Avid following

[Linda64]

Way of Life Encyclopedia
EASTER

A pagan holiday (Acts 12:4). This is the only place in which "easter" appears in the Authorized Version. Some say that this should be translated "passover" and they point to this as an error in the KJV, but they are wrong. The Easter of Acts 12:4 occurred after the Passover. We know this because Acts 12:3 says it was "the days of unleavened bread." The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover (Nu 28:16-25), but this Easter was after the feast of unleavened bread. It refers to a pagan holiday, probably the celebration of Tammuz, the sun god (Jack Moorman, Easter or Passover?). "Easter" is a proper translation to distinguish it from the Jewish Passover, and the KJV translators were wise in their choice of this word. In using the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4, The King James Translators merely left intact the reading of Tyndale, Matthews, and the Geneva Bible: "Then were the days of unleavened bread, and when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" (The Newe Testament by William Tindale, 1526, John Wesley Sawyer, The Martyrs Bible Series).

Enlarging on this subject, Ken Johnson adds: "[Those who claim this is a mistranslation in the KJV] show a lack of two things. First, they neglect the context of the verse for it is a season that is also noted. Second, in English the season or time of year marked as the Passover season has for years been expressed in English as 'Easter.' The KJV translators did not invent this usage nor were they wrong. The Geneva Bible of 1557 translates Acts 12:4 as 'Easter.' This is also true of the 1539 Cranmer Bible-'Easter,' and the Tyndale Bible of 1534-'ester.' This takes the time element back almost 100 years for the usage of 'Easter.' Alfric, at the beginning of the eleventh century, wrote a Homily using the term Easter: 'Fram dam halgan easterlican [Easter season] (A.C. Champneys, History of English, London: Revington, Percival and Co., p. 178). This calls the Passover season 'Easter' season and it is some five hundred years plus before the KJV saw its publication with 'Easter' in Ac 12:4" (Ken Johnson, A Response to J.H. Melton's Forum Re. the King James Version and Inspiration, p. 12).

The KJV translates 1 Timothy 6:10:

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Is there a problem with that?

 

[Amy.G]

Will no one respond to my question?

I'll repeat it.

I would love to believe that God has preserved His word in ONE version. If He had, I would read nothing but that version. So far, I haven't been convinced that only one version is the inerrant word of God.
I don't understand why the KJV was chosen as the "only" version. Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "only" version? It was in English before the KJV.
Would a KJVOist like to explain this to me?

Movie producer, I would also like to hear what changed your mind.

 

[Amy.G]

Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer to discuss this privately.

 

[DHK]

I posted these verses in another thread (now closed), but never got an answer:

(Rom 3:9-21 KJV-1611) What then? are wee better then they? No in no wise: for we haue before proued both Iewes, and Gentiles, that they are all vnder sinne,
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one:
11 There is none that vnderstandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become vnprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they haue vsed deceit, the poyson of Aspes is vnder their lippes:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitternesse:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood.
16 Destruction & misery are in their wayes:
17 And the way of peace haue they not knowen.
18 There is no feare of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soeuer the Law saith, it saith to them who are vnder the Law: that euery mouth may bee stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deedes of the Law, there shall no flesh be iustified in his sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne.
21 But nowe the righteousnesse of God without the Lawe is manifested, being witnessed by the Lawe and the Prophets.

Here is a copy of the original 1611 translation. Why don't the KJVO people read from it? That is my question. If they don't, why do they call themselves KJVO?

 

[webdog]

I posted these verses in another thread (now closed), but never got an answer:

Here is a copy of the original 1611 translation. Why don't the KJVO people read from it? That is my question. If they don't, why do they call themselves KJVO?

I only see the 1789 of later KJV posted on here by those supposedly KJVO. Ed Edwards is the only one I see who posts Scripture in the 1611KVJ.

 

[Amy.G]

Thanks DHK. Does everyone else have me on ignore? :laugh:

I'm not wanting to debate or argue. I'm trying to get some honest answers.

Anyone?????

 

[Rippon]

The KJV translates 1 Timothy 6:10:

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Is there a problem with that?[/quote]

Yes , there is . There are a great many sins that do not in any way have a thing to do with a love of money . Think about it -- and they will come to mind .

Some of the best MV's render the relevant portion of the verse as follows .

TNIV : For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil .

NLTse : For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil .

HCSB : For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil [ footnote : Or is the root ]

 

[Rippon]

I only see the 1789 of later KJV posted on here by those supposedly KJVO. Ed Edwards is the only one I see who posts Scripture in the 1611KVJ.

You mean the 1769 version by Benjamin Blayney .

 

[TCGreek]

The KJV translates 1 Timothy 6:10:

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Is there a problem with that?

Yes , there is . There are a great many sins that do not in any way have a thing to do with a love of money . Think about it -- and they will come to mind .

Some of the best MV's render the relevant portion of the verse as follows .

TNIV : For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil .

NLTse : For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil .

HCSB : For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil [ footnote : Or is the root ]

Rippon,

1. The problem with 1 Tim 6:10 is that there's no indefinite article in Greek and when a person looks at the Greek text, a question must be asked, since we have no indefinite article as in English: Do we right "root" as definite or as indefinite?

2. Another problem is that "root" in the Greek text is in the emphatic postion: at the beginning of the verse.

3. "The love of money is the mother-city of all evil" was a proverb in the time of Paul. Believe it or not the translation "The love of money is the root of all evil" has good textual support.

4. Then we have to contend with the Colwell rule (a definite noun preceding its verb is often without the article; see John 1:1), which supports "The love of money is the root of all evil."

5. The key is that Paul is quoting a proverb.

 

[MovieProducer]

I'm not robycop3, but I'll take a short stab at "Easter".

Try Passover!

FTR, show me one "scholar" that thinks that "Easter" is more accurate a rendering of "πασχα", than is "Passover", on any linguistic grounds.

Ed

I don't know what FTR means, but whatever.

You know, folks, I asked for some certainty, and this all I get? "Try Passover?" Not exactly a geyser of persuasive evidence but, like I said, whatever. Hey, anything goes in evolution and bible whateverism.

I know the names of two such scholars right off the top of my head, and there are dozens more. If a man were interested in fact in finding them, he could easily do so starting with a google search or at av1611.com, or answersingenesis.com, or Will Kinney's excellent site at http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html.

Anyone searching them out will find that there are many intelligent humans who can show that "Passover" is the incorrect translation, and that "Easter" is correct, and that they have been around for hundreds of years, before 1611 and after. Of course, if all one does is look for critics of the "Easter" translation, that might be all one finds. Don't get me wrong -- I do understand that can be much more comfortable than facing the facts.

 

[DHK]

I don't know what FTR means, but whatever.

You know, folks, I asked for some certainty, and this all I get? "Try Passover?" Not exactly a geyser of persuasive evidence but, like I said, whatever. Hey, anything goes in evolution and bible whateverism.

Every single time the word "pascha" is used in the NT it is translated "passover." Now this one time it is translated "Easter." I would call that a mistranslation, based on Anglican political correctness. If they were faithful to the text they would have been consistent and translated it "passover" just as they did all the other previous times. That is the argument.

 

[Amy.G]

You know, folks, I asked for some certainty, and this all I get? "Try Passover?" Not exactly a geyser of persuasive evidence but, like I said, whatever. Hey, anything goes in evolution and bible whateverism.

And I have asked you twice to tell me what changed your mind about Bible whateverism and what was so mind blowing to your friend and you have not answered my question.
I would really like to know. As I have said, I'm not looking to argue about it.

 

[TCGreek]

Every single time the word "pascha" is used in the NT it is translated "passover." Now this one time it is translated "Easter." I would call that a mistranslation, based on Anglican political correctness. If they were faithful to the text they would have been consistent and translated it "passover" just as they did all the other previous times. That is the argument.

And this anachronism is unfortunate. But DHK is correct here.

 

[Amy.G]

I give up. It's kind of hard to have a discussion all by yourself.

 

[Salamander]

Glad to see you back.

I was starting to get a bit worried by your absence, in this forum.

Now I know there will be usually something to read, in it.

Ed

Keep that up and my wife will be able to knit me a new sweater out of all the warm fuzzies instead of the lint from my belly button.

 

[Salamander]

Every single time the word "pascha" is used in the NT it is translated "passover." Now this one time it is translated "Easter." I would call that a mistranslation, based on Anglican political correctness. If they were faithful to the text they would have been consistent and translated it "passover" just as they did all the other previous times. That is the argument.

Ah, still stumbling over the accuracy of the KJB that the time in point was NOT actually the Passover but the pagan time of Easter which Peter had been imprisoned.

I wonder if the modern term of "Old School" might apply here?

 

[mcdirector]

I give up. It's kind of hard to have a discussion all by yourself.

Amy, I've read why the KJV was superior, but I'd have to go dig that book out. It took the best from several versions at the time. It was not wholly unique.

I can picture the book, but the name is not coming to me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We are not going to fight the"Easter" fight here again.

The topic is why the KJV has such an avid following when other versions do not?

Lets stay on that topic only.

 

[Salamander]

I give up. It's kind of hard to have a discussion all by yourself.

Not really, look at posts by some sort of entity known as "_________"

 

[Amy.G]

Mr. Salamander! I know that you are KJVO. Would you care to answer my question, please. I'm tired of being ignored.
Here it is, posted way back in this thread.

I would love to believe that God has preserved His word in ONE version. If He had, I would read nothing but that version. So far, I haven't been convinced that only one version is the inerrant word of God.
I don't understand why the KJV was chosen as the "only" version. Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "only" version? It was in English before the KJV.
Would a KJVOist like to explain this to me?