Acts 12:4 should say "Easter" and here's why:

So you are saying that we should judge Scripture by the practices of a false church??? Surely you have not stooped to that level have you????

 

I would like to hear JYD rebuttle for this.

 

not that this proves anything, but among orthodox jews today the night (actually 2 nights, long story) of the seder begins the week long festival that everyone just commonly and collectively calls pesach (passover).

was this the case in the first century? i have no idea.

like i said before, the term "easter", at the time of the translation of the kjv could signify either the christian OR jewish celebrations, so the translation is not in error in any case.

 

Read my post again. Then physically take your Bible off the shelf, open it up, turn to Luke 22:1 and read:

Luke 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."

There, now you've heard of the entire 8 days being referred to as passover, from Luke himself.

Is Luke in error, or are you?

 

Yes, technically this is true for the time it was translated. However, today, "Easter" and "Passover" are considered different things. The error lies in the KJV-O defense of "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and in saying "Passover" is wrong.

 

well, now i know

 

This is simply not true. The texts are NOT completely different. In fact, they are just about identical, and in Acts 12:4 exactly the same.

Because they are human. We all make mistakes.

Andy

 

Another point along this line to consider: Today, the main KJV-O argument against "passover" in Acts 12:4 is because "Herod was a pagan" and would have observed Easter, but not Passover - the point being Passover = good, Easter = evil. Even in this thread, Alexandra even linked to a site that makes this argument. However, anyone who has seen a 1611 reprint can see for themselves that the KJV translators themselves *honored and observed* Easter, putting it in their Calendar in the front, and including tables for calculating the date of Easter for any given year. If the passage must say "Easter" because Herod was a pagan, what does that say of the very men who gave us the KJV in the first place?

 

It tells me that the translators of the KJB were HONEST men that knew a EDOMITE (Herod) does not recognize Jewish Passover,but Easter instead.Really folks,study the history of the New Testament Church before you post,and save yourselves the embarrassment.The KJB is correct.

 

It tells me that the translators of the KJB</font>[/QUOTE] Are they translators or writers of scripture? Only Holy Spirit inspired writers are qualified to change a meaning from what it had always been before.

Who honestly thought Baptists were criminal heretics and therefore honestly persecuted them. Honestly, I cannot understand why you aren't Anglican or at least a legitimate offshoot like the Methodists.

Really MVN, you should recognize that fallible accounts of church history should never be used to 'correct' the uniform testimony for what God's Holy Word said.

The only way the KJV is correct is if the Anglican translators were inspired to rewrite scripture. In that case, you should very seriously study and probably adopt their doctrines since there is no evidence that God ever used someone who was doctrinally unsound to write scripture.

 

Just a friendly suggestion. If you want to be taken seriously and be engaged then you should make your own points rather than relying on the unbiblical opinions of others.

Many of us have read all or part of the links you give. Our disagreement by and large is not because we haven't heard the arguments of KJVO's. Our contention is that they are both historically and scripturally unsupported in their beliefs.

 

It tells me that the translators of the KJB were HONEST men that knew a EDOMITE (Herod) does not recognize Jewish Passover,but Easter instead.
</font>[/QUOTE]You miss the point. The KJV translators recognized Easter as well. If the word should be Easter because Easter/Herod = bad (Passover/Peter = good), then that implies KJV translators = bad.

Besides, Herod *would* recognize Passover, for political reasons. Herod killed James, which pleased the Jews (verses 2 and 3). That's why he took Peter in the first place, because he saw that killing an apostle made the Jews happy. The motivation for taking Peter was political - he's not going to mess it up by killing a Jew during the Jewish feast, which the Jews would not tolerate. To keep the Jews happy (which is what he wanted), he had to hold Peter until after the feast of unleaven bread (Passover) was over.

Really MV-neverist, read Luke 22:1 before you post, and save yourself the embarrassment. "Passover" is correct.

I've never really looked into it for two reasons: 1. even if they were related, "Ishtar" in Herod's time would be quite a different celebration than "Easter" in King James' time. and 2. I'm not one to be to concerned about Christian celebrations/traditions that may have pagan origins, because the whole principle of "redemption" is about turning something bad into something good.

 

the oxford english dictionary disagrees with you, quoting the av1611 verse in acts as an example of the now archaic usage of the term 'easter' to mean the jewish passover.

 

Your making a claim does not constitute proof of any MV being a perversion. Proof comes first from the scriptures and second from historical evidence.

Your agreement with those who have developed a dogma without scripture proves nothing except perhaps that your ears are itching.