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

[Jerry Shugart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Danoh]

I knew, even as I was writing on that other thread that Anderson, O'Hair, Baker, and Stam had not been KJVO, that you would seize on it as one more means of proving yourself "the expert."

But as Scripture reveals, and you know that you know in your heart, your real issue is some inner lack of peace with yourself.

The fact is that you "are straightened in your own bowels, not in..." those within Mid-Acts.

Your are simply too seizing, too quickly, on any thing to your own would be glorying.

Worse; all you see is your own vanity being attacked.

But go ahead, turn this response, not into the beginnings of the liberation from yourself that both your blind pride and your fool need to believe the fool's gold that this, your own straightening is - turn it instead into more of you being the issue.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I knew, even as I was writing on that other thread that Anderson, O'Hair, Baker, and Stam had not been KJVO, that you would seize on it as one more means of proving yourself "the expert."

Would you cease from your dastardly habit of trying to divert the subject of the threads which I start?

All you are doing is attacking me in the hope that others reading this thread will not see the truth that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the Bible.

You are allergic to the truth and you do not want others to see the truth.

 

[Mocking You]

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

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

 

[achduke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt 27:62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate,

The day after the preparation day is the 15th which is the 1st day of unleavened bread.

Matt 26:17 is wrong but later Matt 27:62 is correct.

 

[Danoh]

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

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

You're right. I did not address his supposed "truth."

I never do. I address his actual intent. His agenda is that of proving he is right, all others are wrong, and he should be agreed with, repeated back to him in his words.

Add to that, that he has yet proven to me he actually knows how to study a thing out.

Lastly, just as he turned my other post into this post of his here; to even attempt to help him see he is wrong on those issues he asserts he is attempting to explore, to even attempt to correct him on those without his first seeing he is wrong as to his actual agenda, is to arm him further in his agenda.

Consider that at one time he had to learn what he now holds to.

What has he done with it, turn it into the service of his self-serving agenda.

As a result, until he puts his self-serving agenda away, any truth he might be shown he will only turn into the service of said agenda.

Its recurrent pattern for decades now is its very witness that that is what he is actually about.

If... one can even get a word in edgewise, past his obviously extreme narcissism...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Matt 26:17 is wrong...

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Can you prove that Mid-Acts people claim the KJV is perfect? I have noticed that many of them use it.

It is many in the Neo-MAD crowd who say that the KJV is without error. I cannot prove it but through experience I have encountered many of them who do.

 

[Danoh]

It is many in the Neo-MAD crowd who say that the KJV is without error. I cannot prove it but through experience I have encountered many of them who do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not that it matters to you, but you'd earn at least some respect if you stuck to your guns until proven otherwise, in contrast to denying you fired them in the way you obviously have...

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind applies to you too.

Stick to your guns.

Just drop your actual agenda.

 

[musterion]

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

Some MADs claim it's perfect; literally the Word of God in inspired English. This would be the KJ Only crowd. I think Richard Jordan falls prominently into this group, and there are others.

Other MADs claim it is the best English translation there is and so only use the KJ but acknowledge it is still a translation and not, in itself, inspired. These use ONLY the KJ but recoil at being called KJO.

Still other MADs find it a very respectable translation but hardly perfect. I am in this camp because I've yet to have someone fetch me a compass per the book of Acts (I once heard a KJO young'un say that's precisely what that verse means). However, I do consult the KJ more than my others, especially lately since I obtained a gently used leather Companion Bible a few weeks ago at a phenomenal price.

And yet other MADs dislike it for whatever reasons and don't use it at all.

It bears mention that there also are Calvinists, Methodists and run of the mill evangelicals who fall into these four basic camps. Which proves what about them? Personally, I have no idea what it's supposed to prove about anybody.

 

[Danoh]

Some MADs claim it's perfect; literally the Word of God in inspired English. This would be the KJ Only crowd. I think Richard Jordan falls prominently into this group, and there are others.

Other MADs claim it is the best English translation there is and so ONLY use the KJ but acknowledge it is still a translation and not, in itself, inspired. These use only the KJ but recoil at being called KJO.

Still other MADs find it a very respectable translation but hardly perfect. I am in this camp because I've yet to have someone fetch me a compass per the book of Acts (I once heard a KJO young'un say that's precisely what that verse means). However, I do consult the KJ more than my others, especially lately since I obtained a gently used leather Companion Bible a few weeks ago at a phenomenal price.

And yet other MADs dislike it for whatever reasons and don't use it at all.

It bears mention that there also are Calvinists, Methodists and run of the mill evangelicals who fall into these four basic camps. Which proves what about them? Personally, I have no idea what it's supposed to prove about anybody.

An observation, brother...

Richard Jordan and his people do not claim the KJV is inspired.

That is what their detractors have asserted against them.

Just as some parrot the assertions of others - that we are all Bullingerites.

Jordan and many others assert their being consistently Dispensational in their Cessationism, for example.

Said particular Cessationism being the teaching that God works in you that believe through his rightly divided Word.

And they have detractors as to said Cessasionist teaching

Meaning, it'd be more consistent for their detractors as to said Cessasionist teaching to hold to an inspired translation.

 

[musterion]

An observation, brother...

Richard Jordan and his people do not claim the KJV is inspired.

That is what their detractors have asserted against them.

THANK YOU for pointing that out! I have amended that portion of my post; I thought I once read of a verified link between Jordan and Ruckman so I must have misunderstood and falsely assumed.

Just as some parrot the assertions of others - that we are all Bullingerites.

True, true. Bullinger also believed in the triune nature of God; thus anyone who believes in the Trinity is a Bullingerite as well (handy how that broad brush works, ain't it).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind applies to you too.
.

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

 

[Danoh]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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

So you admit that the KJV is not without error.

Pin a rose on your nose, you finally got something right!

 

[Danoh]

So you admit that the KJV is not without error.

Pin a rose on your nose, you finally got something right!

All you have done is proven your self-serving agenda.

Can't say I did not try to be civil with you, you hypocrite.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Can't say I did not try to be civil with you, you hypocrite.

Sure, especially when you said, "Speaking of gays, Jerry..."

You were civil with me for about two posts and then you started calling me names after I disagreed with your teaching.

 

[Danoh]

Sure, especially when you said, "Speaking of gays, Jerry..."

You were civil with me for about two posts and then you started calling me names after I disagreed with your teaching.

Sure, incompetant one; you have yet proven you know anyone's teaching and or intended sense.

But, keep being the self-serving hypocrite you have been for decades now.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But, keep being the self-serving hypocrite you have been for decades now.

You finally got something right so why are you bitter?

You admitted that the KJV is not without error!

 

[heir]

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

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