Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4


Recommended Posts

  • Members

How about a little reversing on this thoughtline?

Let's say we translate from the English into Greek for witnessing purposes in Italy. What Greek word would you use to tell them about Easter in this verse? There are over 13 million people on our little planet that speak Greek. What would we say when quoting Acts 12:4?

Curious.

 

No responses on this one, huh?

Still curious though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

How about a little reversing on this thoughtline?

Let's say we translate from the English into Greek for witnessing purposes in Italy. What Greek word would you use to tell them about Easter in this verse? There are over 13 million people on our little planet that speak Greek. What would we say when quoting Acts 12:4?

Curious.

 

No responses on this one, huh?

Still curious though.

Well, I don't speak Greek. But Google does...

Screenshot - 04032016 - 09:38:12 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"EASTER, a festival of the christian church, observed in memory of our Saviour's resurrection. 

The Greeks call it pasga, the Latins pascha, an Hebrew word signifying passage, applied to the Jewish feast of the Passover. It is called easter in the English, from the goddess Eostre, worshipped by the Saxons with peculiar ceremonies in the month of April.

The Asiatic churches kept their easter upon the very same day the Jews observed their passover; and others, on the first Sunday after the first full moon in the new year..."

[Source: Direct quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 2, published in Edinburgh in 1771.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Basically, to simplify, before the NT the Greek/Hebrew Pascha meant the time when the lamb was slain, blood was posted, and the children left Egypt. In today, in English, this is our word Passover. AFTER the resurrection Pascha was no longer about the Passover lamb but the risen Christ and Acts 12:4 shows the tipping point, if you will, between the Church and the Jewish concepts and emphasis of Pascha. Pascha in all languages NOW does not mean OT Passover but it means NT Easter. It is now a Christian word for a christian event. In Greek they had to say "the Jews Pascha" in order to distinguish Passover from Easter. (type "Passover" into the English to Greek translator and the Greek words "jewwish pascha" is what you will get.) Today, if the Greeks want to speak of OT Pascha they can say "pass over" and it would be more accurate then just using Pascha but that would have to be up to the Greeks to figure out. As for English speakers we already have our two words to differentiate between the OT and NT events.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

This argument simply should not exist at all.......ever.....

There's just nothing to this issue.  It's a non-issue.  It doesn't exist.

Hi, Heir of Salvation. I fixed your post for you......:rolleyes: It must have been something of an issue if the translators found it fitting to change every Pascha to Passover EXCEPT for Acts 12:4. Its clear they knew the meaning of all three words and chose to use the English Chrsitain Pascha, Easter, rather than use the Jew's Pascha, Passover. Simply put, none of the other Paschas in the bible meant Easter except for Acts 12:4.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

John, I don't know why you state this as if there is proof that Herod was re-enacting the resurrection, but that sounds like someone making it up to prove accuracy without using their head.

It is clear to me that Luke is alluding and contrasting the Resurrection in Acts 12. By this time, the Passover is no longer about OT Passover for the Christian. It would be quite silly of them to simply celebrate the Passover and just ignore all of the Easter events of the week or to keep quiet about the fact this was the time of year the Christ was crucified and rose again. Acts 12 is about Herod, the Jewish leader, trying to vex the church and please the Jews during a time very important to everyone. The best way to please the Jews that is to stifle the church's resurrection event and to keep the events limited strictly to those of the OT Passover. Acts 4:1-2 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

I've taken the liberty of copying Acts 12 below and noted in red how I think the passage events compare to the events of Christ's resurrection. Note the intents of Herod's actions at the beginning then notice how God turned it around.

Acts12:

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.) Jesus also was taken during this time. Pilate found no fault in Jesus but because he wanted to pacify the Jews he allowed Jesus to be taken and killed. Herod captured James during the days of bread and killed him. Rather than kill Peter whom he captured, soon after, he decides to keep him until "after Easter". Not to be put to death, but to be brought forth to the people. Matthew 27:16-20 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

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. Jesus was put in a tomb guarded by soldiers with the command to guard the tomb until AFTER the third day. Matthew 27:62-66 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. Peter therefore was kept in prison: Up to this point Herod thought he was in control of everything happening to Peter..... but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. 10 When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. The Angel of the lord rolled the stone away from the tomb of Jesus and the Angel of the Lord freed Peter by opening the doors. Peter rose while it was dark the same day he was to have been brought forth and Jesus also rose before the dawning of the day.

12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. 13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. 14 And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. 15 And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel. 16 But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished. 17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place. Jesus too had women bare the message after the resurrection. At first they thought Jesus was a spirit as well. Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:21-23 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

18 Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. 19 And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. The Roman soldiers could not keep Jesus as well and were paid off. It seems that Herod did not feel like paying these soldiers...... Matthew 28:11-15 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. 14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. And he went down from Judæa to Cæsarea, and there abode.

20 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. Here we see Herod is struck down....24 But the word of God grew and multiplied. This shows that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, prevailed over Herod. In this battle for the people. 

 25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I received this in my email from Jewish Awareness Ministries.  It was in response to my question about the origin of word Easter.       

The De-Judification of Pascha in the Early Church

(Author Unknown)

At least as late as the fourth century A.D., the holiday known as Easter was called Pascha. That Greek name came from the Hebrew Pesach ("Passover" in English). Easter, however, appears to be derived from Eastre, the name or festival of the Teutonic goddess of spring, to whom sacrifices were offered in the month of April. The word is Germanic, not Greek or Hebrew. We can surmise that when Christianity began to make inroads among the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes, the name Easter was transferred to the Christian celebration, inasmuch as both occurred at the same time of year.1

'The earliest observances of Pascha took place at the same time as Passover, on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This celebration is referred to as the "Quartodeciman  Passover" from the Latin word for "fourteenth."

Moves toward changing the date of Pascha began early in the second century. The motivation behind this change was fear of the authorities coupled with anti-Jewish sentiment. The actual course of events appears to have been as follows.2

Bishop Sixtus of Rome, who presided from A.D. 116-126, may have been the first to observe a Sunday date rather than the 14th of Nisan. Three reasons support this idea.

1. According to the church historian Eusebius, a later Roman bishop named Victor sought to impose a Sunday observance on the entire Church and to break ties with those Christians who observed the 14th of Nisan. He was opposed by Irenaeus, who discouraged such a break and argued that peace should be kept among Christians who celebrated the day on different dates. He contended that even earlier church leaders who did not observe the Quartodeciman date were at peace with those who did. In mentioning the names of one church leader after another, Irenaeus used reverse chronological order, stopping at Bishop Sixtus. This seems to imply that the practice first began with Sixtus.

2. The rule of Bishop Sixtus coincided with the measures of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that were aimed at repressing anything Jewish. (Hadrian's reign was A.D. 117-138.) It would have made sense if the church had been pressured at that time not to observe the 14th of Nisan. Any anti-Jewish feeling would certainly have, been catalyzed by Hadrian's prohibition of Jewish customs and festivals. This culminated in the expulsion of the Jews, including the Jewish Christian church leaders, from Jerusalem, circa A.D. 135. (After that, the Jerusalem Church was composed of Gentiles.).

3. According to the fourth century Bishop Epiphanius, the Sunday observance of Pascha was first introduced in Jerusalem after A.D. 135 when the Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by Hadrian. If the new Sunday observance began with Sixtus in his tenure of A.D. 116-126, this would have allowed time for the practice to have spread to Jerusalem by A.D. 135.

The next significant step on record comes from the late second century, the time of Bishop Victor of Rome. As already mentioned, Victor attempted to make the Sunday observance of Pascha uniform. A primary motivating factor for Victor would have been the presence in Rome of many Christians from Asia Minor who observed the Quartodeciman Passover. Their presence alongside the Roman believers would have meant that Christians were observing two different dates for the same occasion. Perhaps Victor's only motive was his desire to ensure uniformity of worship within the Church.      

In any case, by the middle of the third century, blatant anti-Semitic statements are found in various Christian sources. In a work called De pascha computus, the author, known as Pseudo-Cyprian, wrote contemptuously of following the Jewish practice, expressing the desire for Christians not to "walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover."3

Finally, in the fourth century; Pascha became decisively separated from Passover and restricted to a Sunday observance. Not only individuals but church councils contributed to the change of date. In 314, the Council of Arles recommended a single date for the uniform observance of Pascha, but it was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that was the watershed that solidified this motion. The date of Pascha was fixed as the Sunday following the full moon that falls on or after the vernal equinox.4 The edict of the Council of Nicaea proclaimed:

"All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us."5

Ultimate official support came from Emperor Constantine, whose conciliar letter to all bishops of the same time period announced it "unworthy" to celebrate Pascha on Passover.6

Nevertheless, complications arose because some churches followed the Jewish or lunar calendar. Full uniformity in calculating the date was not secured until as late as the eighth century.7 The Eastern Orthodox Church still calculates Easter differently than the Western churches by as much as five weeks.8

1. See J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell and Peter Toon, eds., The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition: Worship, Liturgy, and History (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), "Easter"; John C. . McCollister, The Christian Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David, 1983), pp. 230-231; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, see "Easter."

2. As described by Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), pp. 159-163, 199-206. See also 1. Jeremias, "pa,sca [Pascha]," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament V:901-903; Jean Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 343-344; Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. I: Beginnings to 1500 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975, 1953), p. 137.

3. Bacchiocchi, p. 206 n. 115.

4. On this point see The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), "Easter," "Paschal Controversies," "Quartodecimanism."

5. The word Easter appears in the English translation of this text but actually was not a term in use at this point in time. The holiday was still called Pascha. Quotation is from Bacchiocchi, p. 203 n. 104.

6. Ibid., p. 206.

7. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), pp. 55-56.

8. See the articles referred to in note 4.

 

 

Edited by LindaR
Spacing of paragraphs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/5/2016 at 2:40 AM, John Young said:

Hi, Heir of Salvation. I fixed your post for you......:rolleyes: It must have been something of an issue if the translators found it fitting to change every Pascha to Passover EXCEPT for Acts 12:4. Its clear they knew the meaning of all three words and chose to use the English Chrsitain Pascha, Easter, rather than use the Jew's Pascha, Passover. Simply put, none of the other Paschas in the bible meant Easter except for Acts 12:4.

The "translatorSdidn't do anything.

The kjv was a committee work and one man or only a few were assigned any given book.  The committee reviewed and put their stamp of approval on it, but it wasn't a collaborative work in that sense.  That's just the facts of how it worked.

Their is no problem if you understand one simple issue.

There are not, and were not "three" words...sir, there was actually only one word, always and forever.

Words don't have Divine and insuperable, unchangeable, and irrevocable meanings static over time in any language ever.

It just so happens that the Greek word "Pascha" could rightly be translated either "passover" <--(a word Tyndale invented) or "Easter" <-- a word the etymological  history of which is irrelevant. 

Etymology DOES NOT impose an insuperable Divine decree upon how a word must Always be used forever and always. The definition of a word comes from common use.  Let's take the "English" word "cafe".....

Where does that come from and what does it mean?

Well, the root is from either the Spanish or the Italian meaning "coffee"

Here's Italian: caffè

Here's Spanish: café

 .................but, that's NOT what it means in English is it????

In England, the word was stolen to mean not the product itself, but rather a roadside shop wherein one might purchase or be served the product "coffee".

So, the question IS NOT..."what does the word 'Easter' mean in 2016.............

It is WHAT DID the word 'Easter' mean in 1611....

The answer to that question is, that it was a catch-all word to mean EITHER the 'passover' celebration as celebrated by Orthodox Jews, OR it was the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ celebrated by Christians.

It can easily be proven (as I said earlier) that as late as 1640 the Church of England would in the book of common prayer and in KJV commentary use the phrase "The EASTER of the Jews" It's all the same root word 'pascha' from the Greek.

Let's explore how the Greek work "pascha" (as now used as the Christian celebration) is translated in about a million European languages (you just have to use google translate here to do it):

Italian : Pasqua

Spanish: Pascua de Ressurreccio'n <---They are probably more specific Theologically than anyone.

French: Paques

Azerbaijani: Pasxa

Albanian: Pashke

Basque: Pazko

Catalan: Pasqua

Kazakh: pasxa

Welsh: Pasg

GREEK: Páscha

Swedish: Pask

Norwegian: paske'.......................

 

So, how did the English translators of 1611 translate the Greek word "Pascha"?....

Well, they translated it as EITHER "passover" if it was obviously the Jewish celebration, or they chose the rather generic "Easter" if it was an "either/or-neither/nor" scenario..........in the passion narrative, Christ is The "Easter lamb" (according to Church of England commentaries) or the "passover lamb"  and the "Passover" is the "Easter of the Jews". sometimes.....................

etc...

It doesn't matter where the etymological root of the word "Easter" comes from in English or how any Germanic Heathens used it........English adopted rather seemlessly both Romance or latin derived words and also Germanic words into it's dialect.  Technically, English is Germanic, but, an innumerable number of it's words are latin derived.

 

Point is....there's no secret mystery here.  Never has been.  Herod was waiting until the Jewish passover (Herod doesn't care what the Germanic 'ostern' means).  The Acts translation tells us nothing particular, except that that particular translator preferred to use "Easter" there instead of "passover".  There's no story, there's no secret, never has been, never will be, he was neither right nor wrong.

In Acts 12, the translator could have just as easily chosen the word "passover" or "Easter" at his leisure, there was absolutely no difference back then, I almost wish he chose the other.

There's no secret, there's nothing......there's just, nothing here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Sigh......

Acts 12

 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 himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Not that difficult.

In verse 3 we find that it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Passover ALWAYS preceeded the days of unleavened bread see.....ummm Lev 23.

Passover Nisan14, unleavebed bread 15 Nisan for 7 days.

Vs 4 CANNOT be taking of the Passover for by God's  command the Passover is finished once the days of unleavened bread starts.

Easter is something else.

When did the Christians of that time remember the resurrection? I don't think we actually know, but chances are that they linked it to the Passover, so this "Easter" most likely (WARNING :ASSUMPTION) was not related to any christian remembrance.

One thing is certain - it was not the Jewish Passover. Maybe that is why the translators of the KJV used a different word in this one instance - they wanted to make sure there were no errors in their translation.

So which version erronously calls it Passover???????

 

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, DaveW said:

So which version erronously calls it Passover???????

 

No version is incorrect.

Neither the KJV nor the NIV, nor the KKJV, nor the ASV, nor the NASB, nor the NASV..........................

All of those versions are correct in their transaltions of that passage.

The difference betwixt yourself and them?????????????

They knew something about philology and the ancient languages and you don't.

No English translation got it wrong..........including the KJV.

But all translations were equally good here................

I know you don't like that, and you won't accept it, but, then again, you don't know a fig about either Greek or Hebrew, and you never will.

 

There's nothing wrong with either translation.   They are both perfectly accurate....

That renders the KJV in perfectly good translational status as perfectly well translated as it always was....but....

the other translations are not "wrong" either.....not preferable perhaps.....but, they're hardly "wrong".   

Not that you would know.....I can tell from the outset you have a cursory knowledge of neither Greek nor Hebrew...

It shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Heir of Salvation said:

No version is incorrect.

Neither the KJV nor the NIV, nor the KKJV, nor the ASV, nor the NASB, nor the NASV..........................

All of those versions are correct in their transaltions of that passage.

The difference betwixt yourself and them?????????????

They knew something about philology and the ancient languages and you don't.

No English translation got it wrong..........including the KJV.

But all translations were equally good here................

I know you don't like that, and you won't accept it, but, then again, you don't know a fig about either Greek or Hebrew, and you never will.

 

There's nothing wrong with either translation.   They are both perfectly accurate....

That renders the KJV in perfectly good translational status as perfectly well translated as it always was....but....

the other translations are not "wrong" either.....not preferable perhaps.....but, they're hardly "wrong".   

Not that you would know.....I can tell from the outset you have a cursory knowledge of neither Greek nor Hebrew...

It shows.

Hmmm - the Bible says it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Bible says the Passover is Nisan 14, the feast of unleavened bread starts on Nisan 15.

Therefore it CANNOT BE THE PASSOVER according to the BIBLE.

Greek and Hebrew don't come into it - no need to reference them in this instance as the English is exceedingly plain on this matter, and the Greek and the Hebrew will not change that one little bit.

And by the way, how do you know what I  know about greek and hebrew? - I mentioned only Bible and only English in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, DaveW said:

Hmmm - the Bible says it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Bible says the Passover is Nisan 14, the feast of unleavened bread starts on Nisan 15.

Therefore it CANNOT BE THE PASSOVER according to the BIBLE.

Greek and Hebrew don't come into it - no need to reference them in this instance as the English is exceedingly plain on this matter, and the Greek and the Hebrew will not change that one little bit.

And by the way, how do you know what I  know about greek and hebrew? - I mentioned only Bible and only English in this post.

Hmmm - the Bible says it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Bible says the Passover is Nisan 14, the feast of unleavened bread starts on Nisan 1

Yeah, your dates are screwed up...

Therefore it CANNOT BE THE PASSOVER according to the BIBLE.

Yes, it can.

Greek and Hebrew don't come into it -

Greek does...and every major extant English translation is perfectly accurate with their translation of that passage.

And by the way, how do you know what I  know about greek and hebrew?

I can tell you have only a very cursory and imprecise knowledge of English.  It's no leap in logic to know you don't know anything about any ancient language.............anyone studied in the ancient languages wouldn't post a sentence like this one:

"Greek and Hebrew don't come into it"

Not in their own parent language anyway.

I mentioned only Bible and only English in this post.

I know.....and...there's simply nothing wrong with translating "pascha" as either "passover" or "Easter".....not in 1611 anyway, neither one is either right nor wrong....they are all equally good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Hmmm - the Bible says it was the days of unleavened bread.

The Bible says the Passover is Nisan 14, the feast of unleavened bread starts on Nisan 1

Yeah, your dates are screwed up...

Therefore it CANNOT BE THE PASSOVER according to the BIBLE.

Yes, it can.

Greek and Hebrew don't come into it -

Greek does...and every major extant English translation is perfectly accurate with their translation of that passage.

And by the way, how do you know what I  know about greek and hebrew?

I can tell you have only a very cursory and imprecise knowledge of English.  It's no leap in logic to know you don't know anything about any ancient language.............anyone studied in the ancient languages wouldn't post a sentence like this one:

"Greek and Hebrew don't come into it"

Not in their own parent language anyway.

I mentioned only Bible and only English in this post.

I know.....and...there's simply nothing wrong with translating "pascha" as either "passover" or "Easter".....not in 1611 anyway, neither one is either right nor wrong....they are all equally good.

 

Ok, so apparently I don't know greek and hebrew by your estimation (based on absolutely no knowledge).

I would rather have knowledge of the Bible. I even gave the reference for you to check my dates.

But you appently don't care about what the Bible says.......

The KJV translators did not use the word "Passover" in this instance because it could not have been the Passover due to it being in "the days of unleavened bread". 

This actually has nothing to do with the etymology of the word but the specific usage in the instance. The word is translated passover in every other instance and so translated correctly.

But in this instance to use the word "Passover" would make the sentence incorrect, as the actual day of Passover was already past.

Please read Leviticus 23 vs 5 and 6 (maybe a few following) and see snd understand that the use of the word Passover in this instance is both inaccurate and confusing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...