Your Bible translation

[Dino246]

Correct. It would be just like in a court of law, where there are a total of 1,000 witnesses, with 995 in agreement and 5 in disagreement (and even with each other). Obviously the preponderance of witnesses in one direction would establish their credibility and the truth of the matter.

No, they wouldn't. Truth is not determined by democratic process, nor by weight of evidence. Men may choose which version they prefer based on such methods, but God's word is not subject to man's methods. It's a silly argument. The proper way to work through it is to determine what the differences are, and to the best of the abilities of learned scholars and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is most likely correct.

 

[posthuman]

in 1637 the Dutch Statenvertaling translation was published.
there had already been a Dutch Bible, but it was a 'translation of a translation' -- not a translation into Dutch from original source texts. the Luther Bible was widely used, but it was felt to have a decidedly 'Lutheran' slant of interpretation muddying the text. for these reasons at the 1618 Synod of Dort, it was decided that it was necessary to have a Bible in the Dutch language which was focused on accurate rendition of the original languages.

in the Statenvertaling version of Acts 12:4 --

Denwelken ook gegrepen hebbende, hij in de gevangenis zette, en gaf hem over aan vier wachten, elk van vier krijgsknechten, om hem te bewaren, willende na het paasfeest hem voorbrengen voor het volk.
​

"paasfeest" - which is a transliteration of Paschal feast.

there is no 'Eostare' here, and in modern Dutch, the word that translation software tells me means 'Easter' is "Pasen" which seems to be a derivative of Pascha. ((?))

for comparison however, the Statenvertaling simply has 'Pascha' throughout the OT for Passover, not attempting to change the text, and also throughout the book of Luke, and in 1 Cor. 5:7
this is strange because they do not even transliterate in all the other 28 mentions of the word, but simply put Pascha, however here in Acts they evidently had the same premise, to change the text and substitute a different word. they do not however go so far as the German texts and insert an word completely alien to the text, instead opting for something sort of, but not quite faithful.

 

[fredoheaven]

The Greek word is pascha, of which "Easter" is not a translation, but an interpretation.

Here we go again, thinking that translation does not mean interpretation. In the bible, interpretation means translation. Even my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. 1 p.1099 to mean "translation"

John 14:22 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

 

[posthuman]

The Greek word is pascha, of which "Easter" is not a translation, but an interpretation.

not really even an interpretation, IMO, but a contrived substitute.

Purposely correctly translated to proclaim the resurrection of Christ. BTW, the catholic Bible says passover, not easter.

there is no honest way to call this a translation.
it is a deliberate mistranslation. it is a purposeful replacement of the word in the original text with a word completely alien to it.

what you are saying is that the Greek original has been corrected by an human tradition which came perhaps over a thousand years later ((not even centuries later, because not even the Latin dares to change it, but the earliest this change in the text appears i have found so far is 15th century)).

 

[posthuman]

Here we go again, thinking that translation does not mean interpretation. In the bible, interpretation means translation. Even my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. 1 p.1099 to mean "translation"

John 14:22 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

please have a look at the research i've been posting. there is a difference between trying to interpret an unknown term and substituting a completely different word in one out of 29 instances of its use, when you know full well what the word is in the other 28, because you have a political or ecclesiastical reason for wishing it said something else. that is not translation and it is not something open to interpretation; it is a conscious choice not to translate but to do something quite different.

 

[Dino246]

Here we go again, thinking that translation does not mean interpretation. In the bible, interpretation means translation. Even my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. 1 p.1099 to mean "translation"

John 14:22 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

I'm done debating this. I believe "Easter" is wrong, on good evidence.

 

[posthuman]

BTW, the catholic Bible says passover, not easter.

i'm sorry that you haven't been keeping up with what i've posted. it's probably my fault for not clearly laying things out, but i'm still researching.

yes, Douay-Rheims in fact has "pascha" in Acts 12:4 ((it doesn't say passover))
but the Bishops Bible and 'the Great Bible' -- two English versions which predate KJV by decades and were standard issue for Catholic churches -- both have 'Easter' or 'Ester'

this was by no means an ubiquitous choice in the English language. the Geneva Bible has Pascha. Wycliffe has 'Pask'.

German Bibles back to 15th century seem to all have 'oster' --- but French Bibles, going back to 13th century, have variants of Pascha.

perhaps this is not unrelated to the fact that the seat of the holy roman empire was in Germany?

again i believe the quartodecimanism controversy is inextricably linked to this question and the papal edicts concerning it have influenced Bible translation ever since.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

In the oxford greek lexicon pascha means easter. Even before the christian era, pascha also means easter. The book two babylons by Alexander Hislop proves that pascha and easter are similar. In acts 12:4, pascha cannot be passover because it was an event after the days of unleavened bread. Passover is before the days of unleavened bread. See exodus 12 to see about days of unleavened bread. KJV was indeed right.

 

[NayborBear]

And the Spirit has led me and confirmed in me that the KJV is the pure words of the Lord in the English language.

Allow me, if you will, in the giving of a suggestion?

You say the "spirit" has lead and confirmed in you that the KJV contains the "Pure words of the Lord."

I'm down (good) with that!

My suggestion, is? Why don't you start "teaching", like it is. Meaning, moving onwards from your KJV ONLY argumentings.
And, it's not that I disagree with your argument/s at all. As the Spirit has also got me believing that it's a little EASIER using the KJV. Meaning, other translations or versions also contain Pure words of the Lord. Just harder in attaining a "saving faith." Notice I said "harder." Not IMPOSSIBLE!

If these ones' wish to "embrace" these newer translations or versions, and reject the KJV? Perhaps? Later, in their spiritual sojourneyings, they'll find that that which they are seeking is seemingly lacking in whatever newer translation, or version/s they are reading from.

But, this incessantness of yours, in your forcing this KJV ONLY, at seemingly every opportunity you can, in an "endless loop?" And, "steering" a topic towards your professing your KJV Only stance?

Is doing more harm, then good! More towards yourself, then the KJV!

 

[NayborBear]

my bad here, too -- actually Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great Bible have 'ester' in this verse.
these all predate the KJV by many years, and the KJV translating body evidently just followed what they had done already here.
although, the Geneva Bible had been around since 1560 and it has "Passover" -- so there was evidently already controversy over what was correct.

Luther's Bible, 1522, in German, has "Ostern" ((Ishtar)) here, also.
there are many German Bibles predating Luther's translation, tho many of them are only preserved in fragments now. the Gothic or Wilfila Bible ((5th century)), for example, doesn't have any known copies that include Acts. the Gutenberg, Mentelin and a few others are accessible online as scanned copies of the pages, but they don't have chapter/verse annotation and it's difficult to parse through looking for this verse.

the history is interesting; i would like to know where the idea of changing Pascha to Ishtar in translation originated: obviously not with the Greek copies, as they all faithfully have "Pascha" and don't use some other word. Luke himself obviously meant to use exactly the same word that means Passover -- there is no doubt. but somewhere along the line, someone decided they'd put Ishtar/Easter here instead. it did not originate with KJV as Tyndale & the earliest Catholic Bibles have it, and KJV seems to have followed suit, but it was not ubiquitous as the Geneva Bible has Passover. but it didn't even originate in English translations, as Luther's Bible, almost 100 years before king James, has the German equivalent of Ishtar instead of Pascha.

did it originate with Luther? we'd need to look at the Germanic Bibles that predate it. which i will have a stab at.

One may correctly assume that the "thought/s" that were trying to be conveyed, when the Disciples were attempting to learn people, concerning that which had just RECENTLY occurred! That, being of the Risen Lord. Hence the usage of the word "easter."
In a very strict definition for the meaning of the word "easter." Meaning, as in the spring time when that which was sown? RISES from the ground!
Speaking in "agrarian" terms, to, and for, the most part, agrarian people!
Tis a very hard concept this being "raised from the dead" to teach to "farmers, and herdsmen."

It's like you can tell farmers and herdsmen, and pharasetic jews, and scribes, from far away. Till they get close!
THEN? You can't TELL 'em NUTTIN'!

As you can see how the meaning of the word for "easter" has been overly inflated, from that which was originally INTENDED!

 

[posthuman]

Even before the christian era, pascha also means easter.

That is not possibly true.

Pascha is the Lord's Passover, per Torah. Eostare does not even refer to the same date.

You contradict yourself in the very same post saying that it comes after unleavened bread. The facts of that matter is that the whole sequence of passover, unleavened bread, and firstfruits is commonly called pascha collectively.

As to why Herod meant to wait until after these holy days before presenting Peter, consider:

John 18:39
it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"

 

[posthuman]

One may correctly assume that the "thought/s" that were trying to be conveyed, when the Disciples were attempting to learn people, concerning that which had just RECENTLY occurred! That, being of the Risen Lord. Hence the usage of the word "easter."
In a very strict definition for the meaning of the word "easter." Meaning, as in the spring time when that which was sown? RISES from the ground!
Speaking in "agrarian" terms, to, and for, the most part, agrarian people!
Tis a very hard concept this being "raised from the dead" to teach to "farmers, and herdsmen."

It's like you can tell farmers and herdsmen, and pharasetic jews, and scribes, from far away. Till they get close!
THEN? You can't TELL 'em NUTTIN'!

As you can see how the meaning of the word for "easter" has been overly inflated, for that which was originally INTENDED!

Just one problem there Oso, the disciples most assuredly did not use the word easter. They said 'pascha'

It was later men that decided it best to substitute a different word for the one actually in the scripture.

 

[John146]

Allow me, if you will, in the giving of a suggestion?

You say the "spirit" has lead and confirmed in you that the KJV contains the "Pure words of the Lord."

I'm down (good) with that!

My suggestion, is? Why don't you start "teaching", like it is. Meaning, moving onwards from your KJV ONLY argumentings.
And, it's not that I disagree with your argument/s at all. As the Spirit has also got me believing that it's a little EASIER using the KJV. Meaning, other translations or versions also contain Pure words of the Lord. Just harder in attaining a "saving faith." Notice I said "harder." Not IMPOSSIBLE!

If these ones' wish to "embrace" these newer translations or versions, and reject the KJV? Perhaps? Later, in their spiritual sojourneyings, they'll find that that which they are seeking is seemingly lacking in whatever newer translation, or version/s they are reading from.

But, this incessantness of yours, in your forcing this KJV ONLY, at seemingly every opportunity you can, in an "endless loop?" And, "steering" a topic towards your professing your KJV Only stance?

Is doing more harm, then good! More towards yourself, then the KJV!

Sorry you think this way and if you knew me, you would truly think different. I am passionate about God's word and will defend it with my last breath. I will not apologize for that. I do get you're overall thought in that maybe at some point, stop debating and allow the Spirit to direct. I agree, but this is a Bible thread to encourage, to learn, and discuss God's word isn't it?

 

[Tinkerbell725]

That is not possibly true.

Pascha is the Lord's Passover, per Torah. Eostare does not even refer to the same date.

You contradict yourself in the very same post saying that it comes after unleavened bread. The facts of that matter is that the whole sequence of passover, unleavened bread, and firstfruits is commonly called pascha collectively.

As to why Herod meant to wait until after these holy days before presenting Peter, consider:

John 18:39
it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"

Acts 12:3-4

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.


10th-14th (passover)/14th-21st (days of unleavened bread)/22nd (easter sunday)

From two babylons by alexander hislop:

Such is the history of Easter. The popular observances that still attend the period of its celebration amply confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character. The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now

 

[Dino246]

In the oxford greek lexicon pascha means easter. Even before the christian era, pascha also means easter. The book two babylons by Alexander Hislop proves that pascha and easter are similar. In acts 12:4, pascha cannot be passover because it was an event after the days of unleavened bread. Passover is before the days of unleavened bread. See exodus 12 to see about days of unleavened bread. KJV was indeed right.

Hislop has been discredited. His book "proves" nothing. Pascha and Easter are not the same thing and never were.

 

[John146]

Hislop has been discredited. His book "proves" nothing. Pascha and Easter are not the same thing and never were.

Why would Herod wait until after the Jewish Passover to have Peter killed?

 

[NayborBear]

Just one problem there Oso, the disciples most assuredly did not use the word easter. They said 'pascha'

It was later men that decided it best to substitute a different word for the one actually in the scripture.

That's "senor" Oso to you, amigo!

Seems, it seemed fit, to whoever "penned" the book of the Acts of the Apostles (probably Luke, or Mark), in the first person too, mind ya, in using the word "easter."
As I was attempting to "justify", in a very strict/narrow definition, of the reason/s why the word "easter" was used. And how when "given an inch?" The adversary takes a mile?
To a/the point, that the "easter" Jesus' being raised from the dead, obliterated the WHOLE of"jewish LAW?" And His being "Co-Equal" WITH the Father? When the Bible states that "He was made a little lower then the angels?" (anyways, I digress, in illustrating the taking of a mile).

And not trying to say "ishtar", or any other trans-lation/literation should be used interchangeably with Pascha, or Passover. (although, it has been and still is! Much to the detriment of modern churchianity).
Nor, do I agree with those who subscribe to an understanding that when Jesus said He "fulfilled" the "law?" In the which His being sent? Did in fact, fulfill PROPHECY, which IS law, mind ya. Yet? Not the WHOLE OF THE LAW! Which is how His words, have and are still being interpreted, even in these last days.

I'm just trying to give cause for an understanding of the "why" the word "easter" was used, and the how it was supposed to be meant!

Now, if, as you say it was "added" later? I offer apologies, concerning my ignorance. But, I don't believe I am.

 

[posthuman]

That's "senor" Oso to you, amigo!

Seems, it seemed fit, to whoever "penned" the book of the Acts of the Apostles (probably Luke, or Mark), in the first person too, mind ya, in using the word "easter."
As I was attempting to "justify", in a very strict/narrow definition, of the reason/s why the word "easter" was used. And how when "given an inch?" The adversary takes a mile?
To a/the point, that the "easter" Jesus' being raised from the dead, obliterated the WHOLE of"jewish LAW?" And His being "Co-Equal" WITH the Father? When the Bible states that "He was made a little lower then the angels?" (anyways, I digress, in illustrating the taking of a mile).

And not trying to say "ishtar", or any other trans-lation/literation should be used interchangeably with Pascha, or Passover. (although, it has been and still is! Much to the detriment of modern churchianity).
Nor, do I agree with those who subscribe to an understanding that when Jesus said He "fulfilled" the "law?" In the which His being sent? Did in fact, fulfill PROPHECY, which IS law, mind ya. Yet? Not the WHOLE OF THE LAW! Which is how His words, have and are still being interpreted, even in these last days.

I'm just trying to give cause for an understanding of the "why" the word "easter" was used, and the how it was supposed to be meant!

Now, if, as you say it was "added" later? I offer apologies, concerning my ignorance. But, I don't believe I am.

The Greek says pascha. The Latin translations say pascha. It's not until we get into 15th century German translations that some form of 'easter' appears - so far that I've found. Of course I haven't searched exhaustively, yet... But I am interested in figuring out when the first use of the word is, and where.

It was a big controversy as early the first few hundred years AD - - should Christians be celebrating the resurrection according to the Jewish calendar, since it occurred and is so closely linked to the feast days of scripture? Or should it be always on a Sunday, because, Sunday, and because, let's distance ourselves from Jews as much as possible, after all they killed Jesus. Nevermind that Jesus was Jewish and all the first Christians and even the first 13 popes.

So in 325 the council of nicea decided, always Sunday, forget the Jews, let's not even use Jewish calendar but use vernal equinox to decide which Sunday. And anyone who does otherwise is kicked out of Christianity.

Pretty sure this is birth of 'easter' as an idea - definitely as what day to celebrate, but not the word easter, because the Latin translations made after this all still say pascha. Never easter.

So, there were some Germanic language bibles in the dark ages, when the holy Roman empire was, and the holy Roman emperor was always king of Germany. Sadly the only copies that still survive do not contain acts. I wondered what they put there - easter? Or pascha?

Because I suspect this was a political move. It is definitely not a translation thing. They put a different word - easter - on purpose. It cannot be a translation thing, because no source text, no Hebrew no Greek no Latin has the word easter in it at all. It has to have been a choice to do something other than translate.

Over time, it started to become synonymous with passover in common thinking. Because people who pointed out the difference were persecuted, excommunicated if they kept passover or celebrated Christ's resurrection on a non-Sunday, and very few people could read and find out themselves. Never among the Jews of course, but by and large for a long time Christians were very antisemitic.

So all this happened. Tyndale put easter in his Bible almost every time passover was mentioned, except a couple places in Exodus where it just made too little sense. You could say, the common people didn't know pascha, they only knew easter by that time, so he's playing to their ears. But it's not accurate. Did he get it from Luther? And this germanic-roman history of substituting the word pascha in the scripture? Maybe. It's a very interesting problem

But it means little. And to the KJV only brothers and sisters, it means nothing at all. To them, the Greek is wrong, Luke was wrong, Paul is wrong. Kjv is right no matter what.

Probably this should all go in a different thread once I learn more about all the history, enough to actually have a firm idea of the story. For now I have little bits here and there, and speculation.

 

[John146]

The Greek says pascha. The Latin translations say pascha. It's not until we get into 15th century German translations that some form of 'easter' appears - so far that I've found. Of course I haven't searched exhaustively, yet... But I am interested in figuring out when the first use of the word is, and where.

It was a big controversy as early the first few hundred years AD - - should Christians be celebrating the resurrection according to the Jewish calendar, since it occurred and is so closely linked to the feast days of scripture? Or should it be always on a Sunday, because, Sunday, and because, let's distance ourselves from Jews as much as possible, after all they killed Jesus. Nevermind that Jesus was Jewish and all the first Christians and even the first 13 popes.

So in 325 the council of nicea decided, always Sunday, forget the Jews, let's not even use Jewish calendar but use vernal equinox to decide which Sunday. And anyone who does otherwise is kicked out of Christianity.

Pretty sure this is birth of 'easter' as an idea - definitely as what day to celebrate, but not the word easter, because the Latin translations made after this all still say pascha. Never easter.

So, there were some Germanic language bibles in the dark ages, when the holy Roman empire was, and the holy Roman emperor was always king of Germany. Sadly the only copies that still survive do not contain acts. I wondered what they put there - easter? Or pascha?

Because I suspect this was a political move. It is definitely not a translation thing. They put a different word - easter - on purpose. It cannot be a translation thing, because no source text, no Hebrew no Greek no Latin has the word easter in it at all. It has to have been a choice to do something other than translate.

Over time, it started to become synonymous with passover in common thinking. Because people who pointed out the difference were persecuted, excommunicated if they kept passover or celebrated Christ's resurrection on a non-Sunday, and very few people could read and find out themselves. Never among the Jews of course, but by and large for a long time Christians were very antisemitic.

So all this happened. Tyndale put easter in his Bible almost every time passover was mentioned, except a couple places in Exodus where it just made too little sense. You could say, the common people didn't know pascha, they only knew easter by that time, so he's playing to their ears. But it's not accurate. Did he get it from Luther? And this germanic-roman history of substituting the word pascha in the scripture? Maybe. It's a very interesting problem

But it means little. And to the KJV only brothers and sisters, it means nothing at all. To them, the Greek is wrong, Luke was wrong, Paul is wrong. Kjv is right no matter what.

Probably this should all go in a different thread once I learn more about all the history, enough to actually have a firm idea of the story. For now I have little bits here and there, and speculation.

Let's say, for argument sake, that the KJV is wrong and the word should have stayed Passover in English...why was Herod waiting until after the Jewish Passover to have Peter killed?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Hislop has been discredited. His book "proves" nothing. Pascha and Easter are not the same thing and never were.

Since the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were continuous, "Pascha" included that entire period. Which also happened to coincide with Easter (and still does). However, by the 17th century Easter was a well-established Christian festival, whereas Passover was not generally celebrated (other than among pockets of Jews throughout Europe). The best solution was to have left it as Pascha.