Donald

Holy week

28 posts in this topic

Over the years, before I started posting here, there was another site(an SBC site), where I would post and find a lot of trouble, because of my views on the KJB.  Every year I would post a thread something like this and would be attacked from every corner of the site.  I am not allowed on that site any longer, so here is this years observation.
(This is an edited copy of one of my posts to that site.)
--------------------------------------------------
I have spoken up against “holy week” observances, as a purely “superstitious” practice, disguised as a religious practice in the past and have been amazed at how many of the “Christians” here, come out of the woodwork to jump down my throat for such sacrilege.

Well the “lenten season” has come around again, but this year I have a new observation to  add.  The observation is, that almost 99% of these people who will come out in favor of the unbiblical recognition of “good Friday”, are also KJB haters.

Now this has never surprised me, because of the fact that a love of the KJB is usually an indication of a love for the DETAILS of what God’s Word has to say.  And any honest detailed look at the Scriptures will point out how truly unbiblical this whole idea of holy week is.

But the new realization that I am adding this year is the fact that these same people who Hate the KJB, will be quick to point out the “so-called mistake”, in Acts 12:4.....
“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.”
------------------------
Now for sure, the word “Easter” here, is translated from the same GK word that means “Passover” and people are quick to jump on this as a reason not to read the KJB.
While in the same breath, lifting Easter up as the star in the holy week’s crown.
(You either love Easter or you hate Easter, make up your mind.)

Now as I have said before; Although I do recognize Easter as a special day, I also celebrate easter every Lord’s day.  And also I don’t see this translation in Acts 12:4, as the big mistake that others do, for 2 reasons.

➀ First, we aren’t Jews; We are Christians.  And the man that had been put into prison in Acts 12, was a Christian who was being persecuted for his faith.  Also the vast majority of those who will be reading the English Bible, will be Gentiles,  Therefore it seems perfectly natural to set the precedent here, in that regard.

➁ Also, almost 100 years before the KJB used the word Easter in this verse, it had been used in Tyndale’s Bible.  And a little over 200 years before the KJB, the Wycliffe Bible(the first English Bible), also used this word in Acts 12.
------------------------
I remember someone from that other site, telling me in years past that.... “Any Church that didn’t celebrate good Friday, needed to repent”.

And as usual I am saying, that “Any Church that celebrates good Friday or any of those other Catholic holy week observances, needs a new pastor”.

 

Jim_Alaska likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

 

Are you aware of the historical evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4?   Instead the KJV translators 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. 

 

In his 1600's book about a Baptist pastor, 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 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).  

 

Does this historical evidence from the 1600's possibly suggest that this rendering at Acts 12:4 was inserted by a prelate or prelates for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter?

 

     At Acts 12:4, an edition of the KJV printed at London in 1660 has this marginal note:  “Gr. The Passover.“  Later, the 1853 American Bible Society’s edition of the KJV has a similar note:  “Greek the Passover.”  Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV translators themselves “put the accepted meaning [Passover] in the margin,” but this marginal note is not found in the 1611 edition (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 18).  

     In their 1818 Oxford edition of the KJV, George D’Oyly and Richard Mant have this note for “Easter” at Acts 12:4:  “’After the passover,‘ that is, after the days of unleavened bread, mentioned at verse 3” (Vol. 3).

    There is clear historical evidence that the makers of the KJV were willing to use the term Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  In a sermon preached on Easter in 1608, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes stated:  “Origen in his seventh upon Exodus, he saith, our Easter-day far passeth the Jewish Easter” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 40).  In this sermon, Andrewes clearly used the term Easter for the Passover.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not common sense tell us that all of men's historical records are uninspired, flawed and are written in the light of their own personal agendas. Religious history worst of all. If not bad enough and as cultural norms change, the revisionists come along and change that "clear" historical evidence even more to aid their most recent agendas. In these last days, they don't even wait, they present fake news the day of as authoritative. Put no stock in it apart from anecdotal or trivial information even then swallowed with a grain of salt.

Easter is the word God wanted and that is the only reason it appears.

The KJB is pure. Men's writing about it or about the translators of it will never be pure and at best agenda-driven speculation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tyndale said:

 

Are you aware of the historical evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4 Instead the KJV translators 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. 

 

In his 1600's book about a Baptist pastor, 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 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).  

 

Does this historical evidence from the 1600's possibly suggest that this rendering at Acts 12:4 was inserted by a prelate or prelates for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter?

 

     At Acts 12:4, an edition of the KJV printed at London in 1660 has this marginal note:  “Gr. The Passover.“  Later, the 1853 American Bible Society’s edition of the KJV has a similar note:  “Greek the Passover.”  Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV translators themselves “put the accepted meaning [Passover] in the margin,” but this marginal note is not found in the 1611 edition (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 18).  

     In their 1818 Oxford edition of the KJV, George D’Oyly and Richard Mant have this note for “Easter” at Acts 12:4:  “’After the passover,‘ that is, after the days of unleavened bread, mentioned at verse 3” (Vol. 3).

    There is clear historical evidence that the makers of the KJV were willing to use the term Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  In a sermon preached on Easter in 1608, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes stated:  “Origen in his seventh upon Exodus, he saith, our Easter-day far passeth the Jewish Easter” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 40).  In this sermon, Andrewes clearly used the term Easter for the Passover.

 

 

It appears here as though you are saying the KJV has an error, in that it includes the word Easter, where you think it should be Passover.

Is this what you are saying in this post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

There is a lot of Bible that says unleavened bread is part of Passover should it be ignored? 

So what was the word in Greek. Pasha the only word used for Passover. Now the Catholics changed the meaning of Pasha to Easter. That happened much later in history, hundreds of years after the Apostles was dead. So its easy to understand this is Passover. Jews, Herod, unleavened bread, killing Jesus' Apostles all point to Passover. 

In the context of the verses what points to Catholics and Easter? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:38 PM, DaveW said:

It appears here as though you are saying the KJV has an error, in that it includes the word Easter, where you think it should be Passover.

Is this what you are saying in this post?

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter.  I provided some historical information that relates to this verse.  I did quote where one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [which was during the time when the KJV was being made] used the word "Easter" for the Jewish Passover or what he termed the Jewish Easter.  It is a fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles sometimes used the word Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even used the word Easter in the Old Testament for the Jewish Passover.  For example, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has Easter at Ezekiel 45:21, and it also has Easter at Luke 22:1.  At Luke 22:1, the KJV itself shows that the word Passover can be used for the feast of unleavened bread.

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

An English word can be used with different meanings in different contexts.   In two different statements in different contexts, the same English word can have different meanings.

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.   For example, in one use at one time in a certain statement, an English word can not be used properly to mean at the same time two conflicting or contradictory things.   Would you agree that it would be true to say that the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 cannot mean the Jewish Passover and not the Jewish Passover at the same time?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a pagan feast and not a pagan feast?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a Christian observance and not a Christian observance?   Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.

I agree with your statement, but there is room for error depending on the statement (at the time) and without context to qualify the statement...perhaps that's what you were saying? For example, without further context, observation, or situational clues...what is the speaker referring to?

I want a new deck.

(Is he referring to a deck of cards, a new deck for his boat, or a new deck for his house?)

The new store in town is giving a free lift to anyone who would like one!

(Is he referring to a free automobile ride or a free riser for people's shoes?)

I can't believe the bill I received!

(Is he referring to paper money or a note of debt?)

I want to ride a carousel!

(Is he referring to a carnival ride or the luggage handler at an airport?)

So, in the matter of the word "Easter", and in my opinion (for what it's worth) one must look at the statement itself, the context itself, and any situational clues to qualify the statement...observational clues aren't available. Either it's an error, or it's not.  Do you believe it's an error or not? If so, why? If not, why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyndale said:

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter.  I provided some historical information that relates to this verse.  I did quote where one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [which was during the time when the KJV was being made] used the word "Easter" for the Jewish Passover or what he termed the Jewish Easter.  It is a fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles sometimes used the word Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even used the word Easter in the Old Testament for the Jewish Passover.  For example, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has Easter at Ezekiel 45:21, and it also has Easter at Luke 22:1.  At Luke 22:1, the KJV itself shows that the word Passover can be used for the feast of unleavened bread.

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

An English word can be used with different meanings in different contexts.   In two different statements in different contexts, the same English word can have different meanings.

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.   For example, in one use at one time in a certain statement, an English word can not be used properly to mean at the same time two conflicting or contradictory things.   Would you agree that it would be true to say that the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 cannot mean the Jewish Passover and not the Jewish Passover at the same time?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a pagan feast and not a pagan feast?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a Christian observance and not a Christian observance?   Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

Just asking a simple question. 

I am afraid that your answer is so complex that I cannot tell if you believe it is an error or not.

Simple question, any chance of a simple answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My OP was about the superstitious and extrabiblical celebrations of the so-called Holy week. But it has derailed into an argument about semantics.  This is like arguing about that holiday in July.  Some people call it “Independence day” while other people call it “the 4th of July”.   It doesn’t matter, because it’s the same day.  One is more descriptive than the other while the other one is more patriotic.  But EVERYBODY knows what you are talking about.

The Bottom line, is that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES!

 

wretched, Alan and John Young like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Young said:

Here is a very good article about the word Easter in Acts 12:4:

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover.  If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology).  Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4.  It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers in the latter first century, many of whom were Gentile Christians.  At the time of Luke's writing, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover but Easter.  When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers.  

Although Herod and the Jews were waiting for the Jewish Passover, Luke uses "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers.  That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.

This article makes some very good points concerning the claim of some KJV defenders that the word Easter had to refer to some pagan festival.

The writer seems to ignore or skip over some very important aspects mentioned in the context.  In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:08 PM, Tyndale said:

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter. 

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

 Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

My answer is not complex.  It is simple.  The use of Easter at Acts 12:4 can be right according to one of the three meanings and explanations given for it, but it cannot be right according to all three of the different meanings.  It cannot mean three different meanings at the same time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Donald said:

The Bottom line, is that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES!

Good conclusion. Your post is a real blessing to my heart.

wretched likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

The use of Easter at Acts 12:4 can be right

Tyndale,

With all due respect friend...and I don't mean to sound condescending or accusatory...but you still haven't given a straight answer that leaves no room for doubt. It's obvious that you're well studied, and I appreciate that. What isn't obvious is your admitted stance on the King James Version. From my point of view, in looking over your posts, coupled with the fact that it "appears" that you are purposely not giving a straight answer, you are in effect giving an answer. 

Do you believe that the King James Version is the infallible, inerrant, and preserved word of God? If not, which version is?

DaveW likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Tyndale,

With all due respect friend...and I don't mean to sound condescending or accusatory...but you still haven't given a straight answer that leaves no room for doubt.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect?   Easter cannot properly be given all three different meanings at the same time for one particular use.  Do you think that permitting the possibility of three explanations [two of which could not be correct] would be giving a clear straight answer with no room for doubt?

My points taken from the KJV itself should have made it very clear (with no room for doubt) what I considered the way the term was used to be right in this context. 

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect?   Easter cannot properly be given all three different meanings at the same time for one particular use.  Do you think that permitting the possibility of three explanations [two of which could not be correct] would be giving a clear straight answer with no room for doubt?

My points taken from the KJV itself should have made it very clear (with no room for doubt) what I considered the way the term was used to be right in this context. 

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Okay. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you men, this has helped me. I'm going to make a note of the double meaning on the margin of my Bible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/16/2017 at 5:38 AM, Tyndale said:

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Easter is reference to the Christian aspects of the Passover week. Just as Passover is specifically one day in the "Pesach week" but can be used in reference to the whole event, so to Easter is a specific day In the "Pesach week". Passover specifically is when the Lamb is slain but Easter is specifically when Jesus Christ rose again (Easter in general meaning "Dawning"). As seen in the context, Herod was performing an anti-Resurection Easter to please the Jews. James being the first Apostle martyred on or near Passover meal, a picture of Jesus dying, and Peter was supposed to be the next martyr. Jesus being unable to be held by the grave ten years before, Herod wanted to prove that Peter could be held beyond Easter (the Christian aspects of the Passover week culminating in the Easter Resurrection of Christ). The translators use Easter instead of Passover because they wanted to emphasize the Christian aspects that Herod wanted to disprove for the Jews rather then simply in reference to the the original O.T. Passover.

(Also, While Herod was an Edomite by decent, he was a Jew by religion not Pagan. John the Baptist did not condemn him for worshiping pagan idols but rather for breaking the Law of Moses which Herod claimed to be keeping and following as the Jew's "rightful" king).

Edited by John Young
Alan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Easter a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

Was Passover a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Young said:

The translators use Easter instead of Passover because they wanted to emphasize the Christian aspects that Herod wanted to disprove for the Jews rather then simply in reference to the the original O.T. Passover.

Bro. John, where do we find justification for this assertion other than "what someone said."

DaveW likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be, that the Holy Spirit, put this word into the heart of the translators?

And I am not talking about Double Inspiration,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. John, where do we find justification for this assertion other than "what someone said."

The fact that they chose to use the English word "Easter" instead of "Passover" for the Greek word "Pascha" makes this self evident. Easter is an entirely Christian church word for the Resurrection Morning Of Christ (it was used for nothing else by the Anglican church during the time of the translators). If the translators thought that it had nothing to do with the Resurrection of Christ and only the O.T. Passover then they would have used the English word "Passover" like they did in every other instance of the word "Pascha" in the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, John Young said:

The fact that they chose to use the English word "Easter" instead of "Passover" for the Greek word "Pascha" makes this self evident. Easter is an entirely Christian church word for the Resurrection Morning Of Christ (it was used for nothing else by the Anglican church during the time of the translators). If the translators thought that it had nothing to do with the Resurrection of Christ and only the O.T. Passover then they would have used the English word "Passover" like they did in every other instance of the word "Pascha" in the bible.

It is not actually demonstrated to be self-evident.   Perhaps your statement was merely assumption or speculation since you seem to be assuming what you think that the KJV translators may have thought.  Can you provide any quotations from the writings or sermons of the KJV translators to support your statement?

 As quoted earlier, in a sermon in 1608 during the time of the making of the KJV, one of the KJV translators used the word "Easter" concerning the Jewish Passover.  That sermon by a KJV translator would demonstrate that the word Easter could be used for something else than a Christian church word during the time of the translators.  In several of the pre-1611 English Bibles, both the word Easter and the word Passover were interchangeably used for the Jewish Passover.  The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible printed during the lifetime of the KJV translators still had Easter for the Jewish Passover at a verse in the gospel of John.  The Bishops' Bible was the accepted official translation of the Church of England during the time of the translators up to 1611 so it also demonstrates that the word Easter was used for something else than only a Christian church word. 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators suggested that they sometimes chose to vary their renderings of the same original language word and not be consistent.

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Wed Apr 19 2017 at 0:52 AM, MountainChristian said:

Was Easter a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

Was Passover a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

The first and last day of the feast of unleavened bread were Sabbath days, and the regular weekly Sabbath was also observed. Aside from those, there was nothing stopping the execution of Peter. 

The  Passover itself wa not a Sabbath. 

MountainChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does this use of Easter make anyone else think of "kill" in Exodus 20:13?

In 2017 kill is too broad in our Americanized English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites