Easter ? What are we celebrating?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let me just say that it is my experience that tells me this.

I started with the kjv; but someone suggested that I use a different translation, which I did. My walk with Christ went downhill from there, until I returned to the kjv, at which time things began looking up again concerning my walk with Him.

Someone with a hardened heart to the reality of this may try to attribute the changes in my walk to other factors; but I am pretty certain that it has everything to do with the fact that the kjv is better all-around, even the best translation out of them all.

To the extent that if you do not go by it, you are not walking down the narrow path that leads to life, Matthew 7:13-14.

That's just what I believe (see Hebrews 11:1). You can take it or leave it; leave it at your spiritual peril. Because just as the Lord bases eternal life on faith in Him, I base eternal life on accepting the full authority of the kjv; because it is the only version that accurately portrays sound doctrine to the extent that it will bring salvation in the final end. See 1Ti 4:16, Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

I have more experience and you do and my growth in Christ increased when I switched to the NIV.

Experience proves nothing.

On KJV versus NIV which uses the oldest manuscripts? NIV
Which uses English that we actually talk today?
NIV
Which one doesn't change words to something else to please Catholicism. Such as Passover to Easter, a Catholic invention that didn't even exist at the time of the apostles. NIV

And a lot more.

Which is more important, accuracy or experience? Accuracy

Use whichever version you wish but don't try to promote the one with more issues as being superior.

As for 1 Timothy, the NIV says it much more clearly and accurately.

You're just arguing personal taste.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,423
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I beg to differ. Easter, as it is celebrated towards acknowledging the resurrection, is for Christians.



The kjv is the best translation out of them all by far. To the extent that where other translations differ from it, I hold it as authoritative and other translations as inferior.

To be more clear, I meant just that one word is poorly translated. I prefer the KJV myself, having spent decades studying and comparing various versions and manuscript families.

But it's like saying, celebrating birthdays, as long as it is towards aknowledging the death of a loved one, is . . . what?

It's like saying Saturnalia is OK so long as it's toward celebrating Jesus' birth.

I don't argue against commemorating Jesus' resurrection, though what the Bible actually tells us to do is to commemorate Jesus' death. Why, I don't know, but that's what it does.

But I wouldn't be the one to say that if the Greek is Pascha, and one translates Passover, and one translates Easter, to insist that in this one instance we should ignore the word that's used and insert a different word.

It's just like where the KJV says "bishop", that's not a translation, that's a word substitution. A translation would be overseer.

Anyway, you wanted a KJV only discussion, I suppose that is what you're getting. I'm a big fan of the King James for many reasons, but mostly because I got so tired of other translations changing "Israel" into "Jacob", and "Zion" into Jerusalem, and like that. The word substitutions. I'm looking for translation. But even so, I like the KJV better than the others.

Much love!
Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,423
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have more experience and you do and my growth in Christ increased when I switched to the NIV.

Experience proves nothing.

On KJV versus NIV which uses the oldest manuscripts? NIV
Which uses English that we actually talk today?
NIV
Which one doesn't change words to something else to please Catholicism. Such as Passover to Easter, a Catholic invention that didn't even exist at the time of the apostles. NIV

And a lot more.

Which is more important, accuracy or experience? Accuracy

Use whichever version you wish but don't try to promote the one with more issues as being superior.

As for 1 Timothy, the NIV says it much more clearly and accurately.

You're just arguing personal taste.

Personally I think the NIV has more difficulties than the KJV.

But don't get me wrong.

The KJV translators themselves said in the preface the 1611 edition that even the crudest translation of the Bible, if actually translated, is still the Word of God.

I believe God speaks through them all if we are listening. Well, maybe not the Cotton Patch Bible. Blech!

Much love!
mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Nancy

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
<Easter, what are we celebrating >

One word = C H O C O L A T E !!!

Isn't it worship of the chocolate god? By the look of all the stores it would seem so!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To be more clear, I meant just that one word is poorly translated. I prefer the KJV myself, having spent decades studying and comparing various versions and manuscript families.

But it's like saying, celebrating birthdays, as long as it is towards aknowledging the death of a loved one, is . . . what?

It's like saying Saturnalia is OK so long as it's toward celebrating Jesus' birth.

I don't argue against commemorating Jesus' resurrection, though what the Bible actually tells us to do is to commemorate Jesus' death. Why, I don't know, but that's what it does.

But I wouldn't be the one to say that if the Greek is Pascha, and one translates Passover, and one translates Easter, to insist that in this one instance we should ignore the word that's used and insert a different word.

It's just like where the KJV says "bishop", that's not a translation, that's a word substitution. A translation would be overseer.

Anyway, you wanted a KJV only discussion, I suppose that is what you're getting. I'm a big fan of the King James for many reasons, but mostly because I got so tired of other translations changing "Israel" into "Jacob", and "Zion" into Jerusalem, and like that. The word substitutions. I'm looking for translation. But even so, I like the KJV better than the others.

Much love!
Mark
Easter in the King James was not a translation error. It was a deliberate replacement of the word.

Passover celebrated death passing over Israel. Easter celebrates Christ's resurrection from death.

Easter didn't exist at the time of the apostles.

That is not a translation error, that is the Catholic doctrine insert that changes the very meaning of the verse.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Personally I think the NIV has more difficulties than the KJV.

But don't get me wrong.

The KJV translators themselves said in the preface the 1611 edition that even the crudest translation of the Bible, if actually translated, is still the Word of God.

I believe God speaks through them all if we are listening. Well, maybe not the Cotton Patch Bible. Blech!

Much love!
mark

I'm still the manuscripts, history and so forth. The KJV is a translation disaster because it is based on Catholic doctrine.

Just the inserting alone of the Apocrypha should be a huge red flag.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have more experience and you do and my growth in Christ increased when I switched to the NIV.

Experience proves nothing.

On KJV versus NIV which uses the oldest manuscripts? NIV
Which uses English that we actually talk today?
NIV
Which one doesn't change words to something else to please Catholicism. Such as Passover to Easter, a Catholic invention that didn't even exist at the time of the apostles. NIV

And a lot more.

Which is more important, accuracy or experience? Accuracy

Use whichever version you wish but don't try to promote the one with more issues as being superior.

As for 1 Timothy, the NIV says it much more clearly and accurately.

You're just arguing personal taste.

You are right...personally I do not want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me through something that is removed from watered-down translations...versions like the NIV take out phrases, sentences, even entire paragraphs, saying that they are not the inspired word of the Lord. To me, that amounts to taking away from God's word; and there are very severe consequences in Revelation 22:19 for doing that. Whereas if I add to the word of the Lord, the consequences are less severe...and more evident. Since I have not been a recipient of the consequences for adding to the word, in accepting the translations that keep in certain words of instruction, I conclude that I have not added to the word in holding to the kjv...but that those who reject it are indeed guilty of taking away from it.

Easter didn't exist at the time of the apostles.

Surely you know...for you were walking around in the 1st Century A.D.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Seriously?
Yes, seriously...because there are certain changes made to watered-down translations that make the way in less narrow...and therefore a person is much more likely to enter in through the broad path if they adhere to a watered-down translation.

If you stick to the kjv, you can be certain that you are entering in through the narrow path. Consider the following:

Mat 7:13, Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14, Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Jer 29:13, And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Deu 4:29, But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are right...personally I do not want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to say to me through something that is removed from watered-down translations...versions like the NIV take out phrases, sentences, even entire paragraphs, saying that they are not the inspired word of the Lord. To me, that amounts to taking away from God's word; and there are very severe consequences in Revelation 22:19 for doing that. Whereas if I add to the word of the Lord, the consequences are less severe...and more evident. Since I have not been a recipient of the consequences for adding to the word, in accepting the translations that keep in certain words of instruction, I conclude that I have not added to the word in holding to the kjv...but that those who reject it are indeed guilty of taking away from it.



Surely you know...for you were walking around in the 1st Century A.D.

Who says the KJV came from the Holy Spirit?

Something that was not in the original manuscripts and added by the Catholics later in the 15th century is not inspired.

The Bible was complete with the writing of the book of Revelation.

To say that is someone's interpretation of what the Bible means one thing. To say it is inspired Bible is human error. Revelation warns against either adding to or taking away from the Scriptures. The KJV adds.

You want to claim differently? Then it's on you to prove it.

How do you know you have not suffered or will not suffer consequences for accepting it?

And yes, the historical proof is there the textus receptus added to the text.

Or have you forgotten that in 1611 the apocryphal was part of the KJV. Or that it is been edited several times since to correct blatant errors?

Stop acting like the KJV you read today is the 1611 version. It is a 1769 version.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Easter in the King James was not a translation error. It was a deliberate replacement of the word.

Passover celebrated death passing over Israel. Easter celebrates Christ's resurrection from death.

Easter didn't exist at the time of the apostles.

That is not a translation error, that is the Catholic doctrine insert that changes the very meaning of the verse.

Some see it that way, some see it as a secular holiday but all should recognize it is a Catholic invention borrowing from paganism.

Some try to make it a Christian holy day, which it is not.

Fighting for the devil's cause, I see.

You do realize that he hates resurrection Sunday because it defeated him?
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Allowing pagan practices into the church is something the enemy loves.

They have no bearing on our salvation, if our hearts are not given over to idolatry in the first place. If you had a problem with worshiping Ishtar before becoming a Christian, then don't celebrate Easter. But if, in your heart, the holiday is completely about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, eating a chocolate bunny on that day does nothing to corrupt your heart unless you equate doing so to actual pagan worship. Iow, if you eat that chocolate bunny as an act of worship to a pagan god, then you have crossed the line. But if you are just eating a snack because it is more available on that day, God looks on your heart and does not condemn you for what you are doing outwardly. It is what is going on in your heart that matters the most.

But I think that the principle in 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, Romans 14 also applies. Which is to say this: Even though I would not be sinning by eating a chocolate bunny on Easter, I will not eat a chocolate bunny on Easter if I find that it goes against the conscience of my brother or sister. For why is my liberty judged by another person's conscience? "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof"

I do not want to embolden my brother or sister to do something that goes against their conscience. Through my knowledge (that an idol is nothing in the world) shall my weaker brother perish for whom Christ died? God forbid. In so sinning against the brethren, by wounding their weak conscience, I would be sinning against Christ. Therefore if what I eat makes my brother to offend, I will not eat a chocolate bunny while the world stands.

However, it is also true, that blessed is the man who does not condemn himself in the thing that he allows.

Because it is primarily a heart issue.
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Therefore, concerning my own celebration of Easter: I simply am thankful that it is a holiday in which people who normally don't go to church will go to church. So I do not eat a chocolate bunny on Easter, if it will make my brother to offend; and I also use the occasion to pray especially hard for the salvation of people who will be setting their feet behind church doors on that day because it is a Christian holiday.

Because if that is the only day in the year they go to church (other than Christmas), it is obvious that they are not saved yet. But they are coming under the jurisdiction of the preaching of the gospel message, and I will never disparage Easter because of that opportunity provided by the holiday.