• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJVOnly or KJV?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Askjo

New Member
tinytim said:
gEESH.... Just because 3 prior ENGLISH translations say "easter" does not mean LUKE wrote Easter... he wrote the Greek word for "Passover"...

It is NOT that hard to understand...

Pascha means Passover... NOT EASTER.

And just because someone mistranslated it as EASTER one time in history does not make it mean EASTER.

It is a mistake in the translation of the KJV.

Are you KJVOs afraid to face truth?
Click to expand...
Many Christian sites and many non-Christian sites disagree with you because they KNOW Easter is pascha on Acts 12:4. Easter is a correct translation on Acts 12:4.
 
J

Japheth10

New Member
Askjo said:
Many Christian sites and many non-Christian sites disagree with you because they KNOW Easter is pascha on Acts 12:4. Easter is a correct translation on Acts 12:4.
Click to expand...
Totally out of line comment deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Amy.G said:
Does anyone know why the translators used Easter instead of passover?

There must have been a reason they made that choice. If they had a valid reason for it, then it wouldn't be a mistake.
Click to expand...

By the time the Englilsh translations began, the church was celebrating Easter and not Passover. The translators translated "pascha" as Passover every time it was used historically, but after the church began, they used "easter", the "Christian" term.

This is called "transference" in translating . . when a translator takes a modern meaning and moves it back in time.

Example: I am a Civil War reenactor and we act "first person" as if we were the actual soldier. So a kid asked how I got to the battle site and I said "By car". HE assumed "Automobile" and laughed. I was talking about "rail car" which was how the unit originally arrived

So since this feast was called Easter for as long as the English churchmen new, they figured it was Easter back in 50 AD as well.

Pascha is the GOD-BREATHED word and means "passover". Always has meant "passover". Always will mean "passover" no matter what 16th Century Anglicans thought.
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
Dr. Bob said:
By the time the Englilsh translations began, the church was celebrating Easter and not Passover. The translators translated "pascha" as Passover every time it was used historically, but after the church began, they used "easter", the "Christian" term.

This is called "transference" in translating . . when a translator takes a modern meaning and moves it back in time.

Example: I am a Civil War reenactor and we act "first person" as if we were the actual soldier. So a kid asked how I got to the battle site and I said "By car". HE assumed "Automobile" and laughed. I was talking about "rail car" which was how the unit originally arrived

So since this feast was called Easter for as long as the English churchmen new, they figured it was Easter back in 50 AD as well.

Pascha is the GOD-BREATHED word and means "passover". Always has meant "passover". Always will mean "passover" no matter what 16th Century Anglicans thought.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
J

Japheth10

New Member
Dr. Bob said:
By the time the Englilsh translations began, the church was celebrating Easter and not Passover. The translators translated "pascha" as Passover every time it was used historically, but after the church began, they used "easter", the "Christian" term.

This is called "transference" in translating . . when a translator takes a modern meaning and moves it back in time.

Example: I am a Civil War reenactor and we act "first person" as if we were the actual soldier. So a kid asked how I got to the battle site and I said "By car". HE assumed "Automobile" and laughed. I was talking about "rail car" which was how the unit originally arrived

So since this feast was called Easter for as long as the English churchmen new, they figured it was Easter back in 50 AD as well.

Pascha is the GOD-BREATHED word and means "passover". Always has meant "passover". Always will mean "passover" no matter what 16th Century Anglicans thought.
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!!!!
 
E

EdSutton

New Member
Dr. Bob said:
By the time the Englilsh (sic) translations began, the church was celebrating Easter and not Passover. The translators translated "pascha" as Passover every time it was used historically, but after the church began, they used "easter", the "Christian" term.

This is called "transference" in translating . . when a translator takes a modern meaning and moves it back in time.

Example: I am a Civil War reenactor and we act "first person" as if we were the actual soldier. So a kid asked how I got to the battle site and I said "By car". HE assumed "Automobile" and laughed. I was talking about "rail car" which was how the unit originally arrived

So since this feast was called Easter for as long as the English churchmen new, they figured it was Easter back in 50 AD as well.

Pascha is the GOD-BREATHED word and means "passover". Always has meant "passover". Always will mean "passover" no matter what 16th Century Anglicans thought.
Click to expand...
Your answer as to the 'source' of the term "Easter" and the use of it, by "the church",may in fact, be the correct one, but personally, I have some doubts. See my post #38, previously referenced, here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1339881&postcount=38

The primary reason I tend to question this is that Wycliffe and then Purvey did not render it in this manner 140 years previous, and neither did the D-R, which was translated whose translators certainly had no good reason to be influenced, by Tyndale and Luther. The French and Dutch versions, both NT of which predate Tyndalew, do not render, in this fashion. The Vulgate had never rendered this in this manner, The Geneva Bible so strongly influenced by Calvin, Whittingham, and Beza, et al., were certainly no apologists for Rome, yet remained consistent with Rome, here, adn likewise remained consistent with the Vulgate and Wycliffe, as well.

Only Luther and his influence on Tyndale basically break with this, and the English versions had bibt by bit, gotten back to square one, except here., and would even get back here with the next versions to appear.

Think about it. Gotta' run.

Ed
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
Japheth10 said:
PURE Spam!!
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like spam to me.

I have grown increasingly fond of the KJV. I don't see the big deal in using the word Easter. It was used in several bibles prior to the KJV.
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
annsni said:
Here is a good site with information on the Easter/Passover issue:

http://www.kjv-only.com/acts12_4.html
Click to expand...
From your article:
It is my position that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in the KJV is not an error, if understood that from the early church until relatively recently "Passover" and "Easter" were basically synonyms and used interchangeably. The event referred to in Acts 12:4 is the Jewish week-long feast of unleavened bread (not the Christian commemoration of Christ's resurrection, nor a pagan festival), and to refer to it as "Easter" was common, even though it is no longer so.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think either Easter or Passover is correct. It is not an "error" of the KJV. IMO as always. :)
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
I love the KJVs. I've been reading KJVs by myself since 1950 - 58 years you who are adept at the maths. But my Mommy had a big ol' lap Bible called the ASV1901. It had some Middle Age drawings of the scenes in Revelation that were fairly scary to a 6- or 7-year-old. Not to mention that the scene showing King Soloman's wisdom with the two women and the one baby left no chance for error - it was a boy baby. So i preferred the Pew KJVs which didn't have pictures, just words.

I love the KJVs. Today I read on a daily basis three different KJVs:

1. the KJV1611 Edition (both electronic and the Nelson Roman character /the original used a Gothic font/ reprint )

2. the KJV1769 Family of Editions (both electronic & paper)

3. the KJV1879 Edition (paper only)

I love the KJVs.
 
E

EdSutton

New Member
Japheth10 said:
PURE Spam!!
Click to expand...
"PURE Spam!!??"

Now that is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one.

Have you ever taken the time to read the label on a can of SPAM™?

Read it sometime. It likely will give you a real TREET®!

(Eating a full can at one time, is likely to give one plenty of time to read something other labels !) :rolleyes:

I did just read some really sad news about the unfortunate demise of PREM® .

Apparently, this one is no MOR®. :tear:

emot15.gif
4.gif


Ed


Disclaimer: The above labels are easiest to read under bright sunlight, such as outside in the flower-bed beside a TULIP™.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
tinytim said:
OH REALLY!!!

So Pascha can be Passover or Easter....

I guess Easter existed before Christ rose from the grave....

Luke 2:41
(41) Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Pascha)
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, it could be Passover or Easter.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that Easter meant the Jewish Passover.
Tyndale:
And his father and mother went to Hierusalem every yeare at the feeste of ester.
 
Pastor_Bob

Pastor_Bob

Well-Known Member
Ed Edwards said:
I love the KJVs. Today I read on a daily basis three different KJVs:

1. the KJV1611 Edition (both electronic and the Nelson Roman character /the original used a Gothic font/ reprint )

2. the KJV1769 Family of Editions (both electronic & paper)

3. the KJV1879 Edition (paper only)

I love the KJVs. underlined emphasis mine
Click to expand...
You go to great pains to make us aware of your opinion, which you are entitled to, that there are multiple versions of the King James Version. However, you clearly state the contrary, and rightly so, by your listing of the different editions of the King James Version. Tell us, Mr. Edwards, from which of the multiple KJVs did these editions that you listed emerge?
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
why Easter is in the KJV

Amy.G said:
Does anyone know why the translators used Easter instead of passover?

There must have been a reason they made that choice. If they had a valid reason for it, then it wouldn't be a mistake.
Click to expand...

The 1602 Bishops' Bible which the KJV translators were to use as their stating point had "Easter" 3 times. They changed two of them to "Passover," and it might be thought possible that they overlooked the third one.

On the other hand, there is available evidence that indicates that 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 and Coverdale had even used it in the Old Testament a couple times, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to the more accurate and consistent rendering “Passover.“

The reason why I have read that the rendering "Easter" was put in the 1611 KJV is below, and it would not seem to be a valid reason.

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 evidence that indicates that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter would seem be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top