Acts 12:4 "Easter" is correct and here's why.

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I had always heard and read that Easter was actually the Feast of Ishtar the carried over from Babylon. Ishtar was the fertility goddess, among other things, and that is why things that represent fertility get included in Easter.... eggs, grass, rabbits, etc. May not be where the concept of Easter came from, but sounds about the same as any other. Pagan.

But I am more than confident that "Easter" is not what is in view. I have often wondered why don't folks just use the name the Bible gives it in Leviticus 23 to avoid the confusion... The Feast of First Fruits, which is the first of the week following the Passover week. i.e. resurrection Sunday.

The false "Easter = Ishtar" thingie comes from an 1853 book by Alex Hislop, The Two Babylons. That idea came from their similar pronunciations, with no FACT behind it.

Passover is a week long, according to Ezekiel 45:21. Passover was ongoing when Herod busted Peter in Acts 12. EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST.

God ordained passover for Israel for ever; Easter is man-made.
 
Upvote 0

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I had always heard and read that Easter was actually the Feast of Ishtar the carried over from Babylon. Ishtar was the fertility goddess, among other things, and that is why things that represent fertility get included in Easter.... eggs, grass, rabbits, etc. May not be where the concept of Easter came from, but sounds about the same as any other. Pagan.

But I am more than confident that "Easter" is not what is in view. I have often wondered why don't folks just use the name the Bible gives it in Leviticus 23 to avoid the confusion... The Feast of First Fruits, which is the first of the week following the Passover week. i.e. resurrection Sunday.

Yeah "Ishtar" is a completely false etymology. Notice when you hear this pseudo-etymology, they'll never mention how Ishtar supposedly became Easter. Why the change from sh to s? Was it borrowed into Greek which doesn't have a sh sound? The real etymology is traceable.

Proto-Indo-European *aus (dawn) + derivational suffix -ro
>
Proto-Germanic *Austro (sr becomes str in PG) (compare English stream with Greek rheuma, Old Irish srúaim, Albanian rrymë, and Old Lithuanian sraumuõ)
>
Old English Eastre
>
Modern English Easter
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
KJVOs bend over backwards trying to deny that "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a goof, but the FACTS tell it IS a goof.

First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts". And, if it HAD then existed, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please woulda observed it.

Next, the AV men clearly knew the difference between Easter & passover. They honored Easter as one of the 2 holiest days of the year, along with Christmas, and even included an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611. The word "passover" had been in use for around 80 years before the AV 1611 was made.

And, of the 29 times the word "pascha" appears in the New Testament Greek, the AV men rendered it "passover" 28 times, with Acts 12:4 being the sole exception. They simply overlooked it in their proofreading. It was a GOOF, plain-n-simple!
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Mr. Kinney will simply not admit that the KJV (NOT "KJB") is not perfect. But of course "Easter" is not the only goof in the KJV. Another is in Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL". The Hebrew word rendered 'kill' here is "ratsach", which is best rendered as MURDER, which is the true meaning of that verse, as God prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes/sins in the very next chapter of Exodus.

And another is "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Newer versions CORRECTLY render this as "the love of money is A root of ALL KINDS of evil." This is true, as we know of a great many evils committed for things other than money. Hitler committed a few evils, but never for money.

Now, while the KJV is overall an excellent translation, it's old & archaic now, a "Model T" Bible version, & it's certainly not perfect. It's been upstaged by newer versions printed in current English style. But we must remember that ALL Bible translations, in any language, are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, & thus, human error is inevitable. But GOD sees to it that we have His word as He intends.
 
Upvote 0

david shelby

Active Member
Mar 14, 2019
132
44
43
USA
✟2,210.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Easter is wrong...today, but was right back then. In the 1500s "Easter" was the common word for the Jewish Passover. In Tyndale's first translation, the first real English translation, of the Torah, he called Passover "Easter" consistently. In a later revision, he went back and invented the word "Passover" and replaced all occurances with "Passover." So "Easter" was the word to refer to the Passover in English, prior to that. But then "Passover" began to replace it. Passover had not fully replaced Easter in usage in 1611, so "Easter" slipped in one time into the KJV where they meant "Passover." If a modern person understands this history, then the KJV saying "Passover" is fine. If a modern person thinks the KJV is referring to the Catholic "Easter" then the KJV is wrong, to them. Modern translations are more accurate here, because by saying "Passover" not only are they preserving the meaning of the Greek (Pascha = Passover) but they are preserving what the KJV translators themselves undoubtedly meant.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Easter is wrong...today, but was right back then. In the 1500s "Easter" was the common word for the Jewish Passover. In Tyndale's first translation, the first real English translation, of the Torah, he called Passover "Easter" consistently. In a later revision, he went back and invented the word "Passover" and replaced all occurances with "Passover." So "Easter" was the word to refer to the Passover in English, prior to that. But then "Passover" began to replace it. Passover had not fully replaced Easter in usage in 1611, so "Easter" slipped in one time into the KJV where they meant "Passover." If a modern person understands this history, then the KJV saying "Passover" is fine. If a modern person thinks the KJV is referring to the Catholic "Easter" then the KJV is wrong, to them. Modern translations are more accurate here, because by saying "Passover" not only are they preserving the meaning of the Greek (Pascha = Passover) but they are preserving what the KJV translators themselves undoubtedly meant.
David, I've said for years that if the AV men had CONSISTENTLY rendered pascha as Easter, we could simply chalk it up as an archaism, but using Easter once out of 29 instances of pascha's appearing in the NT Greek, especially when there was no reason to do so, must be considered a GOOF.
 
Upvote 0