Supposedly "KJV Only" Refuted At This Link

[robycop3]

You may have forgotten but @Logos1560 had shared that it was not one of the KJV translators, but one man, the prelate, that had done 14 alternate changes outside of the KJV translators had done after finishing the work of the KJV; that the prelate had changed what the KJV translators had it as Passover in Acts 12:4 but changed it back to Easter.. So the goof was not on all those KJV translators, but on the prelate, one political religious man. This explains a lot when Passover is in the rest of the N.T.

Right, and THANK YOU for taking the time to dig that up. I'm trying to find out if that prelate was Geroge Abbot, who succeeded Richard Bancroft, who died in 1610.

Plus you keep calling it a goof when Tyndale's Bible had it as Easter in the entire New Testament for that word for Passover in the Old Testament. So in Tyndale's usage, Easter is referring to what he had first translated as Passover in the Old Testament.

Tyndale wasn't happy about that, as he knew Easter & passover are different; thus he coined 'passover'. Before that, he followed then-common English tradition of using Easter for both observances.

Easter is the Passover. Just because believers dropped Easter out of use does not change the fact that Tyndale used it in referring to the Jewish festivity in the N.T. of what he had applied his usage of Passover to mean in the O.T. So regardless of the prelate , it was never a goof in the first place.

Actually, it IS. Apparently, the prelate made it. But, regardless of WHO made it, it's still in the KJV, & is incorrect.

It's the same as uncleanness as a work of the flesh. Believers & churches avoid referring masturbation to it, but just because they dropped the meaning of uncleanness, & hardly address it, it does not change the fact that the modern use of masturbation is referring to, but not limiting the application of uncleanness in the Bible, but masturbation is also uncleanness.

"Unclean" means anything impure, defiled, or non-kosher, as well as something or someone in need of washing.
The only Biblical reference to masturbation is when Onan, Judah's son, "spilled his seed on the ground" rather than impregnate his dead brother's wife.

 

[robycop3]

Just as you are in the thrall of the KJVO myth by dismissing the legitimate claim for why we should only rely on the KJV for the meat of His words. to discern good & evil by it.

Most of those claims are opinon, conjecture, & guesswork.

So your anti-KJV contention is the use of the word "the" instead of the proper " a " & the added "sorts" makes all the difference in the message for by which many believers go astray by as opposed to believing the Holy Spirit can utter groans in making His intercessions when the KJV & few other modern Bibles says not even His groanings can be uttered?

The Holy Spirit is one with The Father & The Son, so of course His groanings are known. And again, we don't know what His "groanings" actually are!

Reads to me the same, brother, since a root of all sorts of evil is not actually deferring from all evil for what the love of money is doing. Neither is referring that there is no other evil, but limiting the all evil & all sorts of evil that can stem from the love of money.

My statement on 1 Tim. 6:10 is based upon PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE GREEK. You may consult any reputable Greek expert you wish.

Then you oppose speaking against modern day tongue speakers that insists tongues can be for private use & that the Holy Spirit can utter prayers out loud, even in groanings, Said tongue gained by believing you can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & Isaiah 8:19 ) to get that sign of tongue ( Matthew 12:39 & 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 ) in defiance of scripture that says otherwise;

You also oppose any correction to the heresy that we are in the process of being saved & thus we are not saved yet because of 1 Corinthians 1:18 in some modern Bibles supports that false teaching.

YO0U'RE ABSOLUTELY WRONG here, Bro! ! I think those who utter gibberish whenever they choose are phony as a $3 bill, and, besides they're pentecostals, which has many pseudo/quasi-Christian branches anyhow. And NNE can "summon" the Holy Spirit when one wishes ! And I have explained the 1 Cor. 1:18 thingie twice now.



Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. KJV

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. NIV

The NIV of Romans 8:26 is lying because of this scripture in the NIV.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. NIV

Can scripture go against scripture? No.[/quote]
WHAT KIND OF SILLINESS IS THIS?????????????????????
The KJV, NKJV, NIV, & NASV all say basically the same things here!!!!!!!!!!

Your claims of long disputed refutation is an exaggeration not offered in evidence, even now. You cannot apply this to mean what you say because Paul included himself in with those that are saved so therefore in regards to your misapplication, he is not being saved every time someone else is being saved.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. KJV

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. NIV

~?~ The evangelists who whom I referred to earlier are already saved, while many who come to hear their preaching are not, but they leave the services saved. And just as the days of the week go by, the audiences change, & many of them are being saved each night. And same with Paul's audiences/readers. Not all were saved it once.

If the Lord cannot show you that you are not rightly dividing the word of truth here, even when reading it plainly, I cannot help you then. I leave you to God since you seem to be more interested in debunking KJVO myths as if lumping relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it with His help when keeping the faith is the good fight is a part of the KJVO myth. That is an oversight on your part that only God can reveal to you.

if you want to believe God can't update translations of His own word as languages change, & more Scriptural mss. are found, you're selling Him short.

And you're forgetting that ALL translations of Scripture are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men; thus a few errors are inevitable.

And God has updated His word in English ever since the days of William The Conqueror when traveling bards sang certain Scriptures in the Old English of the time. What makes you think He quit updating in 1611????????

 

[Hark]

Right, and THANK YOU for taking the time to dig that up. I'm trying to find out if that prelate was Geroge Abbot, who succeeded Richard Bancroft, who died in 1610.

Good luck with that. The internet search engines is not successful in finding that list of supposedly 14 changes in the KJV by whatever prelate that did that if at all but it makes sense to me when passover is in the rest of the N.T. of the KJV

Tyndale wasn't happy about that, as he knew Easter & passover are different; thus he coined 'passover'.

Before that, he followed then-common English tradition of using Easter for both observances.

Source for stating that Tyndale was not happy about that as he knew Easter & Passover were different? I do believe you are stating an assumption. He could not have believed that because he was the first to translate Passover & Easter from pascha. It was left untranslated before him so there is no reason for him to be "not happy".

Actually, it IS. Apparently, the prelate made it. But, regardless of WHO made it, it's still in the KJV, & is incorrect.

Not when Tyndale had made the translation in the first place so that Easter in the N.T. is the same as Passover. as in the O.T.

"Unclean" means anything impure, defiled, or non-kosher, as well as something or someone in need of washing.
The only Biblical reference to masturbation is when Onan, Judah's son, "spilled his seed on the ground" rather than impregnate his dead brother's wife.

Do you see masturbation as uncleanness in these verses below, even by the first one just by description?

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. KJV

Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. KJV

2 Corinthians 12:21And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. KJV

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,...KJV

Ephesians 4:19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. KJV

Ephesians 5:3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; KJV

There are more but the uncleanness being in relations to fornication & lasciviousness which is sexual excessiveness cannot be missed for how masturbation has to be identified with what is considered uncleanness. FYI

 

[rlvaughn]

Why? Because many of the "explanations" are OPINIONS, not FACTS.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions. That Easter in Acts 12:4 is a goof is your opinion. The following are facts.

• When William Tyndale translated the New Testament, he chose ester to translate pascha.
• Ester (or the variant spelling Easter) continued to be used in English Bibles in translation and/or marginal notes at least up until 1611.
• As time progressed, the use of Easter/Easter for pascha dwindled and eventually fell out of common use.

...which was called "pascha" when Luke wrote 'Acts'.

...which can still be called pascha if you are speaking or writing in Greek. Yet which you probably call it "Passover" rather than pascha because it is the current common English word and you speak English. Are you making a "goof" when you call it Passover instead of pascha? According to your own logic, yes, but I don't think you understand that. If Luther were translating a Bible he "might" call pascha Ostern and modern Germans might now call it something else. English and German have an affinity that most more Latin based languages (French, Spanish, etc.) do not.

 

[robycop3]

Good luck with that. The internet search engines is not successful in finding that list of supposedly 14 changes in the KJV by whatever prelate that did that if at all but it makes sense to me when passover is in the rest of the N.T. of the KJV

I believe Logos found them somewhere.

Source for stating that Tyndale was not happy about that as he knew Easter & Passover were different? I do believe you are stating an assumption. He could not have believed that because he was the first to translate Passover & Easter from pascha. It was left untranslated before him so there is no reason for him to be "not happy".

Why do you believe Tyndale coined passover if he didn't know they were different? And he knew Easter didn't exist then.

Not when Tyndale had made the translation in the first place so that Easter in the N.T. is the same as Passover. as in the O.T.

Now, you know better than that. Even in the 16th C. Easter was one of the 2 holiest days in Catholicism, along with Christmas. The RCs didn't observe passover at all.

Do you see masturbation as uncleanness in these verses below, even by the first one just by description?

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. KJV

Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. KJV

2 Corinthians 12:21And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. KJV

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,...KJV

Ephesians 4:19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. KJV

Ephesians 5:3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; KJV

There are more but the uncleanness being in relations to fornication & lasciviousness which is sexual excessiveness cannot be missed for how masturbation has to be identified with what is considered uncleanness. FYI

The Greek word, rendered "uncleanness" most-often is "akatharsia", which means 'physically or morally unclean. Masturbation isn't mentioned at all.

Now,Sir, care to move on to the Rev. 16:5 thingie I mentioned several posts back?

 

[Hark]

I believe Logos found them somewhere.

You recollect wrong. He says he can only find a few changes supposedly mentioned per his sources but not all of them.

Why do you believe Tyndale coined passover if he didn't know they were different? And he knew Easter didn't exist then.

And yet Tyndale coined Easter for the rest of the N.T.& not just Acts 12:4 in referring to what he coined as Passover for the first time in the O.T. of Tyndale's bible?

Now, you know better than that. Even in the 16th C. Easter was one of the 2 holiest days in Catholicism, along with Christmas. The RCs didn't observe passover at all.

Problem here is that pascha was never coined as Passover until Tyndale's Bible. So you have to know Tyndale applied Easter in the N.T. to the Jewish festivity in the O.T. as the Passover.

Take a look at Luke 22nd chapter in Tyndale's bible online at this link where he had applied ester or Easter to pascha then.;

Luke 22 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools

The Greek word, rendered "uncleanness" most-often is "akatharsia", which means 'physically or morally unclean. Masturbation isn't mentioned at all.

It does not need to be mentioned at all just like trinity is not mentioned at all. The modern day word of masturbation is related to uncleanness.

Now,Sir, care to move on to the Rev. 16:5 thingie I mentioned several posts back?

Look it up yourself because I do not see anything wrong with that translation.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

If you scroll down on the left column to Revelation & click on # 16 in blue, it will bring up that page. Then scroll down to verse 5 and look for a string of broken up small Greek words that seem to be all joined in together in being defined by Strong's Concordance as saying "ho own kahee ho ane kahee ho er-khom'-en-os a phrase combining o - ho 3588 with the present participle and imperfect of eimi - eimi 1510 and the present participle of ercomai - erchomai 2064 by means of kai - kai 2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming, i.e. the Eternal, as a divine epithet of Christ:--which art (is, was), and (which) wast (is, was), and art (is) to come (shalt be)."

I think you are carrying the torch of antiKJVonlyists that protested way too much & yet for all those contentions, one antiKJVOnlyist said that no message was changed.

I do not see the change but I have to wonder if your prejudices against KJVOnlyism are seeing a change where there is none.

 

[robycop3]

You recollect wrong. He says he can only find a few changes supposedly mentioned per his sources but not all of them.



And yet Tyndale coined Easter for the rest of the N.T.& not just Acts 12:4 in referring to what he coined as Passover for the first time in the O.T. of Tyndale's bible?



Problem here is that pascha was never coined as Passover until Tyndale's Bible. So you have to know Tyndale applied Easter in the N.T. to the Jewish festivity in the O.T. as the Passover.

Take a look at Luke 22nd chapter in Tyndale's bible online at this link where he had applied ester or Easter to pascha then.;

Luke 22 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools



It does not need to be mentioned at all just like trinity is not mentioned at all. The modern day word of masturbation is related to uncleanness.



Look it up yourself because I do not see anything wrong with that translation.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

If you scroll down on the left column to Revelation & click on # 16 in blue, it will bring up that page. Then scroll down to verse 5 and look for a string of broken up small Greek words that seem to be all joined in together in being defined by Strong's Concordance as saying "ho own kahee ho ane kahee ho er-khom'-en-os a phrase combining o - ho 3588 with the present participle and imperfect of eimi - eimi 1510 and the present participle of ercomai - erchomai 2064 by means of kai - kai 2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming, i.e. the Eternal, as a divine epithet of Christ:--which art (is, was), and (which) wast (is, was), and art (is) to come (shalt be)."

I think you are carrying the torch of antiKJVonlyists that protested way too much & yet for all those contentions, one antiKJVOnlyist said that no message was changed.

I do not see the change but I have to wonder if your prejudices against KJVOnlyism are seeing a change where there is none.

Sir, you've made a noble attempt to defend the KJV's "Easter" goof, but that attempt is nullified by the simple fact I pointed out early in this thread-that in Luke's time, pascha meant nothing but passover, & that's what Luke was writing about. (Acts 12:3 makes that clear.) So, it doesn't matter what other meanings pascha might've acquired over time; what matters is what it meant to LUKE. And it plainly meant what we call PASSOVER in English. (Jesus is recorded as using pascha for passover, unless you believe He observed Easter! {LOL})

 

[Hark]

Sir, you've made a noble attempt to defend the KJV's "Easter" goof, but that attempt is nullified by the simple fact I pointed out early in this thread-that in Luke's time, pascha meant nothing but passover, & that's what Luke was writing about. (Acts 12:3 makes that clear.) So, it doesn't matter what other meanings pascha might've acquired over time; what matters is what it meant to LUKE. And it plainly meant what we call PASSOVER in English. (Jesus is recorded as using pascha for passover, unless you believe He observed Easter! {LOL})

In Luke's time, pascha was pascha. It was never known as the Passover until Tyndale translated it as that word in the O.T. of Tyndale's Bible just as he translated pascha as ester in the N.T. of Tyndale's Bible. So Easter & Passover in according to Tyndale is the same thing & not how you understand Easter to mean due to world's adaptation of the word to only mean today..

 

[robycop3]

In Luke's time, pascha was pascha. It was never known as the Passover until Tyndale translated it as that word in the O.T. of Tyndale's Bible just as he translated pascha as ester in the N.T. of Tyndale's Bible.

OF COURSE pascha was pascha. It was the Greek word for the observance of the anniversary of God's destroyer "passing over" the dwellings of the Israelis during the 10th plague. God ordered it to be observed by Israel FOR EVER. In English, it's called passover.

Unlike pascha, Easter is NOT ordained by God. Men began observing it on their own, until it developed into the observance called Easter in English. The associated observances are also all man-made, such as Lent, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, etc. NOT ONE IS ORDAINED by GOD. And if anyone observed Jesus' resurrection in those days, it would NOT have been Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please. Thus, Luke was writing about PASSOVER & PASSOVER ONLY in his account of Peter's arrest by Herod. Thus, Easter in Acts 12:4 remains a GOOF.

So Easter & Passover in according to Tyndale is the same thing & not how you understand Easter to mean due to world's adaptation of the word to only mean today..

Awww, C'MON, NOW! Tyndale knew they were different, & Easter occurred within passover, after passover had been around over 1700 years. And the OBSERVANCE of Easter in entirely man-made. What's important is that it DID OCCUR.

Tyndale would've had no reason to have coined passover had he not known it wasn't Easter. And, he had no ancient Greek word for Easter, as it didn't exist til long after the facts of Acts 12. It remains a GOOF in the KJV, one of many.

I won't criticize you nor anyone else for usintg mthe KJV, but I'll certainly criticize one for believing & supporting the false, man-made, Satan-spawned KJVO myth.

 

[Hark]

OF COURSE pascha was pascha. It was the Greek word for the observance of the anniversary of God's destroyer "passing over" the dwellings of the Israelis during the 10th plague. God ordered it to be observed by Israel FOR EVER. In English, it's called passover.

Unlike pascha, Easter is NOT ordained by God. Men began observing it on their own, until it developed into the observance called Easter in English. The associated observances are also all man-made, such as Lent, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, etc. NOT ONE IS ORDAINED by GOD. And if anyone observed Jesus' resurrection in those days, it would NOT have been Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please. Thus, Luke was writing about PASSOVER & PASSOVER ONLY in his account of Peter's arrest by Herod. Thus, Easter in Acts 12:4 remains a GOOF

I believe you are confusing the world's adaption of the word Easter with Tyndale's use of it to refer to pascha in the N.T..

Awww, C'MON, NOW! Tyndale knew they were different, & Easter occurred within passover, after passover had been around over 1700 years. And the OBSERVANCE of Easter in entirely man-made. What's important is that it DID OCCUR.

Tyndale would've had no reason to have coined passover had he not known it wasn't Easter. And, he had no ancient Greek word for Easter, as it didn't exist til long after the facts of Acts 12. It remains a GOOF in the KJV, one of many.

I won't criticize you nor anyone else for usintg mthe KJV, but I'll certainly criticize one for believing & supporting the false, man-made, Satan-spawned KJVO myth.

Please pay attention, because in Tyndale's Bible, Acts 12:4 is not the only place Easter was used but thru out the N.T. also in regards to pascha in the N.T. There is no mention of Passover in the N.T. in Tyndale's bible but Easter was.. Tyndale coined Passover in the O.T. in Tyndale's Bible in the same way he coined Easter for pascha in the N.T.

Therefore Tyndale applied Passover in the O.T. & Easter in the N.T. to refer to & to mean pascha. It does not matter how the world adapt what Easter is to mean for them as if Easter can only mean what they say it means, Tyndale used Easter to mean Passover in the N.T.

 

[robycop3]

I believe you are confusing the world's adaption of the word Easter with Tyndale's use of it to refer to pascha in the N.T..
The main thing is what it means NOW. While the KJV makers copied some of Tyndale's work, "passover" was in general use for that observance when the AV was made, & that's why they used it 28 out of 29 times in the AV. But they blew it in Acts 12:4. There's simple NO reason to have used Easter that one time. Had they CONSISTENTLY used it, they could be excused.

Please pay attention, because in Tyndale's Bible, Acts 12:4 is not the only place Easter was used but thru out the N.T. also in regards to pascha in the N.T. There is no mention of Passover in the N.T. in Tyndale's bible but Easter was.. Tyndale coined Passover in the O.T. in Tyndale's Bible in the same way he coined Easter for pascha in the N.T.

Therefore Tyndale applied Passover in the O.T. & Easter in the N.T. to refer to & to mean pascha. It does not matter how the world adapt what Easter is to mean for them as if Easter can only mean what they say it means, Tyndale used Easter to mean Passover in the N.T.

But the AV men simply blew it that one time. They were making a NEW version, not simply reproducing Tyndale's. You can keep inventing excuses, but you're not gonna get past that big ole bear of a fact that the AV makers goofed.

You're not gonna convince anyone who STUDIES those facts that it's anything but a goof. And that's only ONE of MANY KJV goofs.

 

[Hark]

The AV men did not blew it when Tyndale's "pascha" Easter in the N.T. has always meant the pascha Passover in the O.T.

And supposedly it was the prelate that did the change which I kind of have to believe considering all the checks & balances among the 8 groups of over 50 AV men that did the actual translations.

As in regardless of what the prelate had done & NOT the AV men, it didn't matter because Tyndale's use of Easter in the N.T. meant Passover in the O.T. They had to have Tyndale's bible back then for a resource just as we do now online for why there was not a revolt by the AV men.

But I can see how because of the growing worldly compromises of the RCC with Romans' society, the pagan's Easter became less known for what Tyndale had originally coined for the Bible to use as a reference to pascha.

 

[robycop3]

The AV men did not blew it when Tyndale's "pascha" Easter in the N.T. has always meant the pascha Passover in the O.T.

ACTUALLY, Easter was used interchangeably with pask, but finally Tyndale, knowing pask or pascha isn't Easter, coined 'passover'. This was C. 1534. Tyndale was murdered in 1536 before he could spread the use of passover to separate it from Easter. Thus, the process took longer, in secular writings as well as several BVs between Tyndale's & the AV. SINCE THE OBSERVANCES ARE DIFFERENT & THE AV MEN KNEW IT, SOMEBODY BLEW IT, be it the AV makers or some prelate(s).

And supposedly it was the prelate that did the change which I kind of have to believe considering all the checks & balances among the 8 groups of over 50 AV men that did the actual translations.

Why not? They were as human as we are.

As in regardless of what the prelate had done & NOT the AV men, it didn't matter because Tyndale's use of Easter in the N.T. meant Passover in the O.T. They had to have Tyndale's bible back then for a resource just as we do now online for why there was not a revolt by the AV men.

But AV men or prelates, the goof is still there.

But I can see how because of the growing worldly compromises of the RCC with Romans' society, the pagan's Easter became less known for what Tyndale had originally coined for the Bible to use as a reference to pascha.

But the God-created/ordained passover(p'sach, pascha) was, & is, still a different observance from the man-made Easter.

 

[Hark]

ACTUALLY, Easter was used interchangeably with pask, but finally Tyndale, knowing pask or pascha isn't Easter, coined 'passover'. This was C. 1534.

Tyndale was murdered in 1536 before he could spread the use of passover to separate it from Easter.

Okay everybody. One new information has cropped up that Tyndale was not the one that coined Easter first for the N.T. .

Why the Word “Easter”?.

Since it has a copyright, you will have to go to the web page to read about it .

Is it legit? Tyndale did not coin the word Easter at all but left it untranslated in the N.T. even though he coined the word Passover for the O.T. ? There is no source listed at this site. This could be misinformation. Bible says to have 2 or 3 witnesses to confirm the word so..

Is Easter In The Scriptures? Translation Error!.

Another source seemingly corroborating the first one but also not citing a source.

Still cannot find evidence that Easter was before Tyndale's Bible. Found something on the internet while writing this post as evidenced that Tyndale was the one that coined Easter & it did not exists before him in any Bible, giving sources.

Easter and Reformation Era Bibles-

This KJV site seemed to be discrediting giving Tyndale the credit of coining Passover even though the pascha or pesach was left untranslated. Not sure why they were making a big deal about that though when Easter or ester is coined from pascha. in N.T. In any event, Tyndale did create the word Easter since it was not found in Wycliffe's Bible so the charge that he left it untranslated by those 2 links, yet listing no sources, are false.

But the God-created/ordained passover(p'sach, pascha) was, & is, still a different observance from the man-made Easter.

Your problem is that Tyndale is a man & he made pecach to mean Passover and not God. So having a conniption about Easter when it was used all this time to mean pascha in the N.T. the same as pecach in the O.T. by Tyndale ought to be to you by now, unfounded.

 

[robycop3]

Okay everybody. One new information has cropped up that Tyndale was not the one that coined Easter first for the N.T. .

Why the Word “Easter”?.

Since it has a copyright, you will have to go to the web page to read about it .

Is it legit? Tyndale did not coin the word Easter at all but left it untranslated in the N.T. even though he coined the word Passover for the O.T. ? There is no source listed at this site. This could be misinformation. Bible says to have 2 or 3 witnesses to confirm the word so..

Is Easter In The Scriptures? Translation Error!.

Another source seemingly corroborating the first one but also not citing a source.

Still cannot find evidence that Easter was before Tyndale's Bible. Found something on the internet while writing this post as evidenced that Tyndale was the one that coined Easter & it did not exists before him in any Bible, giving sources.

Easter and Reformation Era Bibles-

This KJV site seemed to be discrediting giving Tyndale the credit of coining Passover even though the pascha or pesach was left untranslated. Not sure why they were making a big deal about that though when Easter or ester is coined from pascha. in N.T. In any event, Tyndale did create the word Easter since it was not found in Wycliffe's Bible so the charge that he left it untranslated by those 2 links, yet listing no sources, are false.



Your problem is that Tyndale is a man & he made pecach to mean Passover and not God. So having a conniption about Easter when it was used all this time to mean pascha in the N.T. the same as pecach in the O.T. by Tyndale ought to be to you by now, unfounded.

You're overlooking the fact that GOD used the word p'sach when creating the occasion. That word was already in Hebrew, meaning a special sacrifice. But after God created passover, p'sach was seldom used for anything else, a rabbi told me.

Something else you sometimes deliberately skirt in your attempted defense of the KJV's "Easter" goof: the observance is the same, called p'sach in Hebrew, pascha in Greek, & passover in English, & the 1st eve is called Seder by today's Jews. (Term they started using C. 1864-5)

The term "Easter" has existed in various forms since at least the 8th century. Its association with passover is because Jesus was resurrected on the 4th day of passover.

Some of why the RC made Easter occur on Sunday was to separate it from the Israeli observance, as well as to keep it on the regular day of worship. The ACTUAL anniversary of the Resurrection doesn't fall on Sunday too often.

But you still try to dance around the FACT that Luke used pascha in reference to what we call passover, & nothing else, so using Easter in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a GOOF, no matter how it got there.

 

[rlvaughn]

...Luke used pascha...

Actually, when you get right down to it, Luke used πάσχα. Perhaps you should write your future debates about this in Greek.

One new information has cropped up that Tyndale was not the one that coined Easter first for the N.T...Still cannot find evidence that Easter was before Tyndale's Bible. Found something on the internet while writing this post as evidenced that Tyndale was the one that coined Easter & it did not exist before him in any Bible, giving sources... In any event, Tyndale did create the word Easter since it was not found in Wycliffe's Bible so the charge that he left it untranslated by those 2 links, yet listing no sources, are false.

I have never heard that an English Bible used "ester" before Tyndale. Parts of the Bible were translated in England before Wycliffe, but I don't know anything about them.

I think it is incorrect to say the word was created by Tyndale, if even he were the first to use it in an English Bible. Also, the very similar word Ostern in German (which language shares much with English) was used a few years earlier by Martin Luther in his New Testament. (He even used it at least once in his Old Testament.)

 

[Hark]

You're overlooking the fact that GOD used the word p'sach when creating the occasion. That word was already in Hebrew, meaning a special sacrifice. But after God created passover, p'sach was seldom used for anything else, a rabbi told me.

A rabbi told you. Yet we have confirmation that Tyndale was the first one to translate Passover in the O.T. as he had done with translating Easter to mean the same thing in the N.T.

Something else you sometimes deliberately skirt in your attempted defense of the KJV's "Easter" goof: the observance is the same, called p'sach in Hebrew, pascha in Greek, & passover in English, & the 1st eve is called Seder by today's Jews. (Term they started using C. 1864-5)

With His help, I am discerning every charge of error against the KJV & it is that charge that keeps changing every time I address it so just because you guys used pascha sometime for the O.T., I knew what you meant even if it is the Greek word & not the Hebrew word, but that proves my point as I understood Easter to mean Passover too as pasach to pecach or your "p'sach"

The term "Easter" has existed in various forms since at least the 8th century. Its association with passover is because Jesus was resurrected on the 4th day of passover.

The reason why Tyndale coined Easter to pasach in the N.T. is unknown when he bothered to translate Passover for the first time in the O.T. Unless you have a source directly from Tyndale, it can only be an educated guess, but still an assumption. What is not an assumption is that Tyndale was meaning to have Easter in the N.T. the same thing as the Passover in the O.T.

Some of why the RC made Easter occur on Sunday was to separate it from the Israeli observance, as well as to keep it on the regular day of worship. The ACTUAL anniversary of the Resurrection doesn't fall on Sunday too often.

Although I can agree about when Passover falls on and it is not always on Sunday, it would be nice if you cite a source about the RC for why they made it always Sunday to separate it from the Jewish festivities that we know also as Passover.

But you still try to dance around the FACT that Luke used pascha in reference to what we call passover, & nothing else, so using Easter in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a GOOF, no matter how it got there.

Luke used pascha so it was not always known as Passover as we do now in scripture. It was just pascha. If Tyndale had done what Wycliffe had done and just left those two terms alone, we'd be calling the Hebrew pechach or p'sach & the Greek pasach in referring to the same Jewish festivities.

Did you know the first month of the year is the month of Spring to the Jews? They also call that month the month of the Passover.

Deuteronomy 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, 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. KJV

Scripture confirms this to be true. So regardless of what the RC did later on in history, I can see why the Jews would see the month of the Passover as also the month of spring as in Easter. It is not a mystery to me NOW why Easter & Passover is the same to Tyndale. To the Jews, it is translated as Passover and to the Greek, it is Easter, the first day of the month of spring & the Passover as known to the Gentiles & Jews.

Tyndale was the first to translate pasach in English as Easter ( ester ) in the N.T. as he did pecach or p'sach in English as Passover in the O.T., so you are the one dancing here. Tyndale even clarified the meaning of what Passover does not by assigning esterlambe when it refers to the sacrifice given at Passover.

Luke 22:7 Then came ye daye of swete breed when of necessite the esterlambe must be offered. Tyndale's Bible

Whereas Passover can have multiple uses for why I would resist @Van " if " he chooses in making a big deal out of that one to say that Passover should be removed from the scripture because it can cause confusion. Everything has to be defined by how it is used in the verse in the context of the message.

Maybe the KJV men did had Easter as Passover in Acts 12:4, but since it was Easter by Tyndale's usage, there is no goof, regardless of the charge of a prelate being responsible for changing it back to Easter. Easter is the Passover in scripture just as pasach in the N.T. is to pecach or p'sach in the O.T.

Just because scholars wanted to separate the pagan Easter from the Jewish Passover over time, & the RC wanted to separate what they deem as celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; hence Spring month of Easter from the Jewish Passover, as the first day of the week is Sunday as the Lord's day for when He had risen, is not just cause to say Easter is not the Passover when the month of Spring aka Easter is also the month of the Passover.

So we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hark]

I have never heard that an English Bible used "ester" before Tyndale. Parts of the Bible were translated in England before Wycliffe, but I don't know anything about them.

In that post you had replied to.. the third link confirmed the claim that ester was not before Tyndale Reposted the link below;

Easter and Reformation Era Bibles-

I think it is incorrect to say the word was created by Tyndale, if even he were the first to use it in an English Bible.

We;; that link I provided above seems to have that KJV site to discredit Tyndale as coining the word Passover even though they credit him as coining Easter.

Also, the very similar word Ostern in German (which language shares much with English) was used a few years earlier by Martin Luther in his New Testament. (He even used it at least once in his Old Testament.)

Lukas 22 - LUT Bible - Bible Study Tools

Confirmed at this site. Interesting. Edited Martin Luthor Bible of 1912 threw me off when Martin Luthor lived in Tyndale's times.

Obviously, certain terms were used to represent the Jewish festivity of the Passover Month or the Month of Spring in both Old & New Testament when it comes to translation. I do think those who protest against Easter in the KJV are doing it way too much.

 

[robycop3]

A rabbi told you. Yet we have confirmation that Tyndale was the first one to translate Passover in the O.T. as he had done with translating Easter to mean the same thing in the N.T.



With His help, I am discerning every charge of error against the KJV & it is that charge that keeps changing every time I address it so just because you guys used pascha sometime for the O.T., I knew what you meant even if it is the Greek word & not the Hebrew word, but that proves my point as I understood Easter to mean Passover too as pasach to pecach or your "p'sach"



The reason why Tyndale coined Easter to pasach in the N.T. is unknown when he bothered to translate Passover for the first time in the O.T. Unless you have a source directly from Tyndale, it can only be an educated guess, but still an assumption. What is not an assumption is that Tyndale was meaning to have Easter in the N.T. the same thing as the Passover in the O.T.



Although I can agree about when Passover falls on and it is not always on Sunday, it would be nice if you cite a source about the RC for why they made it always Sunday to separate it from the Jewish festivities that we know also as Passover.



Luke used pascha so it was not always known as Passover as we do now in scripture. It was just pascha. If Tyndale had done what Wycliffe had done and just left those two terms alone, we'd be calling the Hebrew pechach or p'sach & the Greek pasach in referring to the same Jewish festivities.

Did you know the first month of the year is the month of Spring to the Jews? They also call that month the month of the Passover.

Deuteronomy 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, 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. KJV

Scripture confirms this to be true. So regardless of what the RC did later on in history, I can see why the Jews would see the month of the Passover as also the month of spring as in Easter. It is not a mystery to me NOW why Easter & Passover is the same to Tyndale. To the Jews, it is translated as Passover and to the Greek, it is Easter, the first day of the month of spring & the Passover as known to the Gentiles & Jews.

Tyndale was the first to translate pasach in English as Easter ( ester ) in the N.T. as he did pecach or p'sach in English as Passover in the O.T., so you are the one dancing here. Tyndale even clarified the meaning of what Passover does not by assigning esterlambe when it refers to the sacrifice given at Passover.

Luke 22:7 Then came ye daye of swete breed when of necessite the esterlambe must be offered. Tyndale's Bible

Whereas Passover can have multiple uses for why I would resist @Van " if " he chooses in making a big deal out of that one to say that Passover should be removed from the scripture because it can cause confusion. Everything has to be defined by how it is used in the verse in the context of the message.

Maybe the KJV men did had Easter as Passover in Acts 12:4, but since it was Easter by Tyndale's usage, there is no goof, regardless of the charge of a prelate being responsible for changing it back to Easter. Easter is the Passover in scripture just as pasach in the N.T. is to pecach or p'sach in the O.T.

Just because scholars wanted to separate the pagan Easter from the Jewish Passover over time, & the RC wanted to separate what they deem as celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; hence Spring month of Easter from the Jewish Passover, as the first day of the week is Sunday as the Lord's day for when He had risen, is not just cause to say Easter is not the Passover when the month of Spring aka Easter is also the month of the Passover.

So we will have to agree to disagree.

Sir, you may twist-n-shout all you like in trying to defend the KJV's "Easter" goof, but the SIMPLE TRUTH is, Easter & passover are different observances. And, for the umpteenth time, Luke was referring only to passover, as Easter didn't exist then. The translation is supposed to reflect LUKE'S written thoughts, not those of the translator. You simply CANNOT actually defend the KJV's goof successfully. But I'll credit you for putting up one of the best fights I've seen in some 40 years of working against the KJVO myth. But it's still a loser.

 

[robycop3]

Now, Hark, care to try to defend the KJV's Rev. 16:5 word addition?