I see that someone else is reading this blog. ;)

(Also, were I Yoda, I would complete my title by saying "Away put your weapon! I mean you no harm!")

Anyhow, to said someone, I might remark that for someone who chastised me for "drive by insults" for pointing out that the Jerusalem tomb is sometimes used by non-Christians to attack the divinity of Jesus, it is rather hypocritical to preface an argument with the statement that it is primarily Wiccans and other pagans who argue against the translation of "witch" that iowastate details above.

I should also note two other things: a) whether it says witch or poisoner, modern Christianity is beyond the point where it will not suffer a sinner to live. Or so I would hope. But also, b) I prefer to use the RSV translation, as it is accepted as one of the more scholarly and academically-reliable translations available, and the RSV renders the contested word as "sorceress".

Make of that, O Reader, what you will.

A couple of other notes. The other poster in question made the following remarks:

Don't be deceived, the KJV Bible is the inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God.

As to whether the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God, I make no particular contest -- the Bible in general is the inspired Word of God. But as to the supposed inerrancy of the KJV in particular, I should point out that even proponents of the KJV and the Masoretic Text acknowledge that there are many translation errors in that particular Bible version.

My personal favourite error is in Acts 12:4, when the word for "Passover" was mis-translated as "Easter".

The above-mentioned someone goes on to say:

All modern Bible versions are corrupted versions that undermine the preserved Word of God. When you a find a Church that sticks with the KJV, you will find a Church that is seeking the truth.

What I find rather interesting is that most KJV-only proponents utterly reject the idea of infallibility -- at least as it applies to the Catholic Pope. But note that the above statement essentially suggests that the KJV Bible, and by extension its original translators (and perhaps even King James himself) were infallible, that it was impossible for them to be in error.

That's a rather curious shifting of frame, isn't it? Why is it that a dead English king and his appointed team of scholars should be considered infallible, and then most often by American Christians, while said same Christians at the same time deny any possibility that the Spirit might occasionally stoop so low as to allow the Vicar of Christ to speak without error?

Update: Still being watched, I see.

What's hilarious about the watcher is how I can link to the website of a KJV proponent who nevertheless points out not one but several dozen errors in the text of the KJV, and yet the only point the watcher can think to respond to is the phrase I note as being my favourite example of error. Would that he had perhaps clicked through to the provided link and observed that Acts 12:4 was but one of, again, dozens of examples of textual errors within the KJV.

The watcher remarks thusly:

This is further evidence of when one spends their time trying to "find errors" in the preserved Word of God and leans on their own finite understanding, rather that trusting in faith in what His revealed Word says, they will pile error upon error.

The good Reader should note that I'm not trying to find errors in God's Word -- rather, I am trying to find errors in one English-language translation of said Word, in much the same way as the watcher has doubtless, in the past, devoted considerable time and effort to finding errors in other English-language translations. This is basically, then, a straw-man argument; as I stated, I have no particular quarrel with God's Word, and in fact rather love it.

Where my quarrel lies is in the assertion that the KJV is the only legitimate English-language translation, and the implications of that statement -- essentially, it suggests that the good King himself, and his translators and scholars, are infallible, which (given the tendency of e.g. the watcher to denounce the Catholic concept of infallibility in harsh terms) is a rather hypocritical stance indeed!

The watcher questions my faith in God's Word; to this, I can only respond with a remark about motes and logs, and would politely suggest to the watcher that he hasn't the first clue as to exactly how much trust I place in God's Word. My criticism of the KJV has nothing at all to do with my doubts in the veracity of the Word of God; it has everything to do with my doubts concerning a dead English king and various scholars in his employ.

The watcher goes on to state:

Textual criticism is based on man's finite thinking and I believe is tool that Satan uses to attack the truth of God's Word. Rather than trust in man and his finite mind, we should trust in the Lord.

This is mostly true (although note how the watcher confidently asserts that those who disagree with him are, almost by definition, dupes of Satan's), although to it I might point out that God gifted unto humanity a funcitonal brain with an (albeit under-utilized) capacity for reason and intellectual inquiry. It is both an affront to our creator, and a diminishment of our nature, if we do not at least occasionally exercise said capacity.

I do not trust my mind above and beyond the trust I place in the Lord, but I do trust that He gave me a mind with the intent that I use it occasionally, and I am willing to believe that that aspect of His creation, like all of His creation, is "very good" -- basically, God made me to think, and in service to God I desire to think.

Not everyone shares this stance, of course.

At any rate, the watcher then launches into a lengthy citation from...someone (it doesn't really matter who) offering their exegesis of the passage in question, in light of the history of the languages used in the writing of the books of the Bible, and in light of historical events. I observe, in passing, that the watcher himself rarely if ever engages in exegesis of his own, preferring to rely on the work of others. And while I do confess a measure of disappointment in his choice in this regard, since it means that any exchange of ideas is between me and those he cites rather than between myself and him directly, I can also appreciate (somewhat) a mentality that doesn't want to re-invent the wheel.

At any rate, the watcher's source remarks thusly:

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!

This is not an entirely correct understanding of the foundation of the Passover, for (as is noted in the cited article) Exodus 12:15 notes that even on the first day (e.g. the actual day of Passover) shall leaven be put out of the homes of the faithful of Israel. This can be confirmed by stepping back a few verses in the Book of Exodus:

[5] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
[6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
[7] Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
[8] They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.

So later, when the watcher's source remarks that 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," we see that he has missed this earlier verse, and so has missed that even on the actual night of Passover, unleavened bread is eaten, as it must be for the following days as well.

The watcher's source, after some more textual analysis (note: interestingly, the watcher has already condemned textual criticism as flawed -- why he is now citing an argument that depends heavily on textual criticism is thus something of a hypocrisy! Or is the quoted source likewise doing Satan's work?) concludes thusly:

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.

This is what happens when one's desire to be hyper-literal in one's textual criticism falls on the twin swords of poetry and metaphor; it would certainly come as news to anyone who is a practitioner of the faith called Judaism that only the first day of the festival is the one called "passover" -- in Judaism, the Passover is the name that can also be used interchangably with the more formal name for the same time period, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Which doesn't really come as a surprise, given that the commandment to eat unleavened bread takes effect on the date marking the actual "passing over" -- unleavened bread is an important component of the Seder Meal.

The textual criticism and exegesis of the watcher's source falls apart at that point. For when it says in Acts 12 that:

[3] ...when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.
[4] And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people.

...it must be understood that the Passover festival is here being referred to by both of its accepted names, according to how the Jews themselves would have made reference to it.