I think Jesus must have had a good version of the Bible. Whatever He was reading seemed to work. I also know of indigenous mexicans that live in remote villages that have seen great miracles. I was blessed to walk with them for several months and found some of the most Christ-filled men were illiterate. Perhaps then it is best to read either the Dead Sea Scrolls or not at all in order to be like Christ.
What Bible version did Jesus read?
It is most unlikely that a poor family would have had their own copy of the scriptures, but his synagogue education as a child would have given him access to the scriptures.Which version? I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread. Luke 4:17ff ... he found the place where it was written...it then goes on to quote from Isaiah but not from the Masoretic text. The quotation is not from the Hebrew text, but is from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). There are various explanations as to why the quotation given is not from the Hebrew Bible but I think the simplest is that the regular reading in the Galilee synagogue was from the LXX.Galilee was known as Galilee of the Gentiles and Jesus would have been bi-lingual. Campbell Morgan believed most of his preaching was in Greek rather than Aramaic. This is a very unusual view but the more I think about it the more I think he may have been right. The conversation between Christ and Pilate must have taken place in Greek; Pilate would certainly not have spoken Aramaic. It would also explain why on the unusual occasion he used Aramaic; the gospel recorders make a note of the fact.This provokes some very interesting questions with regard to 'best' original texts.
Jesus wrote the Bible. I don't think He had to go find one.
Who wrote the Bible is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that All scripture is inspired by God. In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.
Jesus wrote the Bible. I don't think He had to go find one.Don't hold back tell it like it is.
Jesus wrote the Bible. I don't think He had to go find one.This sounds like a good answer but in fact it is a very bad one. It strikes at the whole incarnation in which Christ became a perfect man. His own words were absolutely without error of any kind, but in his natural powers he 'developed' like the rest of us.Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Heb. 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; These verses speak very plainly of the processes of his life. 'Jesus' did not write the Bible. God inspired the Bible and 'Jesus' submitted to it. 'Jesus' is the title which speaks most of the 'human-ness' of the Son of God. This is God become man, not God pretending to be man.It may seem unimportant but if he did not become 'human' we have no Saviour.
This is very important for those that don't know.Jesus Christ our Lord, the second person of the trinity, embodied Himself in flesh, and became the Lamb that paid for all sin, and I clearly read,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."If Jesus is the Alhpa and Omega, along with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus did not write the Bible, who did?1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."The Father speaks the Word by use of the Holy Ghost, His breath. All three are God.John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost"Either all three persons of God wrote it or they didn't.John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."Isa 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."Please notice, Jesus is "The mighty God, The everlasting Father."Jesus is God. He is as much God as the Father. He didn't write the 66 books with His hand while on earth, He wrote it before the foundations of the world were laid, as part of the three persons of the triune God. Colossians 1:13b/16-17"his dear Son:...For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
If Jesus is the Alhpa and Omega, along with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus did not write the Bible, who did?I am not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity but Jesus is the name of the One born in Bethlehem and who lived as a human being. He chose to live on earth as a man and did not use his inherent powers as God while doing so. The eternal God never grows tired or weary but Jesus was tired and hungry. He did not live his life as a human only to 'dip into' being God again when it suited him. This is the significance of the temptation when Satan tempted him to behave as 'the Son of God', and Jesus said 'man shall not live by bread alone'. As God he would have not hungered not been subject to this temptation. He voluntary became man and lived as men lived. If he had not done so he would never have been able to be an example for us.
Are you willing to search for the greatest weight of Scriptural evidence for the various Christian doctrines, no matter where your search leads, even if it leads you to the conclusion that many of your pet beliefs are false? It can be frightening and unsettling to realize that our Christian beliefs might be wrong, but I pray that you have such a heart for God that you are willing to embark on this journey, allowing the Holy Spirit to be your guide.
Are you willing to search for the greatest weight of Scriptural evidence for the various Christian doctrines, no matter where your search leads, even if it leads you to the conclusion that many of your pet beliefs are false?I'm not sure if this question was addressed to me, but if it was the answer is 'yes'. Do you have a particular 'doctrine' in mind?
MrBill,I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. Please allow me to clarify for some that may not. Those "Christian doctrines" of today that are actually false are not Christian doctrines, they are false doctrines. Whatever is truth is Christian doctrine. Humanism is clearly what I see being the main false influence (credit to Kent Hovind and everyone on Revival Hymn for showing me some truths I'd never heard).I'll let others jump in as to which doctrines are false. Maybe I'll stir up the bee's nest later.
Hi...!This question is directed to those who cling to the KJV-only persuasion:Are there any flaws in the King James Version of the Bible?I ask this because I am quite interested in knowing whether those who hold this persuasion believe that it is a flawless translation, or the least flawed translation, etc...Another question: How do you feel about foreign translations (including those older and newer than the KJV)? :-)
My buddy brought the topic up to me, and I thought, there is no way all those Bibles in MY church are wrong. First you must know that modern Christianity is pretty messed up, just listen to Ravenhill on that.But I compared, half out of search for truth, half out to prove this was not true. After about 6 months of study off and on, I bought a King James. There is one problem I honestly could not explain. EVERY OTHER ONE came up with the King James being on top. It is this:II Sam 8:4 "seven hundred horsemen"I Chr 18:4 "seven thousand horsemen"I think that the evidence is that one account is of Hadadezer, with a "d", and the other account is Hadarezer, with an "r." So it's not that me telling you there are no mistakes, it's that I have looked and found none. This particular case obviously has an out, I think I just need to study it more.These armies would have to have been exactly the same in number, and defeated exactly the same way, which I suppose is possible. This is the only problem I can find with the KJV out of many, many of other comparisons I have read or looked into. To be honest, I think this one is only due to my lack of faith or understanding.Many scholars commented about these verses, but I wasn't satisfied with their opinions. There are Bibles written in other languages that are supposed to be accurate. Info on this site:http://www.biblebelievers.com/mcardle_which-spanish.html
"Jesus is the name of the One born in Bethlehem"He was born in Bethlehem but is from everlasting:Micah 5:2 'out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.' (KJV)Micah 5:2 'one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.' (NIV)See the difference. No 'everlasting.'Jesus said this in Rev 22:16 'I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.'If He is speaking here, He had no origin in time. Therefore He has always been.----------"who lived as a human being"He was holy, he didn't live like us.----------"He chose to live on earth as a man and did not use his inherent powers as God while doing so."He gave the blind man sight with his spittle and clay (just like Genesis).He said Himself He 'hath power on earth to forgive sins.'He turned water into wine.Matt 9;4 He read thoughts of men, 'And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?'----------"The eternal God never grows tired or weary but Jesus was tired and hungry."I agree. He was showing us that the flesh is weak. But He overcame the flesh because He was filled with the Holy Ghost. The flesh He was in was actually resisting death, to show us that if we are going to be executed for our faith, the flesh will tempt us to deny Him, but we must overcome flesh by the Holy Ghost.----------"As God he would have not hungered not been subject to this temptation."Jesus was tempted, but did not sin.Heb 4:15 'For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.'----------"He voluntary became man and lived as men lived."He lived the exact opposite of the way men live. He walked by the Spirit, not by the flesh.
Hi letsgetbusy...Thanks for sharing! I have seen that passage, as well as listened to some "strange" explanations of the discrepancy by sincere believers.In an earlier thread, I pointed out another obvious translation flaw in Acts 12:4, where the King James Version (both the original 1611 version and the current and more common 1769 version) uses the term Easter where the passage is obviously referring to the Passover (the term "Easter is actually of pagan origin, and was created man years after Luke's death). Several sincere believers have tried to explain this discrepency in the KJV -- even going so far as to say that Paul knew that Easter would be a future holiday. Research into the history of the King James Version reveals that it was sincerely translated by a committee chosen by King James and his Roman Catholic clergy. There were strict instructions given to the translators by the Catholic clergy (including keeping much of the ancient ecclesiastic language of the Catholic Church). These instructions remain quite controversial, but are well-documented by historians.Regardless, I still use the King James Version as my primary source for reading the Bible. Its familiarity and availability, as well as the numerous study resources (like the Strong's Concordance) allow me to easily navigate through the pages. However, I also refer to other versions that are legitimate and honorable academic translations (including foreign language versions). And to me, any discrepancy between the different translations seems to be "beside-the-point." They do not change my views and beliefs in the Trinity, fasting or any other relevant doctrine. A fellow believer recently told me that the King James Version is "that which is perfect" as found in I Corinthians 13. I cannot accept the notion that the King James Version is the version that is sometimes interpretated as being spoken of in Scripture as the "preserved text." To me, the only "perfectly preserved" version of the Word is the spoken Word of God. Of the six billion people on earth (and two billion "claiming" the christian faith), a great many of them do not have a King James Version. To those who teach such things, I urge them to read the original preface (Purpose of the Translators) to the King James Version. Their goal for a version of the Bible in the "language of the common people" is quite telling.Thanks for your post! I'm still quite eager to hear from others as well! :-)
This question is directed to those who cling to the KJV-only persuasion:Are there any flaws in the King James Version of the Bible?We have talked about this so many times on SI, some must be bored to death with it, but yes there are flaws.The KJV translators worked in a unique political context and undertook a task which was properly 'specced out'. These parameters of translation had their effect on the translation. It is essentially a 'Jacobean' translation. The best book to read to get the historical sense of all this is probably God's Secretaries: Adam Nicolson (it was also published as "Power and Glory." For any who enjoy history this will be feast for you.It will explain the character of the age and of the translators. It will surprise some to discover that it was a propaganda tool of the new dynsasty under the Stuarts. It will recount the "Rules for the Translators" which were the stated specifications for the project. It will explain the method of the KJV translation and you can make up your own mind as to whether or not some of the philosophy behind the new translation and its methodology affected it in any way.And... lest you should think otherwise, this written by a man who believes the KJV to be the greatest and most magnificent translation ever accomplished. The KJV translators also struggled with some Greek verb tenses and prepositions. That's enough for starters.
In an earlier thread, I pointed out another obvious translation flaw in Acts 12:4, where the King James Version (both the original 1611 version and the current and more common 1769 version) uses the term Easter where the passage is obviously referring to the Passover (the term "Easter is actually of pagan origin, and was created man years after Luke's death). Several sincere believers have tried to explain this discrepency in the KJV -- even going so far as to say that Paul knew that Easter would be a future holiday.I'm not in the habit of pasting quotes from books into my posts only because I think a forum should be our own thoughts and words... however, in this case, I will break with tradition and paste what I consider to be a good refutation of the "Easter is a flaw" argument.This is from the book "The Answer Book: A Handbook for Christians" by Dr. Sam Gipp. Dr. Gipp, Th.D.:To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse Acts12:4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4, 5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 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."Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread! In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. 17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. 18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:" In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. 2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. 4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. 5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: 6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. 7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents. 8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles." Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows: 1.On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover. 2.On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.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. Now let us look at Acts 12:3, 4: "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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."Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter.Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.
It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.Hi KrispyI think I must be missing your point, although I have read the post twice. Isn't the point that the word 'pascha' (Strongs 3957) is used about 30 times in the New Testament, Matt. 26:2,17-19; Mark 14:1,12,14,16; Luke 2:41; 22:1,7-8,11,13,15; John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14; Acts 12:4; 1Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:28 but in the KJV of Acts 12:4 is translated 'Easter'. “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.” (Acts 12:4, KJVS)“And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.” (Acts 12:4, ASV)“So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.” (Acts 12:4, NKJV) As has been stated here Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 1 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. The question then is why would the Translators have used the word 'Easter'? I suspect you like 'conspiracy theories' ;-) so here's mine...Wycliffe's Bible translated from the Latin has the word 'pask'. This is where we get the adjective 'Paschal' and has a double link. 'pascha' in Hebrew is Passover. The passover lamb is in mind, although the focus of the passover lamb is its death rather than its suffering. BUT the Greek word 'paschO' means 'to suffer. So the Paschal lamb has links both with the suffering and death of Christ. (I think was one was a divine consipiracy!) Here is Wycliff And whanne he hadde cauyte Petre, he sente hym in to prisoun; and bitook to foure quaternyouns of knyytis, to kepe hym, and wolde aftir pask bringe hym forth to the puple. ie would after Pask/PassoverThen we have Tyndale who translated the word 'pascha' from Acts 12:4 as (Tyndale) And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.Tyndale has gone for 'Easter'Then we have the Geneva Bible, which was the 'favourite Bible of the Protestants and the one they took to the New World with them. (not the KJV) And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people. Now we have the 'Passover' plainly in view. The Geneva Bible was the most radical of these old translations. It may well be the source of some 'revolutionary' tendencies in certain people groups! (if the cap fits, wear it; as they say over here. ;-)) In the end the only way they could suppress the Geneva Bible was to ban its printing. Only, then did the KJV 'take off'.Then there was the Bishop's Bible which was an attempt to 'tame' the protestants and was an 'in house' translation from the Anglican Church. It was never popular. If fact it was because the Bishops Bible could not replace the Geneva Bible in the popular favour that the Jacobeans decided on another version which would gain popular favour without the strong protestant viewpoint of the Geneva Bible. We call this Jacobean Bible the KJV. This is the Bishops Bible rendering of Acts 12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.and we are back to EasterSo where is my consipiracy theory. The Geneva Bible was more 'accurate' than Tyndale's although it took over much of the Tyndale translation. The move to 'passover' was sound, so why did they move back to 'Easter'? Because the Bishop's Bible and the KJV which replaced it were both 'status quo' publications; attempts to stabilise the seething unrest in the English church (and I don't mean the Anglican Church as we know it now) One of the ways of creating a 'status quo' bible is stated very clearly in the Rules of Translation under which the KJV revisers were bound to work.Rule 1 of King Jame's translation committee."the ordinary Bible read in Church commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. Rule 1 locked the coming KJV into the family of translations which had culminated in the Bishops Bible. "The Bishops Bible was acknowledged by everyone to be not a good as the Geneva Bible, which the king hated because of its marginal notes, but the Bishops Bible was the 'official' Bible and as such had to be respected." This respect of the 'official' was inherited by the KJV; in fact, if anything, it is 'worse' in the KJV. Rule 3 of the King James translation committee added to the problem"The old ecclesiastical word to be kept viz as the Word 'Church' not be be translated 'Congregation' etc." This is further strengthening of the 'status quo' in Jacobean politics and religion. The KJV was designed to 'strengthen' the ecclesiastical status quo. This is another fascinating 'cold case' to be explored. Wycliff in Acts 20:28 has "Take ye tente to you, and to al the flocke, in which the Hooli Goost hath set you bischops, to reule the chirche of God, which he purchaside with his blood. " Here we have 'ruling bishops' in the 'church'.Tyndale (1525) has"Take hede therfore vnto youre selves and to all the flocke wherof the holy goost hath made you oversears to rule the congregacion of God which he hath purchased with his bloud. " Now we have 'overseers ruling a congregation'.The Geneva Bible has"Take heede therefore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Ouerseers, to feede the Church of God, which hee hath purchased with that his owne blood." Here was have the word 'church' but the 'overseers feed the church' and they are no longer 'over it' or 'ruling it'.Then the Bishops Bible (1568)"Take heede therefore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Ouerseers, to feede the Church of God, which hee hath purchased with that his owne blood." Here too we have 'overseers' who are feeding rather than 'ruling the church of God'[b]and finally the KJV of 1611[b/]"Take heed therefore vnto your selues, & to all the flocke, ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you ouerseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. " Here we have overseers but they are 'over' the church of God.Behind these subtle changes lies decades of political and ecclesiastical manoeverings . Gaining a bit of territory here, losing a bit there. The 'Easter' of Acts 20:4 is almost certainly part of this same struggle. 'Easter' with its connotations of church service and ritual is just a subtle undergirding of the status quo. 'Easter' must be OK; it's in the Bible! I think it is all part of the same 'conspiracy'. :-)
This discussion is locked.
