The Easter Parade, or, The Gipper Shoulda Stuck to Football...

[prophet]

Good old intellectual dishonesty.

If you say so. *yawn*

We established that Easter is (was) a proper translation of Paschal.

We discussed "church", "assembly", and "congregation".

In both scenarios, the terms are interchangeable, and do not obscure the meaning.

You wave a hand at the one set, but demand that the other be consolidated, or be called an error.

This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, from you, and adds to your frequent flyer miles, on the "take my ball and go home if you don't share my anti-KJV bias" express.

Hundreds of preferences of the KJV translators, can be pegged to the original language from which the passage descends.
I'm going to assume that this is the case in Acts, since Paschal et al is already transliterated here, from the Hebrew.

I'm trying to find out which sub committee had Acts, and if any of those men wrote of this choice.

Until then, I can afford the KJV due deference, since I've yet to find an explanation by the translators, that didn't make sense.



Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

We established that Easter is (was) a proper translation of Paschal. . . .
In both scenarios, the terms are interchangeable, and do not obscure the meaning.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? If you mean you and I, I didn't claim "Easter" didn't obscure the meaning. I said it was obsolete, and argued that it did obscure the meaning, if the Jewish festival is meant.

This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, from you,

Lying about my position on your part, does not constitute dishonesty on mine.

*yawn*

 

[prophet]

We established that Easter is (was) a proper translation of Paschal. . . .
In both scenarios, the terms are interchangeable, and do not obscure the meaning.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? If you mean you and I, I didn't claim "Easter" didn't obscure the meaning. I said it was obsolete, and argued that it did obscure the meaning, if the Jewish festival is meant.

This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, from you,

Lying about my position on your part, does not constitute dishonesty on mine.

*yawn*

I'm sorry, I must have read into the word "was", that you meant "was".
My bad, Mr. Clinton.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

'm sorry, I must have read into the word "was", that you meant "was".

"Was," as in "was no need to continue calling it Easter""?

KJV-onlyists never met a context they couldn't ignore. You guys are dumber than a box of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes.

 

[prophet]

'm sorry, I must have read into the word "was", that you meant "was".

"Was," as in "was no need to continue calling it Easter""?

KJV-onlyists never met a context they couldn't ignore. You guys are dumber than a box of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes.

Keep trotting out your box of curmudgeonly slogans...
It's all you have.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[robycop3]

  Same ole KJVO jive. The KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.

 

[robycop3]

[/quote]We established that Easter is (was) a proper translation of Paschal.[/quote]

  But it was NOT a proper translation of pascha at the time Luke wrote "Acts".

We discussed "church", "assembly", and "congregation".

Nothing to do with the meaning of pascha.

In both scenarios, the terms are interchangeable, and do not obscure the meaning.

  Yes, they DO. Easter was unknown to the people of Luke's day, but not to the AV transalators.

You wave a hand at the one set, but demand that the other be consolidated, or be called an error.

It IS an error. Again, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts", & if it had existed then, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please woulda observed it.

This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, from you, and adds to your frequent flyer miles, on the "take my ball and go home if you don't share my anti-KJV bias" express.

Not at all!  The cold, hard facts are before you!  Since easter didn't exist in Luke's time, how could he have been writing about it ????????????????? In that day, "pascha" meant "passover" & nothing else.

Hundreds of preferences of the KJV translators, can be pegged to the original language from which the passage descends.
I'm going to assume that this is the case in Acts, since Paschal et al is already transliterated here, from the Hebrew.

I'm trying to find out which sub committee had Acts, and if any of those men wrote of this choice.

Until then, I can afford the KJV due deference, since I've yet to find an explanation by the translators, that didn't make sense.

  But they don't explain the "Easter" goof, as they didn't catch it.

  And, BTW, for MANY YEARS now, I've asked KJVOs for some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, & have seen absolutely NO REPLIES.  (Ransom can verify that fact.) Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true. Therefore, the KJVO myth is false.

SIMPLE, EH ?