Is the (AV) Translated from the Textus Receptus (TR)?

[Eliyahu]

I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text or an Alexandrian Text; therefore, it does not apply to the information that I posted. I have not claimed that there are as many differences in the various editions of the TR as between the TR and the Critical Text.

There are clearly more than 10 places or spots where the various editions of the Textus Receptus differ.

KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71). Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only advocate, claimed: "The fact that the King James translators left the Beza text and the Stephanus text for other readings in about 25 places shows that they did not consider Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or any other printed text the final authority" (Anything But the KJB, p. 23). Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). Doug Kutilek maintained: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).



Here is the difference at Mark 15:3 as seen in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles compared to the KJV:

Mark 15:3
And the high priests accused him of many things (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's N. T., 1560 edition of Geneva Bible)

And the high priests accused him sore (1535 Coverdale's)

Mark 15:3
And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing (1611 KJV)

This board makes me sick!

I wrote a lengthy reply to yours, then I found I had to log in once again!
When I logged in, this board didn't recognize my pass Word, then I had to get the new pass word. In that process I lost the lengthy post that I wrote. This is worse chance from the previous!

If the web manager can recover what I posted, please do it.

I will post the answer tomorrow.

 

[Tater77]

Psalm 22:16 was not a correct decision. KJV was wrong there, because it departed from the important principle -Word to Word Translation.

When you preach the Gospel to the Jews, they will laugh at Psalm 22:16 by KJV. In meaning the result is the same and it is OK, but a deviation from the Principle of Translation. Actually there are few supporters for KJV among the manuscripts, while over 900 states Ka-Ari, like Lion.

As for Psalm 8:5, we can stay with it unless we claim Hebrews 2:7 is wrong too.

Some Messianic Jews claim that Heb 2:7 and 11:21 might be errors caused by the translators ( They believe Hebrews was written in Hebrew by Paul, then translated by someone like Clement) Mitah of Gen 47:31 might have been mistaken as Mateh when they state Heb 11:21.

I would stay with Elohim as angels unless I get any further proof against it, or it should be God.

Paul quoted the LXX (why wasn't the Hebrew word for angel used?)and the oldest mss on Psalms 22:16 reads pierced. Lion is the popular reading for Jews for obvious reasons, it takes the obvious meaning from the verse.

On Psalms 8:5 Jerome followed the LXX reading because it was familiar too. Just like the KJV translators did.

 

[Eliyahu]

There are clearly more than 10 places or spots where the various editions of the Textus Receptus differ.

choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).

Mark 15:3
And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing (1611 KJV)

I hope you remember my stance from the beginning. Even if KJV is very accurate in many ways, it is not inerrant to the accuracy of Jot and Tittle. Even if I tolerate some scribal errors or minor errors, still I find errors, especially in OT.

This stance will narrow the gap between your view and my KJVB ( KJV Best or KJV Preferred) view. This will make many arguments against KJV unnecessary.

Did you see what I commented on the controversial verses?

Rom 12:11 Stephanus TR has Kairo while TBS TR has Kurio
KJV Translators didn’t claim that they rely on Stephanus TR only. At that time they must have noticed the problem with this and corrected.
This is scribal error, corrected by KJV
1 Thess 2:15 : Same as the above. TBS TR is the same as KJV
A Scribal Error of Stephanus, corrected by KJV

1 Rev 11:1 – TR has a part of majority support
It( Angel Stood) could be included or excluded.
This is within the tolerance, within the Majority Texts.

1 John 2:23 – TR has the support from almost the majority, without the italicized statements in KJV

1 John 5:7 – I believe both TR and KJV are correct despite the scarcity of the supporting manuscripts. Without the Johannine Comma, we encounter a critical problem with Greek Grammar which we can find nowhere like that. Historical support is another.

Luke 17:36 – Both Stephanus and TBS TR have the verse.
Both TR and KJV are correct
TR has the support from the part of majority manuscripts.

Mt 23:24 – I think this was dealt with here before. The Elizabethan English used to state such as Strain at ( not out) and this was not the first in KJV, but earlier translations used such expressions. We may have to check once again Matthew Henry’s and Coverdale, etc.

Rev 22:19 – KJV and TR seem to have no support ! though Book of Life is more coinciding with the context than Tree of Life. We may have to verify further.

In Rev TR departed from Majority Texts many times, and Rev 17:8 may be another issue.


Now you can add one more verse Mark 15:3

I missed this because I read Majority Text and TR separately.
In MJT there is no addition, TR and KJV have it.
Though I don’t rule out the possibility that TR has the reason to add this clause, I would stay with Majority Text. I don’t reject TR-KJV completely because my information on Majority Texts may not be complete with all the variances of the manuscripts.

In the whole controversy, you may find only 2 problems, except some scribal errors as I don’t claim the literal inerrancy of KJV. This is why I still remain with less than 10 spots where TR’s differ each other because I am not childish to talk about the scribal errors. We must admit that our generation is much more Idle than the believers in 16 century without computers and modern technology, without access to much information.

Now when you say there are 113 discrepancies or 290 discrepancies, you have to keep in mind that such numbers are often exaggerated and they are negligible if you check precisely and in detail. I wish I can see the full list of 113 discrepancies or 290 discrepancies. They cannot be too lengthy because KJVO claims there are discrepancies between TR and CT ca. in 7,500 spots.

If you have any list of discrepancies, please let me know it. Then I can discern and analyze and we may find they are rather quite exaggerated. Maybe only less than 10.

It is quite natural that KJV differs from Stephanus TR in hundreds of spots because KJV is not translated from Stephanus, nor from Beza TR, nor from Erasmus TR. They corrected certain spots based on their knowledge and information available at that time.

They must have referred to the Latin Bibles before the Reformation Era, especially Old Latin Bible, because they respected the Bibles transmitted thru the true Believers like Waldensians.
This happened in Johannine Comma too.

In the whole process of arguments against KJV, many people have forgotten the more important facts.
Modern Versions are based mainly on Roman Catholic Text ( B ). RCC Orthodox persecuted True Crhistians.
One may say WH-NA is based 90% on B, 7% Aleph, 3% A.
Why do the True Believers rely on the Bibles preserved by Idol Worshippers and Goddess Worshippers who persecuted the True Believers and tried to destroy the Bible itself?

I don’t support the overall Pre-Supposition theory of KJVO, but I believe there are certain aspects of it partially in many controversial issues.

Regardless you believe the followings or not,

Without KJV, Johannine Comma ( 1 John 5:7) couldn’t be in the Bible

Without KJV, Acts 8:37 may not have been in the Bible, or could have been very weak.

Without KJV, Acts 12:4 would not have had Easter

Without KJV, Acts 3:13 and 26 would not have His Son Jesus instead of His Servant Jesus.

Without KJV, 1 Cor 1:18 would not have “ We are saved”

Without KJV, Dan 3:25 would not have had Son of God instead of son of gods.

These are a few of many verses where KJV contributed a lot.

Among many verses, I like Acts 8:37 most.
Having Acts 8:37, no one can claim the Infant Baptism effectively.
Even if it may have the support only from less than 50 manuscripts, without the verse, Philip would become like a dumb without answering the Eunuch. The context doesn’t make sense.
Acts 8:36-39 clearly rejects Infant Baptism and Baptism by Sprinkling or Dropping Water. So, Only the Believers Baptism by Total Immersion is very clear and leaves no way for other mode.
Satan was desperate and deleted it from the Bible.
Today, among more than 2 billion so-called Christians, 1.9 Bibllion or more (more than 95%) perform the Infant Baptism.

They have not only performed Infant Baptism, but also killed the Baptists who refused the Infant Baptism and re-baptized the Believers after they were born again.

This tells us how much wickedness exist behind the manipulation of the Bible.
Read the Bible without Acts 8:37, and compare it to KJV.

Of course they deleted Mt 23:14 in order to avoid the criticism against Rosario and Clergy system.

MV’s omit the “Holy” in John 8:39 despite the support of the oldest manuscript p66 and almost more than 900 manuscripts supporting KJV’s Holy. Because they are devout followers of Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox ( Both are Catholic)

I already pointed out the problem with KJV, language update and some errors.
One of them was Mark 2:26 “ Days of Abiathar” while 1 Sam 21 says the priest was Ahimeleck, father of Abiathar.

I think Anti-KJV people should read Matthew 7 carefully again so that they remove the beams in their eyes first, then they may see through the motes of the KJV’s.

 

[Eliyahu]

Paul quoted the LXX (why wasn't the Hebrew word for angel used?)and the oldest mss on Psalms 22:16 reads pierced. Lion is the popular reading for Jews for obvious reasons, it takes the obvious meaning from the verse.

On Psalms 8:5 Jerome followed the LXX reading because it was familiar too. Just like the KJV translators did.

I told you already, I disagree with KJV in Psalm 22:16 and KJV was wrong there.
Apparently KJV was affected by LXX there.
But KJV didn’t follow LXX in many verses, but only in a few verses.
If KJV followed LXX many times, there would not have been so many verses where KJV differs from LXX.
Most MV’s are affected by LXX, much more times than KJV, e.g Isaiah 53:10.
Compare it between KJV and MV’s, then read Hebrew MT.

Are you saying that Paul quoted LXX?
If you believe so, show me 2-3 verses of such.

Hebrew 2:7 has quite a lot of variances.
A, C, Aleph, and many of Majority Texts differ from LXX, having some more words.
Even p46 and B differ from LXX by one character, Para and Pa.

Bring any of 2-3 verses which you believe NT quoted LXX.

It is a huge deception that Jesus read LXX, and that Disciples quoted LXX.

I already showed on this B/V thread that there are 1-3 words different between LXX and NT quotation for each verse.

Please provide your own study on this as this is not too difficult if you can read Greek, instead of bringing any rumours or conjecture or second hand theory.

Compare each Greek NT with Greek Septuagint for each verse. You will find discrepancy all the time.

Jesus read Hebrew Masoretic Texts.

Luke 24:44 tells us 2 of very important lessons:
1) OT talks about Jesus Christ
2) Jesus talks about Hebrew MT like Ben Chayyim MT, unlike Ben Asher or BHS, not LXX.
Only Ben Chayyim MT consists of Bible in that order, which I have and read.

LXX has too many errors and funny statements to look at.

 

[Tater77]

:BangHead: Oh forget it, its not like your actually going to listen.

 

[Eliyahu]

:BangHead: Oh forget it, its not like your actually going to listen.

I am afraid you are too much hard headed to hit the head onto the Catholic Texts, LXX combined with Apocrypha.

 

[Tater77]

 

[Logos1560]

Without KJV, Acts 12:4 would not have had Easter


These are a few of many verses where KJV contributed a lot.

The KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 has caused misunderstanding. Even many defenders of the KJV have read a wrong meaning into the word "Easter." There is valid evidence that "Easter" was not the rendering approved and chosen by the KJV translators.



The majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at this verse. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover.“ Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? The evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

 

[Logos1560]

I already pointed out the problem with KJV, language update and some errors.
One of them was Mark 2:26 “ Days of Abiathar” while 1 Sam 21 says the priest was Ahimeleck, father of Abiathar.

The 1560 Geneva Bible has the following note at Mark 2:26

"He was also called Achimelech, as his father was, so that both the father and the son were called by both these names, 1 Chron. 24:3, 2 Sam. 8:17 & 15:29, 1 Kings 2:26."

 

[Eliyahu]

The KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 has caused misunderstanding. Even many defenders of the KJV have read a wrong meaning into the word "Easter." There is valid evidence that "Easter" was not the rendering approved and chosen by the KJV translators.


The majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at this verse. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover.“ Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? The evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

As you said, even among the KJVO's there is much misunderstanding about it. Me defense for it is different from that of the KJVO's.

As you know, Paska appears 29 times in NT and 28 times were translated as Passover. But in the context of Acts 12:3-4, it was already in the days of the Unleavened Bread, and therefore it didn't make sense that Peter could be released after the Passover which is the first day of the Days of ULB. Therefore we have to reconsider the customs of the 1 century Middle East. Some of the scholors among the KJV Translators were Chaldaean specialists and knew that the word Paska was also the translation of Pasahu, not only from Pesach-Passover. Pasahu meant Ishtar festival. Lexicon will tell you very briefly about Pasahu in 6453, meaning Assyrian deity, Soothe. Also, Jensen's study on Cosmologie der Babylonier and Zimmern's study on Babylonische Bussal- must support this. Therefore, we can understand Pasahu was translated as Pesach in Hebrew, and as Paska in Greek in the same way.

We must remember that Ezekiel is talking about people worshipping Sun, toward the East. ( 8:16) They worshipped the Sun god and prayed toward East. I don't know who attached the word Easter, but believe it was originated from Oster in German. This Ishatar worship was widely celebrated in the Middle East, even at the time of King Herod. Many rich or upper level people celebrated it as today people celebrate Christmas or Easter, even if they are not truly Christian originated festivals. Some countries celebrate the Easter as Resurrection Day.

The question was whether the Easter festival ( Ishtar Festival) was actually right after the Days of ULB. When I checked the Ishtar celebrations, it was right after the Spring Equinox, but it seems to be a few days after the Passover actually.

In that case, Easter is correct in Acts 12:4, because Passover cannot be there since it was already during the Days of ULB and Passover is the first day of the Days of ULB.

 

[Logos1560]

In that case, Easter is correct in Acts 12:4, because Passover cannot be there since it was already during the Days of ULB and Passover is the first day of the Days of ULB.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). In Ezekiel 45:21 the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days," and thus was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was used for a time described as “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.” After Jesus and his disciples had already observed the feast of Passover (Luke 22:14-15; John 13:1), the same Greek word was still used for a time when the feast of unleavened bread was in progress (John 18:28).


In Acts 12:3, Luke stated: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” In the context and considering Luke 22:1, there is no problem with understanding Luke to be using “pascha” in Acts 12:4 as a name for or including the feast of unleavened bread. Thus, Herod could have been waiting for the end of the days or feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1). On the other hand, concerning “after Easter” in the KJV, Edmunds and Bell wrote: “Neither Herod nor Peter nor any other man in Judea could have told when that would be” (Discussion, p. 33). KJV-only author Charles Turner wrote: “There was no such holiday as Easter at the time of the writing of the book of Acts. The translators have introduced a meaning into the text which was not intended by Luke the author” (Biblical Bible Translating, Assignment 26, p. 4).


In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322).


Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews? It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Therefore, the context supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha instead of the view that Herod was keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he was keeping and not some pagan festival. Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1.

 

[Tater77]

Pascha means Passover. Plain and simple . Easter did not exist in that context nor was another word used.

 

[Keith M]

Pascha means Passover. Plain and simple . Easter did not exist in that context nor was another word used.

It's hard to believe, and sad too, that some folks still defend the errant use of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in the KJVs. It has been shown repeatedly pascha can only refer to Passover. Passover existed when Luke wrote Acts - Easter didn't exist at the time. The translators of the 1611 KJV correctly rendered pascha as Passover in all other appearances of the word. Some people refuse to accept there are errors in the KJVs, preferring to accept a falsehood rather than the truth.

 

[EdSutton]

Pascha means Passover. Plain and simple . Easter did not exist in that context nor was another word used.

Exactly.

Easter (ester) in English and Ostern (German) were brought into the Bible, in 'translating' by two individuals, namely by Dr. Martin Luther in the German Language (16 times - Num. 33:33; Mt. 26:2, 18; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1; Jn. 2:13; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14; Ac. 12:4; I Cor. 5:8; Heb. 11:28), and by Mr. William Tyndale at least 14 times in the English language (the above minus Num. 33:33 and Jn. 18:28).

(In fact, I will challenge one to show any other major 'Western' language version that ever renders "πασχα" in this manner, as "Easter." Perhaps there are some, but I have not seen them in Spanish, Dutch, Italian or French, anyway, although I will admit, I could have easily missed some, in this.)

Surely neither Mr. Tyndale nor Dr. Luther might have even ever conceivably had anything that remotely resembled what one might call "ye axe to grynde" with the Roman Catholic church.

FTR, Jesus did not "kepe myne eʃter" in the house with the upper room, for he was not crucified, at that time. (Mt. 26:18 - TYN) He did, however, "keepe the Paʃʃeouer" [KJ-1611 (or Pasch - D-R)] there.

The WES (1755) and WBT (1833) get Ac. 12:4 right, in rendering this as Passover. Likewise the YLT, ASV, NIV, NKJV, LIT, and HCSB among other 'modern' English translations.

Of even more significance might be the fact that the subsequent English versions, following the TYN, of TAV, GRT (by Coverdale) BISH and GEN subsequently rendered Easter successively fewer times until one reached only 3 for BISH and 0 for GEN, and certainly neither Beza nor Whittingham as the 'guiding lights behind the GEN could be considered as exactly apologists for Rome.

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Logos,
I appreciate you for the best arguments against Easter which is not unfamiliar to me since I had the same debate with a faithful Messianic Jew. He and I agreed to disagree each other at the end.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). In Ezekiel 45:21 the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days," and thus was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was used for a time described as “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.” After Jesus and his disciples had already observed the feast of Passover (Luke 22:14-15; John 13:1), the same Greek word was still used for a time when the feast of unleavened bread was in progress (John 18:28).

=è Ezekiel 45:21 and Luke 22:1 may be the stronghold for Passover in Acts 12:4
1) John 18:28 must be interpreted along with John 19:14 which says
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
If it was already Passover, then how can we understand the Preparation of Passover?
They didn’t eat Passover yet until Jesus was killed !
2) Ezekiel 45:21
As you know the conjunctions are sometimes omitted in Hebrew and it can be translated as follows:
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, then a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten

Otherwise, the verse itself contradicts many other verses which says Passover and FULB( Feast of Unleavened Bread, or DULB)
Even the verse 21 itself says fourteenth day of the month ( one day) is the Passover, then how can it be equal to 7 days? As you know, Passover is one day and FULB is 7 days, total 8 days.
Therefore Eze 45:21 does not support your argument that Passover meant the whole feast of Passover and FULB

3) Luke 22:1
I agree that this can be the strongest evidence against Easter in Acts 12:4, because the same writer use this expression for the same situation, in the same verse.

However, we must notice this verse doesn’t talk about the time sequence, but just talk about the overall season or timing of the feast. When we compare this with John 19:14, we can understand that the DULB here meant the feast season, not the exact time of the FULB.

DULB here was a kind of preparation to remove the Leavens before the Feast, because they cannot remove the Leavens just an hour before the Passover. Jews used to removed the leavens 2 days before the FULB.
Therefore Luke was talking about the over-all season including the preparation days for the Passover and FULB.
In the following verses which talk about Passover and FULB in the same verse or in the consecutive verses, both feasts are very clearly distinguished when they appear with the dates of 14th Abib and 7 days for ULB from 15th Abib.

Leviticus 23:5-6
5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

Numbers 28:16-31
16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. 17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
2 Chronicles 35:1-19
1 Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month

17 And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days.

 

[Eliyahu]

In Acts 12:3, Luke stated: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” In the context and considering Luke 22:1, there is no problem with understanding Luke to be using “pascha” in Acts 12:4 as a name for or including the feast of unleavened bread. Thus, Herod could have been waiting for the end of the days or feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1). On the other hand, concerning “after Easter” in the KJV, Edmunds and Bell wrote: “Neither Herod nor Peter nor any other man in Judea could have told when that would be” (Discussion, p. 33). KJV-only author Charles Turner wrote: “There was no such holiday as Easter at the time of the writing of the book of Acts. The translators have introduced a meaning into the text which was not intended by Luke the author” (Biblical Bible Translating, Assignment 26, p. 4).

If we read thru the OT, we often find Israelites were indulged in the worship of goddess, Ashera which was called Astarte in Lebanon, Ishtar in Babylon, and this Ishtar Festival was called Pasahu and the Hebrew translation for this was also the same as Pesach. You can find this in Heb-English Lexicon by B-D-B-G, p 820 strong 6453.
In this linkage I don’t have very much supporting documents but believe KJV translators had much information at that time. I hope I can confirm some of the information by visiting German library at Wiedenest. What I know is that Jensen and Zimmern confirmed the Babylonian custom for the Pasahu and this Pasahu was also called Pesach by Israel, then the Pasahu must have been translated as Paska in Greek. Therefore we can believe that Paska contained the two meanings, Passover and Pasahu which celebrated the Ishtar or goddess toward East ( Ezekiel 8:16)

We don’t need the apologetics from KJVO, because often they are not the original translators of KJV and their views can differ from the original understanding by the Translators.

In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322).

Herod already arrested Peter during the DULB. Even Israelites were not keeping the Passover very well often,

2 Chronicles 35:
18 And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Throughout the history of Israel, the Passover was not kept very well except by Hezekiah and Josiah who were faithful believers in the LORD. I don’t think King Herod the Idumean was so much mindful about the Passover. Instead he must have celebrated the pagan festival as he had sought the miracles of turning the water into wine.
Those people quoted above could be wrong.

 

[Eliyahu]

Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews? It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Therefore, the context supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha instead of the view that Herod was keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he was keeping and not some pagan festival. Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1

After the Crucifixion of Jesus, Jews meant the unbelievers rebellious against God and therefore they must have been quite ignorant about the truth and hypocritical.
I already mentioned Luke 22:1 is not talking about the time sequence or specific timing because we can tell this when we compare it with John 19:14, Luke 22:1 talks about the general timing even before the Passover yet as we remember Jesus was killed on the Passover, and the High Sabbath was approaching when He was hung on the tree.
Luke 22:1 talks about the overall season.
All the arguments that you brought in the above paragraph is understandable and plausible, but I still believe that Luke had no reason to state the Passover in the consecutive verses to mean the DULB which is different from Passover if we state precisely, namely Passover after the Days of ULB.

I don’t have the information received directly, but remember this Easter was also explained thru the Waldensians and the Believers and that’s why the Translators were mindful to distinguish it from all the other usages in NT, though 28 times out of 29 times in NT, Paska was translated as Passover.

You can see this situation in Ezekiel 8
While Israel leaders pray to God, they also worshipped sun god, praying to the East.

Eze 8
12 Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.
16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

They worshipped God and pagan god both! praying Eastward.

What about Jeremiah?
Jeremiah 44: 17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. 18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
.
Why does Stephen say this?
Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.


Did these people repent and changed their paganism?
They would have done so if Satan can repent and change his habit


All Bible verses are quoted from Crosswalk.com

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear Ed,

Let me re-confirm the point shortly.

Pesach in Hebrew meant both Pesach and Pasahu, check with BDBG p820,

then Pesach was translated into Paska in Greek, would Greek have contained only the meaning of Pesach, Passover?

We must remember that the whole Middle East region was full of paganism, celebrating goddess festival after the Spring Equinox. Israel was a tiny country occupied by Roman Empire, small like Maryland, and the whole Middle East celebrating goddess was like the Eastern USA, East of Mississipi.

In Ephesus, Artemis as in Acts 19:24, 27, 28 ( Diana)
In Lebanon, Astarte
In Israel, Ashera
In Babylon, Ishtar.

Hope this helps you to understand this issue.

 

[EdSutton]

Hope this helps you to understand this issue.

I appreciate your concern with my understanding.

Especially in geography.

While the Greek language may have contained multiple implications of "πασχα" outside the NT texts, I do not think this can be shown from the NT texts, anywhere. I have not looked into any possible LXX renderings of the same in the OT.

One has to 'culturally read into' or 'theologically read into' "πασχα" to arrive at 'Easter' anywhere in the NT, in any realistically conceivable manner, IMO.

Ed

 

[Logos1560]

I don’t have the information received directly, but remember this Easter was also explained thru the Waldensians and the Believers and that’s why the Translators were mindful to distinguish it from all the other usages in NT, though 28 times out of 29 times in NT, Paska was translated as Passover.

Some renderings may be in the 1611 KJV because they were kept from the Bishops' Bible, whose text the translators were to follow according to one of the rules given them.

There is evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at this verse. Instead they may have accepted the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover.“

In 1671, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? This 1600's evidence indicates that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter.