but you ref­er­ence a woman pas­tor and her hus­band as teach­ers we should refer to because of their knowl­edge, which appar­ent­ly is greater than yours.

    2) Go look up the word schol­ar­ship. I have no idea why it leaves such a bad taste in your mouth; research­ing def­i­n­i­tions — well, research of any kind — like you admit to doing is schol­ar­ship. Please stop play­ing word games. Thanks.

    3) None of the def­i­n­i­tions of “cult” include twist­ing or per­vert­ing the Gospel. That’s sim­ply how cer­tain Chris­t­ian apol­o­gists use the word, and that’s fine. One of the dic­tio­nary def­i­n­i­tions of the word is “An exclu­sive group of per­sons shar­ing an eso­teric, usu­al­ly artis­tic or intel­lec­tu­al interest.”

    Across the nation, King James Only­ists gath­er apart from users of var­i­ous oth­er trans­la­tions. I con­tend that my use of the word “cult” to describe Only­ists is cor­rect, and I don’t apol­o­gize for that. It has noth­ing to do with them deny­ing Jesus Christ or any­thing else, and no true dic­tio­nary can be twist­ed to say that.

  8. I’m sure she would sup­port me in say­ing that ‘after’ means ‘after’. Nev­er has the word ‘after’ meant ‘amid’ in the his­to­ry of the Eng­lish lan­guage. Please give one source—old or new—that says that ‘after’ means ‘amid’.

    The Greek lan­guage is no more intrin­si­cal­ly log­i­cal than English.

    Sor­ry about my mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of your pre­vi­ous com­ment about the third day. But Mark 8:31 proves what I’m say­ing. Read it: “…and after three days rise again.” This does not mean ‘amid’, even thought the word is μετα.

  9. By the way, I do not cut and paste Greek let­ters: I have a ded­i­cat­ed Greek key­board lay­out. I can read Greek bet­ter in its own script than transliterated.

  10. Your inter­pre­ta­tion is twist­ed. Scrip­ture does not pro­hib­it women from teach­ing men.

    1. 1 Tim­o­thy 2:11~12 (about as lit­er­al as you can get it with­out sound­ing like nonsense)

      Let a woman be learn­ing in tran­quil­i­ty in all sub­jec­tion. 12 But I am not per­mit­ting a woman to be teach­ing, nor to be con­trol­ling a man; instead, she is to be in tran­quil­i­ty. 13 For Adam was fash­ioned first, next Eva. 14 And Adam was not delud­ed; but the woman, after she was ful­ly-delud­ed, has come-to-be in a trans­gres­sion. 15 But she will be saved through the child­bear­ing, if-at-any-time they might remain in faith and love and holifi­ca­tion with sound-mindedness.

      1 Corinthi­ans 14:33~40 (about as lit­er­al as you can get it with­out it sound­ing like nonsense)
      As in all the assem­blies of the holy-ones, 34 let the women be being-silent in the assem­blies. For it is not being per­mit­ted to them to be utter­ing, but instead let them be being sub­ject­ed, exact­ly-as the law also says. 35 But if they are want­i­ng to learn any­thing, let them be inquir­ing-of their own men at a house. For it is shame­ful to a woman to be utter­ing in an assem­bly. 36 Or did the account of God come-forth from all of you*, or did it reach to you* alone? 37 If some­one is thought to be a prophet or spir­i­tu­al, let him be rec­og­niz­ing the things which I am writ­ing to you*, that they are an instruc­tion of the Lord. 38 But if some­one is being-igno­rant of this, he is being made-ignorant.

  11. Hey Mic­ah John, 

    If you still believe that after means after, and nev­er amid, then you must believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the fourth day.

  12. Well, Rick, I do have to humbly admit, that in points #1–4, you are cor­rect. But…I have to say that “Faith comes by hear­ing, and hear­ing of the word of God.” Faith is the key word. We should acknowl­edge that the­olog­y­ns can throw us off of the word of God. Faith, Hope, and Love, but the great­est is LOVE (Char­i­ty for us KJV geeks). But, we should also have enough knowl­edge of the Word of God (Jesus) to dis­tin­guish the dif­fer­ence between what is true, and what is not true. The­olog­y­ns are more wrong than they are right, because they miss the point of Faith, Hope, and Love.

  13. The ancients count­ed days inclu­sive­ly. Thus ‘after three days’ would mean ‘on the third day’, while ‘amid three days’ would mean ‘at some point in a three-day peri­od’, though I’ve nev­er seen that used.

    The Romans also used this sys­tem. Jan­u­ary 1 was ‘the Kalends of Jan­u­ary’, Decem­ber 31 ‘the day before the Kalends of Jan­u­ary’, and Decem­ber 30 ‘three days before the Kalends of January’.

  14. Hey Mic­ah John. We need to con­cen­trate on the Jew­ish Days, and how they (JEWS) count­ed it. Romans had noth­ing to do with it, and nei­ther did the ancients. The Jews day begins at sun­set, regard­less of what time of the day that it is. The Bible was writ­ten by Jews, and not the Gen­tiles (ROMANS). Now I know that there is an argu­ment that Luke was a Gen­tile. He was­n’t. Paul was a Roman Cit­i­zen, yet a Jew. Gen­e­sis 1:5 indi­cates God’s days, as He called the dark­ness night, and the light day. There­fore, the Jews have a dif­fer­ent take on what a day con­sti­tutes. Now, I know that Jesus him­self stat­ed, “are there not twelve hours in the day?”. Well, dur­ing that part of the year, yes, there were indeed twelve hours of day­light, but not in Novem­ber. I have heard your argu­ment before, but that isn’t what the Jews do in cal­cu­lat­ing days, or parts of days. So, my point is, that the phrase “after” three days, accord­ing to your def­i­n­i­tion of the word “after”, would mean “the fourth day”, not the third day. Espe­cial­ly since you define the word “after” to NOT mean amid. If indeed it does­n’t, IS NOT THE THIRD DAY AMID THREE DAYS, as the third day did not com­plete itself?

  15. This is also how the infa­mous “Three Days and Three Nights” comes to play, as a Jew­ish day begins at sun­set. It was dark when Jesus died, that was night #1. Then at about 3:00 PM until sun­set came day­light. That was day # 1, which com­plet­ed one day in a mat­ter of 6 hours or so.

  16. Hey, Michah. You said:

    Thus ‘after three days’ would mean ‘on the third day’,”

    I find that int­rig­ing that you would say that, as we need to go back to Acts 12:4 now, and equate that state­ment of yours that “After Passover” would mean “On Passover”, since after three days would mean on the third day. I see that you, sir, are in a quagmire.

  17. I agree with you that after means on (which means amid when tak­ing into con­sid­er­a­tion that passover is not yet com­plete), and since Passover is a sev­en day feast, which day of the passover, which is “on” passover, was King Herod going to kill Peter?

  18. ‘After’ means ‘after’.
    ‘After one day’ means ‘the day after’.
    ‘After two days’ means ‘the sec­ond day after’.
    ‘After three days’ means ‘the third day after’.
    Sim­ple as that.
    If μετα meant ‘amid’ here (i.e. if it was the gen­i­tive case instead of the accusative) it wouldn’t make much sense at all.

    Anoth­er thing: if μετα with the accusative real­ly did mean ‘amid’—as no Greek schol­ar would state—then the KJV has an error. The Eng­lish word ‘after’ has NEVER meant ‘amid’.

  19. Only when a spe­cif­ic num­ber is men­tioned can μετα with the accusative be rea­son­ably sub­sti­tut­ed as ‘on’. Take the first instance of ‘after’ in the N.T., for example:

    And after they were brought to Baby­lon, Jecho­nias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorob­a­bel And after they were brought to Baby­lon, Jecho­nias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorob­a­bel; and Zorob­a­bel begat Abi­ud; and Abi­ud begat Eli­akim; and Eli­akim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eli­ud; and Eli­ud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the hus­band of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:12–16 KJV)

    Are you say­ing that this mean ‘on’, ‘amid’, or ‘while’ they were being brought to Baby­lon? (And, yes, μετα is the word used here.)

    Or how about the last instance of ‘after’?

    … and cast him into the bot­tom­less pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thou­sand years should be ful­filled: and after that he must be loosed a lit­tle sea­son. (Rev­e­la­tion 20:3 KJV)

    (Again, μετα is the word used.) Does this mean that the Dev­il is loosed at the same time as he is shut up? To me that’s absurd.

  20. Ed Chap­man: I’m flat­tered that you spent about an hour here work­ing on those com­ments ear­li­er, but sev­en in a row isn’t real­ly nec­es­sary. I just switched thread­ed com­ments off to help make this thing eas­i­er to fol­low, and there’s real­ly no rea­son at all to post more than one com­ment at once now, unless some­one needs to cor­rect a mis­take they made in their first com­ment. Thanks.

    Actu­al­ly, if every­one here could keep that in mind, it’d be great. There’s no lim­it on com­ment length, so pack in your mes­sage. :D

  21. Edward Chapman

    Hey Mic­ah John,

    Well, I must do more research (how you say, schol­ar­ship?) in what you are say­ing. Again, I am NOT con­vinced, but I am unsure about the def­i­n­i­tions of the words gen­i­tive, and accusative. But that is not to say that you are not cor­rect. Maybe you are, maybe you aren’t. But, this much I know, that when you look up the word, Meta, and at this point I could care less of the Greek let­ter­ing sys­tem, the FIRST def­i­n­i­tion is AMID. Please do not deny that. And, there are oth­er Greek words specif in the word After that equates to what you are dis­cussing. Is there, by your rea­son­ing, any use in the NT that the Greek word “meta” is used to mean specif­i­cal­ly “amid”? We tend to be con­sen­trat­ing so much on the Eng­lish word “after” that we almost have for­got­ten the def­i­n­i­tion of the Greek word used, that the FIRST def­i­n­i­tion is indeed “AMID”. Help me to under­stand what sen­tence in the NT is spe­cif­ic to AMID.

    I hate to say this, but I won’t be able to respond for about 6 weeks, as a job oppor­tu­ni­ty has arisen for me that is a split shift out of town, so I will need as much sleep as I can pos­si­bly muster. I will be back, so feel free to respond. You too, Rick!

  22. I have tak­en con­sid­er­able time and read so much debat­ing over such triv­ial and con­tra­ver­sal sub­jects. A schol­ar I am not. A work­man pur­su­ing the LORDS approval I am. And tra­di­tions of man most cer­tain­ly makes void the WORD of GOD. I find it of none acci­dent that on every Chris­t­ian HOLY DAY, there is pagan tra­di­tion mixed in, thus lead­ing us to co-exist with all reli­gion. There­fore I have deter­mined that all of this has been a legal­is­tic approach to study­ing the WORD. My 4 year old knows the def­i­n­i­tion of East­er, and it is Eng­lish for Ishtar. Satan uses con­fu­sion as this to con­vo­lute the truth. THE LORD THY GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD. If any ver­sion does not car­ry over with the orig­i­nal text, sim­ply don’t use it. Satan is the mas­ter of decep­tion not a mere prac­ti­tion­er. And he has been tear­ing his way page by page for thou­sands of years pit­ting man against his own under­stand­ing of the WORD. in clos­ing may I lead you to the cen­ter of the Bible, psalms 118:8, with LORD being the cen­ter. So obey this verse. >

  23. I was look­ing for infor­ma­tion on why KJV uses the word ‘east­er’ and found this con­ver­sa­tion. I am confused…when I click on your web­site you state that you are athe­ist and yet, you make this type of dec­la­ra­tion on here: “I believe that we must wor­ship God in truth — which is defined in the Bible — and that tra­di­tions tend to obscure the truth. That is why I don’t accept East­er or Christ­mas (or Chris­t­ian tithing or full-time pas­tors or church-to-church evan­ge­lists or all sorts of oth­er such things) as Chris­t­ian. I believe that God was wise enough to instruct us on how to wor­ship Him and that we dis­hon­or Him when we instead fol­low our own paths of wor­ship. To this end, God gets the glo­ry whol­ly and com­plete­ly. I find no evi­dence in the Scrip­tures that God desired us to keep an annu­al memo­r­i­al to the cru­ci­fix­ion or the res­ur­rec­tion or the birth of Christ; rather, we are to at all times preach Christ cru­ci­fied and boast in His res­ur­rec­tion. There is noth­ing annu­al about it; there is sim­ply “in sea­son and out of sea­son.” What am I miss­ing? You do or do not believe? Thanks!

    1. I used to be a Chris­t­ian — fer­vent­ly defend­ing the tenets of the faith. But that was a dif­fer­ent life­time, and I’ve no longer any need for reli­gion. So no, I’m not a believer.

      1. Wow, “i used to be a Chris­t­ian”. What was it that caused your Apos­ta­sy, or could it be that you were nev­er saved in the first place?

        1. Well, bib­li­cal­ly, no, I was nev­er “saved in the first place”; the Bible teach­es the per­se­ver­ance of the saints, after all. I sus­pect most peo­ple who claim to be saved don’t meet the bib­li­cal def­i­n­i­tion, though, so no big deal. LOL

          That said, I ceased being a Chris­t­ian because the of the Bible’s require­ment, under the old covenant, that a sin­gle woman who was raped must mar­ry her attack­er. The moment I read that that pas­sage, I felt my beliefs melt away, nev­er to recov­er. You can read about it else­where on this site, if you’d like a more thor­ough expla­na­tion of what I’m talk­ing about.

  24. Rick,
    Resolv­ing the East­er issue at Acts 12:4 requires some basic Greek lin­guis­tic exper­tise. The idea that Greek “meta” is lim­it­ed to the sense of “amid” is wrong. It means “after” when a cer­tain event or time is involved, as in the case of Matthew 24:29 that says,” after (meta) the Tribu­la­tion,” and “after pascha” cor­rect­ly reflects the Greek at Acts 12:4. While “pascha” applies else­where, Acts 12:4 is the one place in the New Tes­ta­ment where “East­er” is the cor­rect ren­der­ing, as I’ve dis­cussed below. 

    East­er Is the Cor­rect Rendering

    Schol­ars think Greek pascha in Acts 12:4 is incor­rect­ly ren­dered “East­er” in the KJV, say­ing passover is cor­rect. And they note the term East­er wasn’t adopt­ed until well after the New Tes­ta­ment was writ­ten, so they con­sid­er it total­ly inap­plic­a­ble, and White agrees with them (White, J.R. The King James Only Con­tro­ver­sy. p233), but they’re mis­tak­en. The per­ti­nent KJV vers­es are as follows:

    12:2 And he (Herod) killed James the broth­er of John with the sword.
    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…intending after East­er to bring him forth to the people.

    Intro­duc­tion
    Mod­ern schol­ars say the KJV fol­lows Tyn­dale here in ren­der­ing East­er for pascha in the New Tes­ta­ment, but pascha is ren­dered passover every­where else in the KJV, Acts 12: 4 being the only case where it’s ren­dered dif­fer­ent­ly. We should ask if there is a unique sense of the term in Acts 12 call­ing for a dif­fer­ent rendering.

    Eng­lish ver­sions pre­ced­ing the KJV were mov­ing away from East­er, and it appeared in the Bish­op’s Bible in just two vers­es. KJV trans­la­tors retained the term only in Acts 12:4, and this is indica­tive of excel­lent schol­ar­ship. Nonethe­less, prov­i­den­tial guid­ance is also indi­cat­ed by Tyn­dale’s use of East­er and by the lat­er steady move­ment away from the term until only one appro­pri­ate use in Acts 12:4 remained. KJV trans­la­tors would not like­ly con­sid­er East­er as the cor­rect trans­la­tion if Tyn­dale had not made it so promi­nent, and the fact that they elim­i­nat­ed the term in one of the two remain­ing cas­es in the Bish­op’s Bible indi­cates that their stud­ies pro­vid­ed very good rea­sons to retain it at Acts 12:4, rea­sons that prove to be based on con­text and history.

    All this sug­gests that any prov­i­den­tial inter­ven­tion in trans­la­tion work applies main­ly to words that influ­ence the sense of a pas­sage, the great schol­ar­ship of an ordained trans­la­tion com­mit­tee being suf­fi­cient to ensure accu­ra­cy of the bulk of a verse or pas­sage. It also indi­cates that prov­i­den­tial inter­ven­tion in a trans­la­tion tends to be sub­tle, per­haps to ensure that it’s not con­fused with inspiration. 

    Analy­sis
    When we study the con­text of Acts 12 and relat­ed his­to­ry, we find that Prov­i­dence has pre­served some­thing unique­ly impor­tant here through the KJV. The case par­al­lels that of Isa­iah 7:14 where “vir­gin” refers to Mary in regard to the Sav­ior’s Vir­gin Birth. The Hebrew for vir­gin has more than one pos­si­ble mean­ing, and it can be ren­dered young woman or maid­en in some con­texts. But it can only be ren­dered vir­gin in Isa. 7:14 since pas­sage con­text and relat­ed word choice demand it. Pascha in Acts 12:4 has more than one pos­si­ble mean­ing, and Res­ur­rec­tion Day or East­er is demand­ed by con­text & relat­ed history.

    In vers­es 2,3 Herod killed James and impris­oned Peter dur­ing the days of unleav­ened bread. As oth­ers note,* this can refer to the feast of unleav­ened bread, the 6 days that fol­low an ini­tial Jew­ish Passover feast day. Lev.23:5,6, and Ex.12:18 say passover is at evening on the 14th day of the appro­pri­ate month, and the feast of unleav­ened bread is 6 days from the 15th (at evening) until the 21st day (at evening) — Includ­ing Passover day gives the 7 days of unleav­ened bread of Lev.23:6. If this is the right inter­pre­ta­tion, in say­ing Herod killed James and impris­oned Peter in the days of unleav­ened bread, he did this when Jew­ish Passover day was already over. Thus in verse 4, when Herod is said to put Peter in prison to keep him in bonds until after passover, this would be a passover day that comes after the usu­al Jew­ish one. Acts 12:4 can refer to some­thing oth­er than Jew­ish Passover day so that “after Passover” would be incorrect.

    *See Moor­man, J. A. Conies, Brass & East­er. The King James Bible Page, Articles.

    Yet the term passover might include the feast day and 6 days of unleav­ened bread. Its use as a 7‑day event appears in Ezek. 45:21 that says…in the four­teenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of sev­en days; unleav­ened bread shall be eat­en. Acts 12:4 might seem to mean Herod killed James and impris­oned Peter dur­ing a 7‑day peri­od that includ­ed Passover day and the 6 days of unleav­ened-bread, which had not yet end­ed, and that he meant to kill Peter after this 7‑day Jew­ish Passover, but that inter­pre­ta­tion proves to be wrong.

    Con­text study in rela­tion to his­to­ry denies ren­der­ing pascha as passover in Acts 12:4. That can only mean Hebrew Passover in this pas­sage deal­ing with days of unleav­ened bread, and that doesn’t fit context/history. A lack of a fit relates to the friend­ship of Herod with Roman Cae­sar Caligu­la who was despised by the Jews, and also relates to the Edomite ances­try of Herod, Edomites being a peo­ple his­tor­i­cal­ly antag­o­nis­tic to Israel. (see the Broad­man Com­men­tary. Vol.10. 1970. Nashville. p75-76). Herod’s rule was com­pli­cat­ed, but he endured, ingra­ti­at­ing him­self with the Jews by favor­ing their reli­gion and culture.

    Acts 12:3 says Herod took Peter pris­on­er since the Jews approved of his exe­cu­tion of James. They would see James as an ene­my as fast-grow­ing Chris­tian­i­ty threat­ened their reli­gion and cul­ture. Herod would want to fur­ther ingra­ti­ate him­self by exe­cut­ing Peter right after James, so he had no rea­son to wait until after Jew­ish Passover, the first Passover day or the entire 7‑day feast. Exe­cut­ing Peter right after James was not a prob­lem with the Jews. Yet he intend­ed to wait, risk­ing a prob­lem with the Jews by a sug­ges­tion of chang­ing his mind in act­ing against the fore­most leader of the fast-grow­ing church.

    Now schol­ars are wrong in say­ing that Herod had to wait until after Jew­ish Passover to exe­cute Peter since Jews object­ed to exe­cu­tions dur­ing their holy days. That usu­al­ly was the case, but it wasn’t a con­cern at this time in his­to­ry. By this time Chris­tians were con­sid­ered heretics by the Jews, so a pub­lic exe­cu­tion rein­forced the Jew­ish posi­tion. As Acts 12:3 says, the Jews approved of exe­cut­ing James dur­ing their holy days of unleav­ened bread at that time. Thus con­text and his­to­ry deny inter­pret­ing the Acts pas­sage to mean Herod intend­ed to wait until after Jew­ish Passover to kill Peter.

    But pascha as Res­ur­rec­tion Day fits con­text and his­to­ry. The ini­tial Jew­ish 1st-cen­tu­ry church knew that Hebrew passover was typo­log­i­cal, and was ful­filled and super­seded by Christ the ulti­mate Passover, so they would observe a pascha that was based on the Crucifixion/Resurrection. Tim­ing of Pascha obser­vance by this church would fit Acts 12 days-of-unleav­ened-bread con­text and his­to­ry since the only ini­tial basis for the tim­ing was the Crucifixion/Resurrection tim­ing rel­a­tive to that of passover. The Cru­ci­fix­ion occurred on a passover prepa­ra­tion day just before passover began that evening (Mt. 27:62, Jn.19:14), requir­ing a 3‑day Crucifixion/Resurrection obser­vance begin­ning the same day as 7‑day Passover, and at evening to keep them close­ly linked.* Herod could exe­cute James and imprison Peter on an evening that began the Jew­ish Passover day, or on the next day, which would be dur­ing the days of unleav­ened bread, and he might wait to exe­cute Peter until after the third day, which would be Res­ur­rec­tion Day. That this was the case is ver­i­fied by Herod’s polit­i­cal situation.

    * In the 1st-cen­tu­ry church, pascha was a Crucifixion/Resurrection obser­vance start­ing on the evening that Jew­ish Passover began (oth­er details, includ­ing num­ber of days, are murky). In the 2nd-cen­tu­ry east­ern church, a 1‑day pascha was observed start­ing the same time, like­ly reflect­ing 1st-cen­tu­ry tim­ing of a 3‑day pascha start­ing at that time. By start­ing pascha obser­vance on Cru­ci­fix­ion Day and mak­ing it 1‑day long, Resurec­tion-Day obser­vance falls on the day sig­ni­fy­ing Cru­ci­fix­ion Day, an irreg­u­lar­i­ty like­ly derived from an ear­li­er 3‑day event start­ing the same time, (see East­er and Paschal Con­tro­ver­sies. Evan­gel­i­cal Dic­tio­nary of The­ol­o­gy” 1984. Baker).

    Herod ever ingra­ti­at­ed him­self with the Jews, being devout in their reli­gion, but he was despised by the Roman mil­i­tary and cit­i­zen­ry of Judea (see the Funk & Wag­nalls Ency­clo­pe­dia Vol. 13. p81) that were cru­cial to his polit­i­cal con­trol (see also Lk.23:12). Resul­tant polit­i­cal ten­sion would con­trol any sig­nif­i­cant polit­i­cal act that he indulged in. Pleas­ing Jew­ish lead­ers would always be a pri­or­i­ty, but with his Roman sit­u­a­tion, he could not afford to antag­o­nize any large seg­ment of the pop­u­la­tion of Judaea that could cause polit­i­cal unrest and give local Roman lead­er­ship an excuse to depose him from office (they would need a good excuse since Cae­sar appoint­ed Herod). He would wor­ry about the reac­tion of Chris­tians to Peter’s exe­cu­tion (The large Chris­t­ian pop­u­la­tion still had polit­i­cal sta­tus since the gov­ern­ing Romans would­n’t per­se­cute them for anoth­er 20 years). He killed James with­out reper­cus­sion, but would fear that killing famous Peter, right after killing James, might incite an uproar, espe­cial­ly if he did so at the time of Res­ur­rec­tion Day. To Chris­tians the day of Christ’s Res­ur­rec­tion is sacred, a time when pub­lic exe­cu­tion of Christ’s most famous dis­ci­ple would be very polit­i­cal­ly antag­o­nis­tic, mock­ing Christ’s vic­to­ry over death in the Res­ur­rec­tion. By such an act, Herod would make a polit­i­cal state­ment like the fol­low­ing: “Is this your day of vic­to­ry of eter­nal life over death? I’ll kill Christ’s great dis­ci­ples at this time and make it a day of death. I’ll show you what I think of your God.” Chris­tians endured per­se­cu­tion, but killing Peter right after killing James and insult­ing Christ might incite an uproar, and Herod would see the pos­si­bil­i­ty. Exe­cut­ing Peter a lit­tle after Res­ur­rec­tion Day would allow Herod to side with Jew­ish lead­ers with­out undu­ly risk­ing great wide­spread protest by Chris­tians that would add to his dif­fi­cul­ties with the Romans. This would seem wise to Herod, and it is the rea­son he would wait until after Chris­t­ian Passover, not Hebrew Passover.

    Thus pascha in Acts 12 relates to Christ, the Passover of Chris­tians (1 Cor.5:7). For Jews passover obser­vance is 7 days, as Ezekiel 45:21 says. But the ear­ly Chris­t­ian Passover obser­vance would be 3 days from Good Fri­day to East­er. To avoid polit­i­cal antag­o­nism, Herod meant to kill Peter after Chris­t­ian Passover, or more specif­i­cal­ly, after Res­ur­rec­tion Day, the day of great­est con­cern to Chris­tians and thus to Herod.

    Herod was well-informed on mat­ters of reli­gion and would now focus on the Chris­t­ian Passover, espe­cial­ly the third day sig­ni­fy­ing Res­ur­rec­tion Day, the day he had to get past to exe­cute Peter and con­tin­ue to sat­is­fy the Jews, with­out undu­ly aggra­vat­ing Chris­tians. Herod’s only rea­son for pleas­ing the Jews was to keep his throne, and to con­tin­ue doing so, he would now be think­ing of Passover in the Chris­t­ian sense, and would wait until after the last day of Chris­t­ian Passover, or after Res­ur­rec­tion Day, to exe­cute Peter.

    Actu­al­ly Acts 12:4 can only refer to Chris­t­ian Passover. Christ’s Passover super­seded the Jew­ish one in the Res­ur­rec­tion, so pascha can only be Chris­t­ian Passover in the New Tes­ta­ment after the Res­ur­rec­tion, or after Acts 1 where it appears 3 times. One use in Hebrews 11:28 refers to Old Tes­ta­ment times, so it isn’t per­ti­nent. Anoth­er use in 1 Cor. 5:7 is the very pas­sage show­ing Chris­t­ian Passover super­sed­ing the Jew­ish one, so it must be ren­dered “passover,” and it clear­ly denotes Chris­t­ian Passover since Christ and the Cross are its basis. The third use in Acts 12:4 can only be the Chris­t­ian Passover. Fur­ther, “after Chris­t­ian Passover” is prop­er­ly replaced by “after East­er” since that is bet­ter under­stood by all read­ers. And East­er fits the Acts 12 con­text since it com­mu­ni­cates the full sense of Res­ur­rec­tion Day to read­ers, even though the 1st-cen­tu­ry obser­vance was unique­ly dif­fer­ent from that of lat­er times.

    The text must rec­og­nize that Herod’s action would be gov­erned by tim­ing of Chris­t­ian Passover and by its super­sed­ing of the Hebrew Passover in the book of Acts to give pascha a new mean­ing, thus bring­ing East­er into the pic­ture. Today pascha equates with East­er day, but the ini­tial sense is uncer­tain, so KJV trans­la­tors would use Hebrew passover in a Chris­t­ian sense for the 44 A.D. scene of Acts 12:4. They would know that Hebrew passover sig­ni­fies deliv­er­ance of God’s peo­ple from slav­ery in Egypt and from God’s judg­ment of Egypt, a nation sig­ni­fy­ing the world. They would see all this as being par­al­leled and ful­filled by the Cru­ci­fix­ion and Res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus that deliv­ers God’s peo­ple from slav­ery to sin in the world and from judg­ment of the world unto eter­nal death. Thus they would see the 1st-cen­tu­ry Chris­t­ian Passover as a 3‑day Crucifixion/ Res­ur­rec­tion obser­vance par­al­lel­ing and ful­fill­ing the 7‑day event. And they would see this 3‑day Passover, end­ing after Res­ur­rec­tion Day, or East­er, as the one Herod had to wait out to exe­cute Peter.

    Now some object to ren­der­ing Res­ur­rec­tion Day as East­er, for the term didn’t have a Chris­t­ian sense until well after the New Tes­ta­ment was penned so that its use in Acts is anachro­nis­tic. But Pascha sig­ni­fied Res­ur­rec­tion Day by the 4th — 5th cen­turies, and Res­ur­rec­tion Day was East­er by the 8th, so ever since the 8th cen­tu­ry, the KJV after East­er for after Pascha/Passover has been the prop­er cur­rent way to note the end of the 3‑day Passover Herod had to wait out to exe­cute Peter. So why are 17th-cen­tu­ry KJV trans­la­tors scorned for prop­er use of cur­rent ter­mi­nol­o­gy? Mod­ern trans­la­tors do this often and are only praised for com­mu­ni­cat­ing with mod­ern read­ers. For exam­ple, the NIV “gal­lons” (Lk.16:6, Jn.2:6) is fine for today, but it’s an anachro­nis­tic term, and it nev­er applied to Hebrew, Roman or Greek cul­ture, so it’s lit­er­al­ly less suit­ed to a 1st-cen­tu­ry set­ting than “East­er” is.

    Only the KJV rein­forces the 1 Corinthi­an 5:7 teach­ing on Chris­t­ian Passover super­sed­ing the old one, which is one indi­ca­tion that the KJV alone is God’s Word in the Eng­lish lan­guage. The KJV pre­cise­ly reflects the Greek text to us today, use of “East­er” sig­ni­fy­ing the last day of Pascha in the first cen­tu­ry to avoid uncer­tain­ty on the num­ber of days that Pascha last­ed and to spec­i­fy the day that Herod had to get past. Mod­ern schol­ars rep­re­sent trans­la­tion pre­ci­sion as if it were error! KJV trans­la­tors exhib­it­ed out­stand­ing skill in schol­ar­ship that has nev­er been remote­ly approached by schol­ars today

  25. I used to be a Chris­t­ian — fer­vent­ly defend­ing the tenets of the faith. But that was a dif­fer­ent life­time, and I’ve no longer any need for reli­gion. So no, I’m not a believer.

    The least you can do is not decieve your­self, Rick.

    Read 1 John 2:19 in any trans­la­tion you care to look at.

    They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have con­tin­ued with us: but they went out, that they might be made man­i­fest that they were not all of us. (KJV)

    They went out from us, but they were not real­ly of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (NASB)

    Your pro­fessed athe­ism and cur­rent state of deny­ing the truth in unright­eous­ness proves con­clu­sive­ly that even if you at one time called your­self a “Chris­t­ian,” such was not in fact the case. This is the part where the athe­ist (you), who does not believe in the God of the Bible, protests that “yes, I real­ly was a Chris­t­ian,” in spite of the Bible’s clear teach­ing (in any trans­la­tion) oth­er­wise. Will you, as an athe­ist, argue with me on this from a book you no longer accept as true? It’s always fun­ny when athe­ists refer to the Bible to “prove” that they “used to be Christians.”

    No, you were not. You always were ‑and still are- dead in your sins and trespasses.

    I pray that you be grant­ed mer­cy and repentance.

    Justin

    1. I don’t have a prob­lem with your belief that a “true Chris­t­ian” is always a true Chris­t­ian; that’s fine. What I have a prob­lem with is the belief that there is any­thing dif­fer­ent between a “true Chris­t­ian” and a Chris­t­ian who even­tu­al­ly walks away. In prac­ti­cal­i­ty, in faith, etc., there is no dif­fer­ence. The only dif­fer­ence comes when the one grows out of the prim­i­tive need for reli­gious belief, at which point the “true Chris­t­ian” finds com­fort in his holy book (all the while claim­ing it isn’t a crutch), cling­ing to vers­es that point out that even though a per­son real­izes the absur­di­ty of reli­gion, it isn’t because they grew in wis­dom & under­stand­ing but because they sim­ply were nev­er a Chris­t­ian in the first place and good rid­dance to them.

      But if you take what Jesus said about how you would know a Chris­t­ian? Yeah, I was a Chris­t­ian, and I defend­ed such. It’s all those peo­ple sit­ting in church­es each Sun­day that look noth­ing at all like the Bible’s “true Christians.”

  26. Since you’re going to cen­sor my com­ments here by not pub­lish­ing them, then please unsub­scribe me from your blog.

    1. I don’t cen­sor com­ments, David; you might con­sid­er exer­cis­ing some patience, though, in wait­ing for your com­ment to be approved. Mon­i­tor­ing & mod­er­at­ing this site isn’t my full time job. ;)

      If you wish to unsub­scribe, there should be a link to do just that in any email you receive from here.

  27. “protests that “yes, I real­ly was a Chris­t­ian,” in spite of the Bible’s clear teach­ing (in any trans­la­tion) otherwise. ”

    Where is that found? I find the following:

    Hew­brews 6:4–6 “4 It is impos­si­ble for those who have once been enlight­ened, who have tast­ed the heav­en­ly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spir­it, 5 who have tast­ed the good­ness of the word of God and the pow­ers of the com­ing age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance.”

    The writer is clear­ly describ­ing some­one who was ful­ly and com­plete­ly part of the sal­va­tion expe­ri­ence. “Repen­tance” is dis­cussed as a state in scrip­ture in which some­one has turned their back com­plete­ly on all sin. To come “back to” repen­tance there­fore means some­one who was ini­tial­ly IN repentance.

    The writer isn’t talk­ing about peo­ple who “nev­er were.”

    Hew­brews 10:26–27: “If we delib­er­ate­ly keep on sin­ning after we have received the knowl­edge of the truth, no sac­ri­fice for sins is left, 27 but only a fear­ful expec­ta­tion of judg­ment and of rag­ing fire that will con­sume the ene­mies of God.

    The word “knowl­edge” there is “epig­no­sis”, or “com­plete knowl­edge”, again describ­ing some­one who is com­plete­ly and ful­ly aware of and inside the state in which eter­nal life is the end result.

    There­fore, accord­ing to these vers­es, there are, indeed, peo­ple who are authen­tic, 100% ful­ly accept­ed, adopt­ed sons of God, who then choose to turn back to sin…a high-hand­ed act of rebel­lion indeed.

    These are not peo­ple “who nev­er were.” They clear­ly were, and chose to reject.

    2 Pet 2:21–22 “21For it would be bet­ter for them not to have known the way of right­eous­ness, than hav­ing known it, to turn away from the holy com­mand­ment hand­ed on to them.22It has hap­pened to them accord­ing to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after wash­ing, returns to wal­low­ing in the mire.””

    Again…these are peo­ple described as know­ing the way of right­e­souness, and not just being aware of it, but know­ing it in the “bib­li­cal sense”, that is, liv­ing it. 

    No doubt, there are mil­lions of peo­ple who call them­selves “chris­tians”, and are any­thing but…John the Apos­tle says that mul­ti­ple times…but to say that EVERYONE who calls them­selves a believ­er, who then turns away, was nev­er real­ly one to begin with is a clear refu­ta­tion of what scrip­ture itself says.

    1. If we look at the his­tor­i­cal con­text of Hebrews 6 we see a dif­fer­ent interpretation.

      Hebrews was writ­ten to both Jews and Gen­tiles. It was writ­ten to both believ­ers and unbe­liev­ers. Some of those addressed were ‘saved’ before Jesus Christ died on the cross for sins. They were saved because they believed in Jeho­vah and the com­ing Mes­si­ah. They were the ones who were in dan­ger of ‘los­ing their sal­va­tion’ if they would not embrace Jesus Christ as the com­ing Mes­si­ah who has now come. Thus, they would “cru­ci­fy again for them­selves the Son of God,.”

      The pre­vi­ous vers­es show the con­text of the OT and teach­ings found there:
      “repen­tance from dead works”
      “faith toward God,”
      “doc­trine of baptisms,”
      “lay­ing on of hands,”
      “of res­ur­rec­tion of the dead,”
      “of eter­nal judgment”
      “once enlightened”
      “tast­ed of the heav­en­ly gift,”
      “become par­tak­ers of the Holy Spirit,”
      “tast­ed the good word of God”
      “pow­ers of the age to come.”

      All of the above phras­es are OT teach­ings in the word and tra­di­tions. They were to move beyond them and real­ize the Jesus Christ is the Mes­si­ah that the Word point­ed to.

  28. Well, the argu­ment is set­tled. East­er is indeed the cor­rect word to use as not­ed in the link I post­ed above. Rick Beck­man has yet to address said link so it must be sur­mised he agrees.

  29. Absence of response is not evi­dence of agree­ment. That said, the very arti­cle you linked to is ref­er­enced in the orig­i­nal post above. Did you even read before replying?

    I mean, I know Chris­tians are in the habit of believ­ing the Bible with­out tak­ing time to read *it*, but the above post is nice and short and should­n’t pose too much an impo­si­tion on you. ;)

  30. Rick writes, “Absence of response is not evi­dence of agree­ment. That said, the very arti­cle you linked to is ref­er­enced in the orig­i­nal post above. Did you even read before replying?”

    No, it’s not, Mr. Beck­man. This is an entire­ly dif­fer­ent arti­cle. I sug­gest you read it.

  31. You said this:

    Here is more from Dr. Gipp explain­ing why the KJB is cor­rect in using the word “East­er” which is, indeed, a pagan fes­ti­val celebration.

    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html

    I linked to that exact same arti­cle in the sixth para­graph of the orig­i­nal post (not count­ing the first block­quote). I sug­gest you read. ;)

    Jesus-Is-Savior.com is anoth­er pin­na­cle of schol­ar­ship (up there with Jesus-Is-Lord.com, AV1611.org, and WayOfLife.org, all of whom don’t have a clue how to under­stand the Bible let alone real­i­ty). The “East­er Is Not a Mis­trans­la­tion” arti­cle you just linked to uses the same “rea­sons” as the arti­cles I dealt with in the above arti­cle. I sup­pose you don’t actu­al­ly want to deal with facts, though, and are hap­py sim­ply drop­ping links?

    I won­der if that worked for you in school. “No, I did­n’t write my essay, but I’d like to refer you to my class­mate’s work here, where you can clear­ly see the answer.”

  32. Your well-rea­soned, well-researched response has swayed me entire­ly. I’ll believe every word you say, and I’ll rec­om­mend oth­ers to do the same.

    Not. ;)

  33. Num­bers 33:3
    “And they depart­ed from Rame­ses in the first month, on the fif­teenth day of the first month; on the mor­row after the passover the chil­dren of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.”
    We see from the Bible Passover was only one day. East­er is the cor­rect trans­la­tion. Evi­dent­ly this means all mod­ern ver­sion have AT LEAST one error. This was an inter­est­ing arti­cle, but should not be tak­en very seri­ous­ly. We should­n’t mis­take fair­ly tails for truth.

  34. Eze 45:21 In the first month, in the four­teenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of sev­en days; unleav­ened bread shall be eaten. 

    have the Passover on the 14th day, then a feast of sev­en days of unleav­ened bread. This verse is the same as all oth­ers deal­ing with the Passover. You are just try­ing to read into it what you want.

    Eze 45:25 In the sev­enth month, in the fif­teenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the sev­en days, accord­ing to the sin offer­ing, accord­ing to the burnt offer­ing, and accord­ing to the meat offer­ing, and accord­ing to the oil. 

    You see on the 15th day is the feast of sev­en days. 

    Is the 14th day the same as the 15th? I think not.

    1. The entire con­vo­ca­tion includ­ing the Passover and the 7 days of unleav­ened bread is 8 days.

      Exo 12:18 In the first month, on the four­teenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleav­ened bread, until the one and twen­ti­eth day of the month at even. 

      14th day to the 21st day. Count­ing the 14th day as day 1 you add 7 more days to get to the last day the 21st.

  35. Church Forsaken

    Good day Rick!

    You sure have stirred up a lot here. And over words? You say you were a Chris­t­ian once? That in mind did these vers­es ever come to mind before you chose to first post ideas like this? 2 Tim­o­thy 2:14–21 “Of these things put them in remem­brance, charg­ing them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no prof­it, but to the sub­vert­ing of the hear­ers. {15} Study to shew thy­self approved unto God, a work­man that needeth not to be ashamed, right­ly divid­ing the word of truth. {16} But shun pro­fane and vain bab­blings: for they will increase unto more ungod­li­ness. {17} And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Phile­tus; {18} Who con­cern­ing the truth have erred, say­ing that the res­ur­rec­tion is past already; and over­throw the faith of some. {19} Nev­er­the­less the foun­da­tion of God standeth sure, hav­ing this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniq­ui­ty. {20} But in a great house there are not only ves­sels of gold and of sil­ver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to hon­our, and some to dis­hon­our. {21} If a man there­fore purge him­self from these, he shall be a ves­sel unto hon­our, sanc­ti­fied, and meet for the master’s use, and pre­pared unto every good work.”

    More over being that you have clear­ly stat­ed that you no longer even believe why even post any thing in the first place? Grained you might feel like help­ing poor miss direct­ed Chris­tians? I don’t Know! How­ev­er again if you don’t even real­ly believe why waist what lit­tle time you have left to live before you die. To help peo­ple who are just going to die and not be any­more just as you if your right? Maybe to save the rest of the world? But for what if life was real­ly so deval­ued from the start what point is there to any­thing? Even to the point of fac­ing anoth­er day. As your only try­ing to delay the inevitable end of what? What must hap­pen if we real­ly did­n’t have a GOD who so loved the world HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON! So much that HE would even care­ful­ly put things into play so the KJV would be formed! That as some have point­ed out is in fact CHRIST in the form of the WORD OF GOD!

    It all seems sil­ly to me! See you clear­ly have had some things hap­pen to you. Maybe it is in mis­un­der­stand­ing GODS WORD? Maybe it was from fac­ing unchris­t­ian things in the Church. I don’t know. But I could feel for you on enter point. I was very con­fused on GODS WORD at one point. Fact that is what brings me to even take the time to say any thing. I came to first under­stand these mat­ters around THE WORD OF GOD. As I faced after­math of being in for jail 2 months. And wait­ing for years for my name to be ful­ly cleared. From being accused of crimes I did­n’t com­mit by lead­ers in the so called Chris­t­ian church! This made what I learned even of more val­ue! As it great­ly helped in under­stand­ing how impor­tant this issue real­ly is get­ting down to it. I was not a KJV BELIEVER at the time. But was ask­ing the right things and stand­ing up for more dis­abled peo­ple being exploit­ed by those who could get away with it at the time in leadership!

    In short I have told you all this. As some­one who has faced even more crazy stuff like this in the so called Church. So I could say this Rick! Get over this. What ever this is! Peo­ple have and are fac­ing even worse. And worse will yet come to this world. As a per­son who says they were once a Chris­t­ian I know you would know this. I do take it you even made these posts to try and help. That in mind I remind you peo­ple need real help in these mat­ters. And the KJV that every­one is attack­ing it has all the rea­sons this and thing like I faced is going on! If peo­ple in the Church real­ly BELIEVED IN THE KJV MESSAGE! Crazy stuff like this would not be allowed! How­ev­er the world is on course to ful­ly reject the KJV! In that ask who would have the most to gain? Then ask your­self if you real­ly want to keep post­ing things like this that help them get the world to ful­ly reject the mes­sage of the KJV? To all you out there tricked into going after the KJV and peo­ple who hold to the KJV! Think about what these vers­es would have to say about your mind­set around that! 2 Tim­o­thy 2:23–26 “But fool­ish and unlearned ques­tions avoid, know­ing that they do gen­der strifes. {24} And the ser­vant of the Lord must not strive; but be gen­tle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, {25} In meek­ness instruct­ing those that oppose them­selves; if God per­ad­ven­ture will give them repen­tance to the acknowl­edg­ing of the truth; {26} And that they may recov­er them­selves out of the snare of the dev­il, who are tak­en cap­tive by him at his will.”

    1. Church Forsaken

      By that way those of you who may not like the name! I would take it your in the CHURCH! That in mind I chose the name for two rea­sons. At first it was the per­son­al rea­son for hav­ing faced so much in the Church. 

      But after all the study I did on main­ly the KJV issue. I kept the name to make the deep­er point to those in the CHURCH. That the Church is will­ing­ly For­sak­ing the TRUTH OF GODS WORD. And you can see the world is get­ting dark­er as they do. Also I want to make it clear I do not ful­ly hold to a KJV only view! More to the point before my in-depth study on the KJV issue I use to shame­ful­ly say I was NIV only to my KJV only friend to try and stop him from telling me the TRUTH! That is not that hard to get down to. All you need to do is look at the so called bibles of today next to the KJV! And after weeks and weeks that lead in to months. You start to see that not only is the KJV is the most accu­rate. You see that satan is work­ing in oth­er so called bibles to make him­self look like CHRIST! Sure­ly that is why the fol­low­ing verse reads as it does as do oth­ers. That show the end game in all this! Rev­e­la­tion 20:4 “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judg­ment was giv­en unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were behead­ed for the wit­ness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not wor­shipped the beast, nei­ther his image, nei­ther had received his mark upon their fore­heads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thou­sand years.”

  36. This dis­cus­sion may be closed at this point — I don’t know. Let me just respond to Rick­’s arti­cle on the “East­er” vers­es “Passover” argument:

    OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh, and did you get that I total­ly agree with your con­clu­sions? ha

    Have a won­der­ful day!

Leave a Reply to Timber72 Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman