Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

[DHK]

Yes it does, because Post #72 does not address the numerous times 'ester' (and similiar spellings of 'easter') are used in early English translations.

Thayer wrote a Greek lexicon like Webster wrote an English dictionary. Why would Thayer include wrong definitions or the mistakes of other men as definitions. That makes no sense at all. The word means passover, no matter who translated it Easter.

Your logic runs like this: Look at all the religions that believe salvation is by works. Because so many religions believe that salvation is by works, therefore salvation must be by works.

 

[Jerome]

I suppose you think Luke used Thayer's lexicon.

 

[DHK]

I suppose you think Luke used Thayer's lexicon.

Nope, and neither do the Greeks of today. although modern Greek is different from koine Greek. Luke spoke Greek. Why would he need a dictionary for his own language?

Oh, and did Webster need a dictionary?

 

[Jerome]

So what is pascha to modern Greeks?

 

[DHK]

So what is pascha to modern Greeks?

I don't have a modern Greek lexicon. Probably the same--passover, since the Jews still celebrate the Passover to this day.

It really doesn't matter does it. It was Luke that wrote Acts. It was Luke that wrote in koine Greek. He used the word pascha which had the meaning of passover, and only passover. Out of 29 times used in the NT in the KJV 28 times it was translated passover. In other translations all 29 times it is rightly translated passover.

The argument that one cannot overlook is the historical context. It would have been impossible for Luke to even use the word Easter. Easter did not come into existence until 900 years later. How on earth could this event refer to Easter when there was no Easter. It is a historical impossibility. You might as well argue that Luke typed out his MSS on computers, only the Bible doesn't tell us. Computers came into existence much later in time and so did Easter. Why read into the passage something that is impossible to be there. History is against you. There were no computers at that time, and no Easter either.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Thayer wrote a Greek lexicon like Webster wrote an English dictionary. Why would Thayer include wrong definitions or the mistakes of other men as definitions. That makes no sense at all. The word means passover, no matter who translated it Easter. ...

Dictionaries and lexicons record how words are used, they do not determine the meaning of the words. Words change through use and dictionaries then must also change.

I don't believe Thayer's lexicon is as infallible as you seem to think. For example, the Greek word lychnos (Srong's #3088) is defined as both 'lamp' and 'candle' by Thayer. Yet, in biblical Palestine there would have been no candles. There is no historical justification to define this word as 'candle'; it is an anachronism. Vine's Expository Dictionary of the NT notes --

There is no mention of a candle in the original either in the OT or in the NT. The figure of that which feeds upon its own substance to provide its light would be utterly inappropriate. A lamp is supplied by oil, which in its symbolism is figurative of the Holy Spirit.​

 

[Trotter]

Words change through use and dictionaries then must also change.

So "pascha" has changed meanings, from "passover" to "Easter"? Then why are all the other uses of "pascha" changed to "Easter" as well? "Passover" and "Easter" are two very different events, so surely a single word does not stand to mean them both?

 

[DHK]

Dictionaries and lexicons record how words are used, they do not determine the meaning of the words. Words change through use and dictionaries then must also change.

I don't believe Thayer's lexicon is as infallible as you seem to think. For example, the Greek word lychnos (Srong's #3088) is defined as both 'lamp' and 'candle' by Thayer. Yet, in biblical Palestine there would have been no candles. There is no historical justification to define this word as 'candle'; it is an anachronism. Vine's Expository Dictionary of the NT notes --

There is no mention of a candle in the original either in the OT or in the NT. The figure of that which feeds upon its own substance to provide its light would be utterly inappropriate. A lamp is supplied by oil, which in its symbolism is figurative of the Holy Spirit.​

Now please tell how "pascha" could mean computer or Easter, both words which came into existence more than 900 years after Luke wrote Acts 12:4. Thayer also lived long after Luke wrote Acts. The question is: What did "pascha" mean during the time of Luke? not during the time of Franklinmore? Luke didn't didn't use Vista or even XP. Neither had he ever encountered the event of Easter.

 

[Jerome]

When did the English word passover come into existence?

 

[Trotter]

When did the English word passover come into existence?

Passover
1530, coined by Tyndale from pass over, to translate Heb. pesah (see paschal), in reference to the Lord "passing over" the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when he killed the first-born of the Egyptians (Ex. xii).

1530, apparently.

 

[Amy.G]

So "pascha" has changed meanings, from "passover" to "Easter"? Then why are all the other uses of "pascha" changed to "Easter" as well? "Passover" and "Easter" are two very different events, so surely a single word does not stand to mean them both?

Apparently it can.

Dictionary.com

pascha

noun
1. the Jewish feast of the Passover [syn: Pasch]
2. the Christian festival of Easter [syn: Pasch]


Websters 1828 dictionary

E'ASTER, n.

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

Definition from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

 

[Johnv]

Webster's dictionary is referring to the Christian festival of the Resurrection. The first century Christian had no such festival. The question is what was the NT contextually referring to in its use of the word "pascha"? It was referring to the the Jewish passover feast. Therefore, "passover" is the correct translation.

 

[Trotter]

The question is what was the NT contextually referring to in its use of the word "pascha"? It was referring to the the Jewish passover feast. Therefore, "passover" is the correct translation.

Exactly. To properly understand the bible, one needs to know what the message was to the original audience, not what it sounds like to us today. Once you have the original intent and message, you can then pull that message into today's world. To skip this important step is to trample the message of the bible underfoot, espousing one's own thoughts and opinions above that which God has given us through his word.

I know several preachers who read a passage and then go off half-cocked thinking they know what God said. They have no interest in actually digging to find out what the original intent of the passage was, who the intended audience was, or why that particular message was recorded for us. In other words, they ignore the entirety of God's word for their own spin on what they think the words on the page say.

This a miry pit if there ever was one. God had His words penned for a reason at the time they were written. It would do each and every student of the bible well to bother to try to find out this information before they decide to declare, "thus saith the Lord."

 

[Harold Garvey]

Because that is the meaning of the word. It has no other meaning. Why would you condone error. I have already demonstrated this in a multitude of different English translations, as well as some translations in other languages. Do you think that they are all wrong. Everyone but the KJV translators are wrong. Surely you have more sense than that. I have demonstrated to you that the meaning of the word is passover. A Greek lexicon gives that definition. There is no other definition. How can you possibly think that out of 29 times when the word is used the KJV translators translated it wrong 28 times?

It is not the duty of the translator to interpret a passage, but rather to translate the passage. We don't need their Anglican interpretation. We need the interpretation of the word from the Greek. If the translators simply give their interpretation they are no better than those that paraphrase. We have enough paraphrases on the market, and they all stink. I'll give you an example:

Ecclesiastes 6:9 Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.

In the Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor paraphrases this verse instead of translates it. Here is his paraphrase:

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
--He gave his thought on the verse, what he thought it should mean, not what it meant.

The same is true in Acts 12:4 with the KJV translators with the word "pascha." They gave an interpretation--what they thought the word should mean, not what the word meant. It was an interpretation, not a translation.

You're simply wrong because the passover has no constraint on Christians and doesn't exist anylonger.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Who changed the meaning? Give me a time, place and most of all a person that changed the meaning of this word.
Furthermore why does the word still have the same meaning among the Jews?
The Jews still celebrate the Passover to this day. You are mistaken.
The word "pascha" has never changed meanings. We are speaking of words and their meanings. Why can't you understand that?

You are forgetting that the only ones who observe the Passover are anti-christ and you seem to award them more than you do Christ's fulfilling of prophecy.

That is wrong. Pascha means passover and nothing else. The KJV translators erred, and there is no excuse for it. It has no reference to the resurrection whatsoever. Even the context of the passage was referring to the Passover.

OK, stay stuck in error and forget that Easter means The Resurrection and go backl to dead traditions. Trod underfoot the blood of Christ and start eating roast lamb eaten with bitter herbs.

This is a ridiculous statement. The Greek is what the Greek is, and has remained the same since it was written from the time of Luke onward. It has not changed. The Greek is the authority from what we base our meanings of words, not any other language including English. It has nothing to do with Greek vs. English meanings. It has to do with the meaning of a Greek word, and that is all.
ENGLISH DOES NOT SUPERSEDE GREEK!

OK, so you deny Christ has risen from the dead and we all should jump into your Greek vessel and drown oursleves in the sea of error.

English has a word for the fulfillment of the shadow of things to come, namebly Easter which is the title given to the day we recognize and set ourselves apart to His Rewsurrection, you go ahead and put more emphasis on thre Passover if you wish, but then you are giving credence to something that is totally anti-christ.:tear:

 

[DHK]

You're simply wrong because the passover has no constraint on Christians and doesn't exist anylonger.:smilewinkgrin:

Acts 12:4 has nothing to do with Christianity. Quote Acts 12:3,4. Copy and paste it. Exegete it right here on this board, and show how it is referring to any other period than the passover. Remember that Easter was an event that only came into existence 900 years after the death of Christ. So I challenge you, quote the Scripture. Demonstrate on the board that easter is the right translation.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Here is the meaning of pascha according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:


NOTE: There is not a hint of "Easter" in these definitions.

Was the Paschal Feast answered by the Resurrection of Chrsit or not!

Since it WAS! The Paschal Feast doesn't have any worth at all, except as a point in reference to what was coming and HAS BEEN fulfilled and is DEAD.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Acts 12:4 has nothing to do with Christianity. Quote Acts 12:3,4. Copy and paste it. Exegete it right here on this board, and show how it is referring to any other period than the passover. Remember that Easter was an event that only came into existence 900 years after the death of Christ. So I challenge you, quote the Scripture. Demonstrate on the board that easter is the right translation.

So now the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with Christianity because the transitional Book of the Christian Bible has nothing to do with the Church or Christianity..

Just makes PERFECT sense doesn't it!:laugh:

You're holding to an antiquated word which has only a past meaning and has changed since then and been replaced with the updated word "Easter".

Not only is it theologically correct, but the ecclesiastical application holds far greater importance than your demanding the word hasn't been changed, the shadow of things to come doesn't exist, and you place more importance on dead rituals than actual fulfillment of those prophecies.

Next we know we'll find that you still practice alchemy.:laugh:

 

[DHK]

Was the Paschal Feast answered by the Resurrection of Chrsit or not!

Since it WAS! The Paschal Feast doesn't have any worth at all, except as a point in reference to what was coming and HAS BEEN fulfilled and is DEAD.

No. The paschal feast is carried on by Jews today; it is on a Saturday--the Sabbath. It is a part of the passover. It is a Jewish feast, has nothing to do with Christianity.

The resurrection is celebrated on the first day of the week (Sunday), in remembrance of Christ arising from the dead.

Those who celebrate Easter, an event which came into existence about 900 A.D. simply celebrate a pagan festival which has nothing to do with Christianity. Since when do bunnies lay eggs? The event has to do with the worship of a fertility goddess? I am really surprised that you put so much emphasis on the worship of a fertility goddess rather than the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.

The word Easter is not found in the "Bible," may be in the KJV translation of the Bible, but not in the Bible itself.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Note: My goal in preaching is to use the Greek/Hebrew to make the passage clear. English has changed exponentially since 1611 and people need to know what God said in the BEST words.

So I teach everyone. This does not make ME "god" or the "translator". It makes me do EXACTLY WHAT GOD DEMANDED in preparing others for the work of the ministry.

Nehemiah 8:8 "And they read from the book - from the law of God - translating to give the sense so that everyone understood the reading."

So tomorrow I will
Read the Scripture
Translate it
Give the sense of it (exposition)
Make certain no one leaves without knowing what God said

So you think God is confined in the box labeled "Greek/Hebrew" according to Bob.

Why can't we who speak English have an English Bible which doesn't require us to know Greek and Hebrew and be enslaved into those cultures, which oppose each other many times, and who already know what the word of God is, and ISN'T!

Talk about going back to the Dark Ages and BEYOND, (in reverse):laugh: