Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I agree with your dismissal of the errant views, however, I don't agree with your conclusion. While it is true that the translators did use a variety of synonyms, they did not use Easter and Passover interchangeably or they would have used Easter more than once. Additionally, if you were correct in the reasoning, your paper does not prove their reasoning as you only cited their statement to the general uses of words in the whole of scripture and merely asserted that was what was done in Acts 12:4. 

Easter does retain its etymology as it refers specifically to the morning of the resurrection and generally to the CHRISTIAN celebration.  It does not refer to the OT celebration of the Jews but to the Christian elements of the week that Christians were celebrating IN acts 12 (which was 10 years after the Resurrection of Christ). Herod wanted to show the Jews a pleasure so attempted to stifle the christian elements of the Passover week which culminated the Sunday after the week of unleavened bread, On Easter morning Resurrection, where the Christians calibrate Christ power over the grave, Herod planned on taking Peter (Jesus' pillar of the church and "greatest" apostle of the faith) and executing him. Showing his power over the church and thus the futility of the Christian faith.

Webster 1828: E'ASTER, noun A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

Etymology:  Old English ēastre ; of Germanic origin and related to German Ostern and east; perhaps from Ēastre, the name of a goddess associated with spring

(The goddess connection is spurious at best and is a result of false etiological practices of comparing unrelated words by sound and have no real bearing on the actual word. It was unknown if the purported goddess "Ēastre" was even worshiped as only record of her was from Bede in the 500's A.D. when he recounting pagan folklore 500 of years previous. In the christian era common uses referring to looking towards the "East" or towards the "dawn" or "spring time" and the spring month but never in regards to a goddess. It is similar how our days and months and planets all are named after false gods but we do not worship them as such.)

Acts 12:1-5 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 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. 5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Sorry John, but your assertions ignore the usage if the word Easter by Tyndale, Coverdale, The Geneva, Bishops Bible and other English speakers of that time such as Gill. 

Yet the translators chose not to translate Easter in the same way that those before them had done. Its clear the Christian event is what was referenced by Luke, therefore they left the distinctly Christian name rather than the Jewish event known everywhere else as Passover.

Your paper needs to address that choice of the distinctly Christian event word "Easter" specifically rather than generally asserting it was merely a synonym preference for the distinctly Jewish event word "Passover".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, John Young said:

Yet the translators chose not to translate Easter in the same way that those before them had done. Its clear the Christian event is what was referenced by Luke, therefore they left the distinctly Christian name rather than the Jewish event known everywhere else as Passover.

Your paper needs to address that choice of the distinctly Christian event word "Easter" specifically rather than generally asserting it was merely a synonym preference for the distinctly Jewish event word "Passover".

As already referenced in the paper, you are in error to assume that because the translators left easter it means something distinct from passover because A. They admitted to doing things of this nature and B. Historical usage of the word shows English speakers of that time using the word as a synonym for passover. 
if you want to assert that “Easter”/“pascha” in that context somehow means something different from Easter then the burden of proof is upon you and not me. 

I think it is intellectually dishonest for you to say that since they used the word Easter in Acts 12 it must be something different and then assume a Christian meaning to the word.  

To be consistent will you apply that same reasoning to Coverdale in the places of the Old Testament where he used the word Easter in places where it clearly is the Jewish passover?

To be consistent will you “address that choice of the distinctly Christian event word Easter" by Coverdale? 

Was Coverdale incompetent or wrong? Or did he know something about the word Easter that you seem unwilling to aknowledge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

As already referenced in the paper, you are in error to assume that because the translators left easter it means something distinct from passover because A. They admitted to doing things of this nature and B. Historical usage of the word shows English speakers of that time using the word as a synonym for passover. 
if you want to assert that “Easter”/“pascha” in that context somehow means something different from Easter then the burden of proof is upon you and not me. 

I think it is intellectually dishonest for you to say that since they used the word Easter in Acts 12 it must be something different and then assume a Christian meaning to the word.  

To be consistent will you apply that same reasoning to Coverdale in the places of the Old Testament where he used the word Easter in places where it clearly is the Jewish passover?

To be consistent will you “address that choice of the distinctly Christian event word Easter" by Coverdale? 

Was Coverdale incompetent or wrong? Or did he know something about the word Easter that you seem unwilling to aknowledge?

Jordan,

Thank you. I did read your link, copied it, and will keep it in my files.

I think that John was intellectually honest nor was John in error. John has been intellectually honest in all of his posts and I think you are being unjustly unkind to him. John gave good reasons why he believed what he believes and I agree with him and the reasoning why the KJV translators translated Acts 12:4 as they did: Easter and not Passover.

If you want to use Miles Coverdales' Bible that he published in 1535 instead of the authorized Version, the 1611,  go right ahead. But, I would not, nor would some other 'intellectually dishonest' brethren, accept his rendering of the word Easter in the Old Testament. I believe he was in error. If you want to cross out the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 that is your prerogative.

Jordan, you stated in your first post, "As a preview, I take neither the position that it is an error nor that it is a pagan holiday." If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

John stated in his first post, "Easter does retain its etymology as it refers specifically to the morning of the resurrection and generally to the CHRISTIAN celebration.  It does not refer to the OT celebration of the Jews but to the Christian elements of the week that Christians were celebrating IN acts 12 (which was 10 years after the Resurrection of Christ)." Easter, as it is written in Acts 12:4, due to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, is an excellent rendering of the word. I, as with John, and many others, will keep it exactly like it reads in the KJV.

Alan

Edited by Alan
give to good
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Alan said:

Jordan,

Thank you. I did read your link, copied it, and will keep it in my files.

I think that John was intellectually honest nor was John in error. John has been intellectually honest in all of his posts and I think you are being unjustly unkind to him. John gave good reasons why he believed what he believes and I agree with him and the reasoning why the KJV translators translated Acts 12:4 as they did: Easter and not Passover.

If you want to use Miles Coverdales' Bible that he published in 1535 instead of the authorized Version, the 1611,  go right ahead. But, I would not, nor would some other 'intellectually dishonest' brethren, accept his rendering of the word Easter in the Old Testament. I believe he was in error. If you want to cross out the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 that is your prerogative.

Jordan, you stated in your first post, "As a preview, I take neither the position that it is an error nor that it is a pagan holiday." If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

John stated in his first post, "Easter does retain its etymology as it refers specifically to the morning of the resurrection and generally to the CHRISTIAN celebration.  It does not refer to the OT celebration of the Jews but to the Christian elements of the week that Christians were celebrating IN acts 12 (which was 10 years after the Resurrection of Christ)." Easter, as it is written in Acts 12:4, due to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, is an excellent rendering of the word. I, as with John, and many others, will keep it exactly like it reads in the KJV.

Alan

Where did I say anywhere that it needed to be changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By way of reference, some of the same thoughts in this thread have already been addressed. Here is the link to an earlier discussion of Acts 12:4.

Hope it helps the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
37 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

Jordan,

What I said was correct and applies to anyone, repeat anyone, who implies, hints, downgrades, or otherwise casts doubt on the preservation of the scriptures as they are written. I did not say you said, "...it needed to be changed." What I said was a warning, not that you said the word Easter should be changed. The warning is a good warning and it stands as I wrote it.

Alan

Edited by Alan
deleted a quotation mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Where did I say anywhere that it needed to be changed?

21 hours ago, Alan said:

I did not say that you said Easter, "... needed to be changed."

On 4/8/2020 at 7:28 AM, Alan said:

Jordan, you stated in your first post, "As a preview, I take neither the position that it is an error nor that it is a pagan holiday." If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

18 hours ago, Alan said:

Jordan,

What I said was correct and applies to anyone, repeat anyone, who implies, hints, downgrades, or otherwise casts doubt on the preservation of the scriptures as they are written. I did not say you said, "...it needed to be changed." What I said was a warning, not that you said the word Easter should be changed. The warning is a good warning and it stands as I wrote it.

Alan

I am sorry, Alan; but as an outside observer that is NOT how I read your original comment.  In the context of this thread discussion, your use of the 2nd person pronouns "you" and "your" throughout the above quoted paragraph certainly appears (at least to this outside observer) as a direct reference to Jordan.  In fact your first use of those 2nd person pronouns in that paragraph clearly has Jordan as their antecedent - "Jordan, you stated in your first post . . ."  As the paragraph then proceeds, there does not appear (at least to this outside observer) to be any other antecedent for your 2nd person pronouns provided.  Thus it appears (at least to this outside observer) that all of the remaining uses of the 2nd person pronoun in that paragraph actually DO refer unto Jordan as their antecedent --

Jordan, you stated in your first post, "As a preview, I take neither the position that it is an error nor that it is a pagan holiday." If this is so, why not keep the word Easter as it is? Beware, once you start on the road of changing a word like Easter in the KJV due to your thinking on etymology due to some bible translator, or theologian, than you are headed down the road of error on numerous other words as well. 

Certainly, this comment may have application unto anyone who engages in such a practice.  However, within the context of your above paragraph, it appears clear (at least to this outside observer) that you are talking directly to (since you used a grammatical direct address) and about Jordan himself.  Thus I myself as an outside observer would indeed conclude that you accused Jordan of seeking to change "a word like Easter in the KJV," specifically due to his "thinking on etymology."

(Note: I have NO desire to engage in the discussion itself about the use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Scott,

Thank you for your opinion.

Seeking to change a word in the scriptures and saying "...it needed to be changed" is not the same. I never stated that Jordan, using the 2nd. person personal pronouns that you quoted in your post, is the equivalent to stating that Jordan said, "...it needed to be changed." It seems to me that that issue is a "straw man" to get past the main issue. The main issue is the implication, by Jordan and the linked Easter study, that Miles Coverdale was more consistent, and therefore correct, than the KJV translators.

And, let us not forget, it seems to me that throughout his whole thesis, including the link, which does not have an author or another means of checking the source, that Jordan is implying that the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is not consistent in the etymological use of the word, or correct and that John, me, and others, who do not agree with Jordan's teaching is "intellectually dishonest."

Also, another very important matter that Jordan did not mention, nor did you mention, that Jordan accused John that he was "intellectually dishonest."

If this discussion is to continue on a even keel, I would like the following:

1. Who is the author of the link in Jordan's first post.

2. An apology for calling John, and those who believe what he posted, as  "intellectually dishonest."

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, Alan said:

Also, another very important matter that Jordan did not mention, nor did you mention, that Jordan accused John that he was "intellectually dishonest." 

On 4/8/2020 at 4:01 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

I think it is intellectually dishonest for you to say that since they used the word Easter in Acts 12 it must be something different and then assume a Christian meaning to the word.  

Indeed, Brother Alan, for the sake of fair recognition, I will certainly grant that Jordan appears to be accusing John of being "intellectually dishonest" in his above quote.

Concerning the issue of the word "Easter" in the Authorized Translation of Acts 12:4, it appears to me that both sides do indeed have some intellectually honest points for consideration.  I know what the Greek word in Acts 12:4, and that it is normally translated as "Passover" throughout the Authorized Translation.  I know the contextual flow of thought throughout the passage itself.  The one question I would like answered (from individuals who are now dead, so not likely to receive) - Why did the translators of the Authorized Translation translate that Greek word as "Easter" in this one and only place throughout the translation?  Yes, I am aware that during that time the word "Easter" was used as a synonym for "Passover."  Yet, the translators were strictly consistent 28 out of 29 times in translating that Greek word as "Passover."  So, why did they do differently just the one time in Acts 12:4?  I would simply like to know their reasoning.  Was it simply for variety?  Was it to support the "Easter" holiday by including the word one place in the translation?  Was it because it was so translated by previous English translations that they were following after?  Was it because they viewed the word in that context as representing something different than strictly the Jewish Passover?  Was it some reason that I simply have not even considered yet?  Etc.

On the other hand, I have NO desire or intention to disparage the Authorized Translation due to the inclusion of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4.  Those who seek to create some form of "scandal" against the translation thereby will not find an ally in me.  Yet I do view it as a legitimate attempt to "rightly divide" God's Word  when individuals seek for grammatical and contextual understanding after the reason for its inclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...