KJB1611reader
Active Member
So, it should be 'Jewish' Passover?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I am a KJBO Independent Fundamental Dispesationlist Baptist
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I
I.wish.we had more notes from them.
Shawn, you're still beating the dead "Easter" horse for the false KJVO myth. There's simply no escaping the FACT that "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is wrong! Now, it's been said that after the KJV scripts were finished, some prelates got hold of them & added the Easter goof before the KJV was printed from them. But, no matter WHO added it, it's still a goof.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Bishop's had Easter.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I believe so, yes. That is how the Greek word in the original is translated every other time it occurs.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Tydnale had Easterlamb, so passover Lamb. There is no issue.
The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha. Some say the word should only be translated as Passover and not Easter. The King James Bible is not alone in translating this word as Easter. So also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible (The Great Bible) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 edition - all preceding the King James Bible.
The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha. Some say the word should only be translated as Passover and not Easter. The King James Bible is not alone in translating this word as Easter. So also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible (The Great Bible) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 edition - all preceding the King James Bible.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
But there is an issue. Why should the word "pascha" which means "Passover," be translated "Easter?" Just pointing to translation which do use "Easter" does not mean there is no issue. And as for Tyndale having "Easterlamb", even you say that it means "Passover Lamb."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Since its the same? Also, Andrew Lancellote said that in.times of the apostles, there was Easter celebrations.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Why do Greek says Happy Pascha during Easter? Its a word that have two words translatable. Also, Jewish Passover is the obseolte meaning of Easter.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Greeks may say Happy Pascha" to mean "Happy Easter" now, but at the time the New Testament was written, there wasn't a festival called "Easter." "Pascha" in the New Testament means "Passover." Herod would have wanted to wait until after the Jewish feat of Passover before bringing Peter to trial. As Barnes explains in his commentary: "During the solemnities of this religious festival, it would have been deemed improper to have engaged in the trial of a supposed criminal. The minds of the people were expected to be devoted solely to the solemnities of religion; and hence Herod chose to retain him in custody until the Passover had ended."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
There is many sources Easter as a Christian festival happened during the aposltic age.
Anways: a pastor responded to me -
Well, let's look carefully at the verse and the context.
Ezek 45:21 says, "...in the fourteenth day (singular) of the month, ye shall have the passover (singular), a feast of seven days (plural); unleavened bread shall be eaten".
Already you should be asking, "How can the 14th day (singular, the passover) be 7 days (plural)"? It is impossible to have "a feast of seven days" on the 14th day of the month. The 14th day in the verse is THE passover. That's what the verse says.
Verse 22 goes on to say, "... upon THAT DAY shall the prince prepare...". What day would THAT DAY be? The 14th day, the day in which "ye shall have the passover", verse 21.
Verse 23 then says, "And seven days of the FEAST he shall prepare...". These are "a feast of seven days" that you read about in verse 21, which is the feast of unleavened bread.
If you go back to Lev 23:5-8, you see that passover is on the 14th day of the month. And on the 15th day of the month is the feast of unleavened bread, a feast of 7 days, that runs through the 21st day (Ex 12:18). Combined, then, passover and the feast of unleavened bread together total 8 days, one for the passover and seven for the feast of unleavened bread. Ezek 45:21 doesn't say "a feast of eight days" (which would include the one day of passover). It says, "a feast of seven days" (which is the length of the feast of unleavened bread, not including the passover). The eight days together are never called "the passover".
Now, in Acts 12:3 we see this parenthetical (Then were the days [plural] of unleavened bread). This detail lets us know that this episode is not on the 14th day of the first month, but somewhere between the 15th day and the 21st day. The passover, on the 14th day, is already past.
Therefore, to translate "pascha" as "the Passover", like the modern versions do, is an error no matter which verses a person would try to use in the Bible to justify his mistake, including Ezek 45:21 (even taken out of its context).
I hope this helps,
Pastor Welder
Anways: a pastor responded to me -
Well, let's look carefully at the verse and the context.
Ezek 45:21 says, "...in the fourteenth day (singular) of the month, ye shall have the passover (singular), a feast of seven days (plural); unleavened bread shall be eaten".
Already you should be asking, "How can the 14th day (singular, the passover) be 7 days (plural)"? It is impossible to have "a feast of seven days" on the 14th day of the month. The 14th day in the verse is THE passover. That's what the verse says.
Verse 22 goes on to say, "... upon THAT DAY shall the prince prepare...". What day would THAT DAY be? The 14th day, the day in which "ye shall have the passover", verse 21.
Verse 23 then says, "And seven days of the FEAST he shall prepare...". These are "a feast of seven days" that you read about in verse 21, which is the feast of unleavened bread.
If you go back to Lev 23:5-8, you see that passover is on the 14th day of the month. And on the 15th day of the month is the feast of unleavened bread, a feast of 7 days, that runs through the 21st day (Ex 12:18). Combined, then, passover and the feast of unleavened bread together total 8 days, one for the passover and seven for the feast of unleavened bread. Ezek 45:21 doesn't say "a feast of eight days" (which would include the one day of passover). It says, "a feast of seven days" (which is the length of the feast of unleavened bread, not including the passover). The eight days together are never called "the passover".
Now, in Acts 12:3 we see this parenthetical (Then were the days [plural] of unleavened bread). This detail lets us know that this episode is not on the 14th day of the first month, but somewhere between the 15th day and the 21st day. The passover, on the 14th day, is already past.
Therefore, to translate "pascha" as "the Passover", like the modern versions do, is an error no matter which verses a person would try to use in the Bible to justify his mistake, including Ezek 45:21 (even taken out of its context).
I hope this helps,
Pastor Welder
37818
Well-Known Member
Tradition versus translation.
For the sake of argument, let's say Easter DID exist when Luke wrote Acts. Now, why would Herod wait for it to conclude before turning Peter over to the Jews? And why did the Jews not protest Herod's delay? Remember, Herod was under Caesar's orders to PLEASE the Jews, and few things would DISplease them more than Herod's taking time to observe a CHRISTIAN rite. And Herod knew the Jews wouldn't so much as touch Peter's clothes during passover. So again, Shawn, you're beating the dead Easter horse trying to defend the false KJVO myth !
37818
Well-Known Member
Tyndale introduced Easter as a translation for the Jewish observance because of the Christian observance of it as Easter. But when it came to the Hebrew, invented the better translation Passover to use in the OT.
This pastor does not prove his claims and opinions to be true. Luke in Luke 22:1 could in effect be referring to the one day of passover and the feast of unleavened bread together as the Passover.
Ezekiel 45:21 first mentions the one day of Passover on the 14th day, then it refers to a feast of seven days [the feast of unleavened bread] as being a part of the whole Passover period. Referring to the Passover as being a feast of seven days would have to be referring to the feast of unleavened bread, indicating that the term Passover can be used for it or that it can be included as being part of the Passover.