Featured KJV vs. NKJV: which do you prefer?

That would seem to be a main reason why Easter was used there, but still the Jewish Passover was what was being done at that time...
Just seems that some KJVO try their best to show that this was not a faulty translation in the Kjv....

 

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 a 1671 book based on earlier manuscripts of Henry Jessey, 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 and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, 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).

In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38). In his volume on Acts in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, B. H. Carroll observed: “Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the A. V. to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter” (p. 184). James Woolsey asserted: “To support, from the Scripture, the idea of Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, they suppress the original word which the Holy Ghost moved the inspired penman to use, and employed the Saxon word Easter” (Doctrine, p. 93).

Was the goal of inserting Easter back into the text at Acts 12:4 in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning?

 

Think it was to alter the meaning from Passover to Easter in order to fit in their mind was now a Christian celebration!

 

A number of KJV-only advocates will condemn the NKJV for its rendering "the Passover" at Acts 12:4 and will claim that Easter had to be used.

The context shows that the rendering "the Passover" is better, and more consistent and accurate than the less clear rendering Easter. Easter has been given three different interpretations by KJV defenders although it can have only one correct meaning in this specific context.

 

the Passover would have been what was intended at time of the original being written down...

 

Yes, but that does not change that early English speaking Christians did refer to it as Easter. Today English speaking Chistians typically call that time Easter. Even though the modern translations used by most of them calls it Passover.

 

What counts would be what would the term be used and understood as mean when written down, not in modern times!

 

KJV

 

?

 

Just answering the OP. I prefer KJV.

 

The KJV was first published in 1611. And modern English speaking Christians still call it Easter, despite of it now being translated Passover, in Acts of the Apostles 12:4.

 

What did it mean at time the event recorded happened?

 

Two things. The Passover. And it was around the anniversary of our Lord's resurrection which today is commonly called Easter.

 

Not known as such back then though....

 

Huh? Can you be more specific what you are trying to say.

What English word ("not known as such"?) and what time period ("back then"?) are you referencing?

 

Those in the story being recorded down in the Bible would have known the term as meaning Passover period, not Easter!

 

Do you not comprehend that they were synonyms when the KJB (& Geneva, & Coverdale, etc.) was translated?!

Read this from the Geneva Bible and tell me what it is saying 'Easter' meant at the time the KJB was translated.

Geneva Bible:

 

The key is what did it mean at time event happened?

 

* And they mostly spoke Greek then too.

 

The translation is supposed to reflect the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S thoughts, not those of the translators. And Luke was thinking only of PASSOVER, since Easter didn't then exist. And if it had then existed, it wouldn'ta been called pascha. That came much-later.