New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[Guest Guest]

I see that the Passover here is only referred to as the actual meal, not even a single day as I originally said. As such, and being that the Passover had already been celebrated, the passage in Acts cannot be talking of the Passover; perhaps the Feast (or Days) of Unleavened Bread, but not the actual Passover, as it had already occurred.

[Kubel]

As I said, the celebration of the Passover is a week-long holiday. It was back then just as it is today. God passed over one night- but the celebration of Passover, as God instructed them to do in chapter 12, spans several days.

Also, here's a couple of scans from my 1611 facsimile:

http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_easter.jpg
http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_holydays.jpg

"To finde Eaſter for euer" and "Sunday and Tueſday in Eaſter Weeke".

This proves either:

1) The translators were pagans encouraging readers to celebrate the pagan holiday.

or

2) The translators used the word "Easter" here to mean something else unawares even though we know today that Easter is none other than a pagan celebration.

So back to the original question. Which was correct? Easter or Passover? During the 1600's, "Easter" was acceptable (after all, they used the term in their Holy Day list and Calendar). So I don't consider it an error in the KJV. But today, we know the true meaning of the word Easter, and any modern translation should probably not use that word.

Today, it would be inappropriate to use "Easter" where the Greek uses "pascha" (Passover), not "ishtar" (Easter). I have also demonstrated that Passover is a week-long celebration that includes the feast of unleavened bread. It is today, and the context of Exodus 12 shows us that it was since the beginning.

So I find the unleavened bread explanation a good attempt to explain Easter as legitimate, but not good enough. Better to stick with the idea that the translators and the people of England considered "Easter" to acceptable back then (whereas today it is not).

[Guest Guest]

As I said, the celebration of the Passover is a week-long holiday. It was back then just as it is today. God passed over one night- but the celebration of Passover, as God instructed them to do in chapter 12, spans several days.

Also, here's a couple of scans from my 1611 facsimile:

http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_easter.jpg
http://www.minihost.org/1611/1611_holydays.jpg

"To finde Eaſter for euer" and "Sunday and Tueſday in Eaſter Weeke".

This proves either:

1) The translators were pagans encouraging readers to celebrate the pagan holiday.

or

2) The translators used the word "Easter" here to mean something else unawares even though we know today that Easter is none other than a pagan celebration.

So back to the original question. Which was correct? Easter or Passover? During the 1600's, "Easter" was acceptable (after all, they used the term in their Holy Day list and Calendar). So I don't consider it an error in the KJV. But today, we know the true meaning of the word Easter, and any modern translation should probably not use that word.

Today, it would be inappropriate to use "Easter" where the Greek uses "pascha" (Passover), not "ishtar" (Easter). I have also demonstrated that Passover is a week-long celebration that includes the feast of unleavened bread. It is today, and the context of Exodus 12 shows us that it was since the beginning.

So I find the unleavened bread explanation a good attempt to explain Easter as legitimate, but not good enough. Better to stick with the idea that the translators and the people of England considered "Easter" to acceptable back then (whereas today it is not).

I guess I need to clarify: the verses that you posted only refer to Passover as a meal, not a week-long celebration at all. Passover in the Bible is a single day, or even a single meal, not a feast, or the "Days of Unleavened Bread."

By saying (incorrectly) that Passover is the whole week-long celebration, you do indeed make it sound like a inferior word in the KJB. However, if we look at it in context, we see that the explanation that you provide simply doesn't hold up when you compare it with Scripture. Since Passover is a meal, or at most a single day, then the translation of this word to "Easter" is either completely incorrect, or it has an even deeper meaning. Of course, most here would prefer the the first over the latter, for fear of endorsing "Advanced Revelation," as if it were some horrible, heretical thing.

To sum it up: Passover is a meal, or at most a single day, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Peter was taken shortly after Passover, and Herod was going to wait until after EASTER to put him to death. Easter is different from Passover (things that are different are not the same, etc.), so there is an explanation. Finding that explanation is one thing, and believing it yet another.

[Guest Guest]

Good posting Vince.

Katy-Anne

[Will]

I guess I need to clarify: the verses that you posted only refer to Passover as a meal, not a week-long celebration at all. Passover in the Bible is a single day, or even a single meal, not a feast, or the "Days of Unleavened Bread."

By saying (incorrectly) that Passover is the whole week-long celebration, you do indeed make it sound like a inferior word in the KJB. However, if we look at it in context, we see that the explanation that you provide simply doesn't hold up when you compare it with Scripture. Since Passover is a meal, or at most a single day, then the translation of this word to "Easter" is either completely incorrect, or it has an even deeper meaning. Of course, most here would prefer the the first over the latter, for fear of endorsing "Advanced Revelation," as if it were some horrible, heretical thing.

To sum it up: Passover is a meal, or at most a single day, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Peter was taken shortly after Passover, and Herod was going to wait until after EASTER to put him to death. Easter is different from Passover (things that are different are not the same, etc.), so there is an explanation. Finding that explanation is one thing, and believing it yet another.

Exo 12:17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
Exo 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
Exo 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

[Guest Guest]

All I really know is that if the KJV says Easter, then it's Easter. :

Katy-Anne

[Kubel]

MC1171611,

The days of unleavened bread are part of the Passover holiday. I know it's difficult to understand since I can't think of any Christian (or even secular) holiday that we celebrate today that spans multiple days- but for the Jews, Passover is a week-long celebration. The Passover lamb and when God passed over were done in one night- but the celebration of Passover goes on for days:

Exodus 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

To me, it's very clear the feast of the unleavened bread occurs with Passover. To confirm this, I checked around- and not to my surprise, I found Wikipedia confirms that Passover is, indeed, a week-long holiday that includes the feast of unleavened bread. So scripture shows it, and we see that today, Jews are still practicing it this way. If they were doing it the first passover, and they are doing it today, why would it be different during the time of Christ?

I suggest that the translators (and indeed, probably all of England) used "Easter" to represent Passover not realizing its true meaning. We know today that Easter is a pagan holiday and has nothing to do with Passover or the cross. But according to those scans I posted, it's clear that even the best scholars of the 1600's in England misused "Easter" (by todays standards).

The Greek says "pascha".
The context supports Passover being a week-long celebration.
Modern Jews celebrate a week-long Passover.
In the 1600's, we know England used "Easter" (by todays standards inappropriately, but back then was acceptable). (see scans)

Today, we know Easter is pagan, and shouldn't be used, officially, to represent a Jewish or Christian holiday in an English translation.

So was it inappropriate for the translators to use "Easter" in 1611 when translating Acts 12:4? No. It was acceptable then. The state Church of England was even using the word Easter and it is printed in the 1611 as if Easter actually was equal to Resurrection Sunday. So it was a word of the common man for that time. But for today's translators, it would be inappropriate to use Easter in place of Passover (pascha).

I'll duck out now. :DH: :D

[kevinmiller]

:goodpost:

Excellent posting Kubel!

:amen:

[Guest Guest]

The KJV is perfect, therefore if the KJV says Easter, it means Easter, and it ought not be changed.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

I don't advocate changing it, but both words are fine to use. The KJV is not the standard and there are ZERO verses to prove that the KJV is now our standard for God's Word.

[Guest Guest]

I believe the KJB is the standard and therefore if it uses a certain word, to change it would be wrong. The KJB is perfect, so then why does it need changing?

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

I just said that it didn't need changing. But I did say that you won't find a reference in your KJV that says that it is the new standard.

[Guest Guest]

I find reference in my KJV that proves it's perfect though. And if it is perfect then everything in it is correct.

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7

I think Dr Gipp has other verses too in his book, I'll see if I can find them.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

Wow Dr Gipp actually fully explains why "Easter" is the correct translation and not "passover" and why it would be wrong to translate the word as "passover".

http://www.av1611.org/KJV/easter.html

Very good stuff!

Katy-Anne

[Will]

Wow Dr Gipp actually fully explains why "Easter" is the correct translation and not "passover" and why it would be wrong to translate the word as "passover".

http://www.av1611.org/KJV/easter.html

Very good stuff!

Katy-Anne

Looks like not much more than speculation. He's not citing any historical sources to back up his points.