Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4

[DaveW]

In an attempt to explain clearly and concisely, please allow me to post my premise in a single post.

 

Either Easter or Passover is fine to use etymologically in a general sense. I know and understand this as I have looked into it previously.

However, there are other factors to consider.

 

Leviticus 23

5  In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

6  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

 

Nisan 14 - Day of Passover

Nisan 15 )

Nisan 16 )

Nisan 17 )

Nisan 18 ) These seven days are the

Nisan 19 ) days of unleavened bread.

Nisan 20 )

Nisan 21 )

 

Acts 12

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.

 

Note that it says in Acts 12 that it was at the time of these events “the days of unleavened bread”.

Note in the list above that the Passover preceeds the days of unleavened bread, as decreed by God in Leviticus 23.

Therefore, the actual Jewish Passover had already passed.

To then translate the word as “Passover” in Acts 12:4 would cause confusion, seeing as the actual Jewish Passover was already completed.

So, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, the translators of the KJV chose to use a different word which was within the range alowed by etymology.

Therefore, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE,  the use of the word “Passover” while etymologically allowable, is confusing and inaccurate,  as the Jewish Passover was already completed prior to these events, and therefore in this instance the word must be referring to something other than the Jewish Passover.

To use the word Passover in this instance is incorrect.

A bible which uses the word Passover in this instance is therefore also incorrect.

This also explains why I said the Greek and the Hebrew don't come into it ("it" being the consideration of the discussion) as it has to do with the usage of the word within allowable meanings, not in fact the various meanings.

[Heir of Salvation]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

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. 

 

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

Don't play games...you know nothing about either one.....I do have knowledge.....I know something about ancient languages....and I can smell when someone does, or doesn't know anything about them.

Let's make this clear.........YOU, DAVE W. KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EITHER GREEK OR HEBREW.  I know it, you know it, you aren't going to trick me by saying something like "well, we don't otherwise know one another, so, there's no way you could have learned that about me".............

Stop being a pretender.........It's not that I know you It's simply that I know what someone who knows something about linguistics, ancient languages or philology sounds like, and you ain't it...........

Tell us, Dave....do you know Hebrew?

Do you know Greek then?

No, you don't...........I know you don't, and I can tell you don't.........much like my mechanic knows I'm full of junk every time I try to explain what's wrong with my engine.

I know what I don't know, so does my mechanic, and you don't know a fig about Hebrew or Greek.....let it die.

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

I know you gave reference about the dates....you aren't the first person to make this non-descript argument.   You're also mistaken about your dates  They won't add up........do some more research here's a hint, the apostle John will correct you if you read his works more thoroughly.

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". 

The KJV translators didn't differentiate between the words "passover" and "Easter" like you do...........because they didn't differentiate between the words "Easter" and "passover"........  The words were interchangeable to them.  It's actually that simple.

This actually has nothing to do with the etymology of the word

It has EVERYTHING to do with the etymology of the word.

but the specific usage in the instance.

Yeah......that's called "etymology" in the rest of the inhabited Universe BTW..........

The word is translated passover in every other instance and so translated correctly.

It's translated correctly, because it's translated correctly.  The KJV translators would be floored that you are belabouring times, dates, and things we don't get by bickering about "passover" and "easter"............to an English speaker (or a KJV translator)....in 1611.....they were the same word.

 as the actual day of Passover was already past.

No, it wasn't.  Not according to the apostle John nor according the translators of the KJV nor anyone.......it's right there in your KJV (which is translated correctly BTW)..........try again.......read your Bible more closely next time, you're wrong.

Please do some more objective research, it's just false, provably false....  That argument is wrong............I know the KJV translators were right in their translation of the word................They're just not right for the reason you THINK they were right.........They were just perfectly correct for a completely different reason than you are arguing here.

Passover in this instance is both inaccurate and confusing. 

It's inaccurate and confusing to an American reading it 400 years after the fact, Dave..........

It wasn't the least bit confusing to a Brit reading it in the 17th Century.  The KJV translators were fine with their translation, they just weren't playing to your particular American 21st Century mores.......There's not much else to it.

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Heir of Salvation

[DaveW]

8 minutes ago, Heir of Salvation said:

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

Don't play games...you know nothing about either one.....I do have knowledge.....I know something about ancient languages....and I can smell when someone does, or doesn't know anything about them.

Let's make this clear.........YOU, DAVE W. KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EITHER GREEK OR HEBREW.  I know it, you know it, you aren't going to trick me by saying something like "well, we don't otherwise know one another, so, there's no way you could have learned that about me".............

Stop being a pretender.........It's not that I know you It's simply that I know what someone who knows something about linguistics, ancient languages or philology sounds like, and you ain't it...........

Tell us, Dave....do you know Hebrew?

Do you know Greek then?

No, you don't...........I know you don't, and I can tell you don't.........much like my mechanic knows I'm full of junk every time I try to explain what's wrong with my engine.

I know what I don't know, so does my mechanic, and you don't know a fig about Hebrew or Greek.....let it die.

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

I know you gave reference about the dates....you aren't the first person to make this non-descript argument.   You're also mistaken about your dates  They won't add up........do some more research here's a hint, the apostle John will correct you if you read his works more thoroughly.

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". 

The KJV translators didn't differentiate between the words "passover" and "Easter" like you do...........if you knew anything about either Greek or English you'd know that.......but, it's obvious you don't.  The words were interchangeable to them.

This actually has nothing to do with the etymology of the word

It has EVERYTHING to do with the etymology of the word.

but the specific usage in the instance.

Yeah......that's called "etymology" in the rest of the inhabited Universe BTW..........

The word is translated passover in every other instance and so translated correctly.

It's translated correctly, because it's translated correctly.  The KJV translators would be floored that you are belabouring times, dates, and things we don't get by bickering about "passover" and "easter"............to an English speaker (or a KJV translator)....in 1611.....they were the same word.

 as the actual day of Passover was already past.

No, it wasn't.  Not according to the apostle John nor according the translators of the KJV nor anyone.......it's right there in your KJV (which is translated correctly BTW)..........try again.......read your Bible more closely next time, you're wrong.

Please do some more objective research, it's just false, provably false....  That argument is wrong............I know the KJV translators were right in their translation of the word................They're just not right for the reason you THINK they were right.........They were just perfectly correct for a completely different reason than you are arguing here.

Passover in this instance is both inaccurate and confusing. 

It's inaccurate and confusing to an American reading it 400 years after the fact, Dave..........

It wasn't the least bit confusing to a Brit reading it in the 17th Century.  The KJV translators were fine with their translation, they just weren't playing to your particular American 21st Century mores.......There's not much else to it.

 

Have you ever considered addressing the arguments put forth rather than attacking the person?

By the way, your response in this posts proves only how little you know of me in all regards.

The majority of members here will laugh heartily at your assessment of me.

[Jim_Alaska]

Let's stick to facts and scripture huh HOS? Please do away with accusations against persons.  

[Heir of Salvation]

9 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Let's stick to facts and scripture huh HOS? Please do away with accusations against persons.  

I am............

Dave isn't..

Please define "accusation" and explain what sin precisely, I've accused him of.

Did I accuse him?

Of what then, Jim?

What did I "accuse" him of, exactly?

 

Do tell.

[Heir of Salvation]

9 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Let's stick to facts and scripture huh HOS? Please do away with accusations against persons.  

I am............

Dave isn't..

Please define "accusation" and explain what sin precisely, I've accused him of.

Did I accuse him?

Of what then, Jim?

What did I "accuse" him of, exactly?

 

Do tell.

[Jim_Alaska]

28 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Don't play games...you know nothing about either one.....I do have knowledge.....I know something about ancient languages....and I can smell when someone does, or doesn't know anything about them.

Let's make this clear.........YOU, DAVE W. KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EITHER GREEK OR HEBREW.  I know it, you know it, you aren't going to trick me by saying something like "well, we don't otherwise know one another, so, there's no way you could have learned that about me".............

Stop being a pretender.........It's not that I know you It's simply that I know what someone who knows something about linguistics, ancient languages or philology sounds like, and you ain't it...........

These that I quoted are accusations and they are not up for debate, argument, or discussion HOS. Keep in mind that a sarcastic reply to a mod's reprimand will not be tolerated.   

[DaveW]

Could you present a Bible reference where the Apostle John states (as you claim with no reference) that this time in Acts 12, referred to as "the days of unleavened bread" was not after the Passover?

Exodus 23 states that the feast of unleavened bread was always after the Passover.

Edited June 5, 2016 by DaveW

[Heir of Salvation]

21 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Have you ever considered addressing the arguments put forth rather than attacking the person?

By the way, your response in this posts proves only how little you know of me in all regards.

The majority of members here will laugh heartily at your assessment of me.

Have you ever considered addressing the arguments put forth rather than attacking the person?

I am addressing your arguments, they're wrong.

By the way, your response in this posts proves only how little you know of me in all regards.

I don't have to know ANYTHING about a person individually to know whether their arguments are wrong Dave.

Let's draw this out:

Do you know a lot about me personally?

No.

Do you disagree with my arguments?

Yes.

So............do you hear my crying like a woman that "you don't know me personally, so you can't disagree with me"?

I am reading your arguments as you post them.......I don't have to know anything about you to know when your arguments are wrong, nor do you need to know me personally to refute them.....that's what's cool about arguments, they stand on their own, they aren't personal.  I've no doubt that personally you're a great guy.  I'm sure you're the nicest person your side of the equator....................but you're still wrong.

The majority of members here will laugh heartily at your assessment of me.

I haven't "assessed" you Dave..........If I did, it would not be what you think it is.

You want an "assessment"? here it is........here's my "assessment" of you Dave:

1.) You are a brother in Christ struggling mightily to know and understand the truth

2.) You are a basically solid and essentially knowledgeable KJV Bible believer who does his best to understand and follow the truth as outlined in the Scripture.

3.) Like all persons, you are not perfect; but you strive to humble yourself before the throne of grace and hear where you are wrong and have gone wrong, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the reading of the Word, you do what you can to be perfectly sanctified in well doing to the furtherance of the kingdom.

4.) You stand up regularly and somewhat courageously against false doctrines and "imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God"........ You do this at least to the best of your ability.

 

That's my assessment of you..............

So, would the fellow members "laugh" at that?

I doubt it.............but I'd also add that you know little to nothing about Greek or English circa 1600 and your arguments are off-base and mis-guided to the extreme on this issue.

That's my assessment.

 

 

 

[Heir of Salvation]

34 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

These that I quoted are accusations and they are not up for debate, argument, or discussion HOS. Keep in mind that a sarcastic reply to a mod's reprimand will not be tolerated.   

No one is being "sarcastic"..............

Sarcasm from me would play right into your hands, and I'm not falling for it.

You said that I made "accusations" against Dave........(your words)

I'm simply asking you to state precisely what "accusations" I've made against him.

 

That isn't "sarcasm" Jim, that's me asking you to show me where exactly I've "accused" Dave (your word) of anything.

 

What did I "accuse" him of?

Am I now being accused by a moderator of accusing people??????

I'll repent..........publically, and unreservedly as soon as you show mere where I've erred in falsely "accusing" (your word) my brother.

False accusations are unacceptable and they can't stand.  No one should be permitted them.

If I've accused Dave falsely, show me where, please, so that I might refute, retract and apologize for that grievous error.  I know not where I've accused him, but if I have I'd love to know where, so, please show me that I may repent.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Heir of Salvation

[DaveW]

26 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Could you present a Bible reference where the Apostle John states (as you claim with no reference) that this time in Acts 12, referred to as "the days of unleavened bread" was not after the Passover?

Exodus 23 states that the feast of unleavened bread was always after the Passover.

In case you missed it, reference please?

[Heir of Salvation]

4 minutes ago, DaveW said:

In case you missed it, reference please?

Gotcha'..........and no I didn't miss it.

I've gotta feed my ducks, but that Leviticus argument isn't the whole story, I'll be right with you.

[Jordan Kurecki]

I am a King James Bible Believer, but I have a few points to make.

1. Passover and Easter are both used unterchangably in older English translations, this leads me to believe perhaps they were synonyms in the English langauge perhaps.

2. It has been pointed out that Passover occurs after the days of unleavened bread, however what is not mentioned is that in Ezekiel the whole feast and days of unleavened bread are also referred to as Passover.

3. I do not believe Easter refers to a Pagan Holiday. The Greek word translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word Pascha, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Pesach. To think that the same word for the Hebrew Passover could mean a Pagan Feast is a very very far stretch.

To be honest I don't know why is is translated as Easter by the King James Translators, I do not accept that it is an error in translation, I lean more towards believing that the word Easter was just used as a synonym for Passover, In the verse where Christ is said to be our Passover lamb, Tyndale chose to render it "Christ our Easter Lamb". The more logical thing to conclude is that Easter also means Passover.

38 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Could you present a Bible reference where the Apostle John states (as you claim with no reference) that this time in Acts 12, referred to as "the days of unleavened bread" was not after the Passover?

Exodus 23 states that the feast of unleavened bread was always after the Passover.

 ^{Ezekiel 45:21} In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

 

Sometimes the whole feast can be called Passover.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Jordan Kurecki

[Heir of Salvation]

17 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I am a King James Bible Believer, but I have a few points to make.

1. Passover and Easter are both used unterchangably in older English translations, this leads me to believe perhaps they were synonyms in the English langauge perhaps.

2. It has been pointed out that Passover occurs after the days of unleavened bread, however what is not mentioned is that in Ezekiel the whole feast and days of unleavened bread are also referred to as Passover.

3. I do not believe Easter refers to a Pagan Holiday. The Greek word translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word Pascha, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Pesach. To think that the same word for the Hebrew Passover could mean a Pagan Feast is a very very far stretch.

To be honest I don't know why is is translated as Easter by the King James Translators, I do not accept that it is an error in translation, I lean more towards believing that the word Easter was just used as a synonym for Passover, In the verse where Christ is said to be our Passover lamb, Tyndale chose to render it "Christ our Easter Lamb". The more logical thing to conclude is that Easter also means Passover.

 ^{Ezekiel 45:21} In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

 

Sometimes the whole feast can be called Passover.

^^^^^It's something like that^^^^^^^^^^^

From what I've personally observed, Jordan has a pretty good overall understanding of this topic.  He's pretty solid here.  Those words were used (at least at the time) essentially interchangeably in English, and, as Ezekiel demonstrates, the "passover" refers to an entire week of  celebration The gospel of John also uses "passover" to refer to an entire week of celebration that can't be pinned to a specific day..........that's what I was driving at Dave, We can get into more specifics later.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Heir of Salvation

[DaveW]

Thank you for the Scripture reference Jordan.

It always helps when people use Scripture rather than just saying "because I say so".

But Acts 12:3 uses the phrase "days of unleavened bread" to speak of this feast time. That would incate that the "easter" in Acts 12:4 is not talking about the feast of unleavened bread, but something else.