Easter

[WAB]

EASTER

Notes re Acts 12:4.…

Many (especially in the KJV Only camp) claim that in the KJV of 1611 (and later revisions), the translators were correct in their insertion of “Easter” in place of “Passover” or “Pesach” or “Pascha” in Acts 12:4.

To counter these claims, which include stating that only later or “modern” versions of the Bible changed from using “Easter” to the most common “Passover” one need only look at Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to find that the literal translation is: “pascha. pas’khah; of Chald. or. … the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):”

Also, it is really a stretch to claim that only the “modern versions” of the Bible have changed from “Easter” to Passover. For example, the Latin Vulgate has: “post pascha” and this version, (although admittedly faulty in other areas) was finished in 405 A.D.

Noah Webster’s version (and yes, of the Bible) was done in 1833.
Young’s Literal in 1862. Darby’s translation in 1890. The ASV in 1901.
All of these older Bibles have “Passover”.

In addition, all of the following versions have “Passover” in Acts 12:4.… the BBE; the NASB; the RSV; the NRSV; Wuest’s Expanded Translation; the CCNT; the NIV: the NKJV; the ESV; and there are others.

As stated elsewhere, I love and use the KJV almost daily, mainly because of the majestic language used. Daily use now is restricted to the NKJV reference Bible w/ wide margins for the insertion of notes, but refer often to the versions mentioned above.

This is not to say that there are not aberrations in any of the versions mentioned. There are. Only the original autographs were absolutely without error of any kind. But…
None of the copyist errors, nor translation errors, have corrupted ANY of the foundational doctrines of the Word Of God, for said errors are miniscule when a comparison using immediate and general context is followed. You can trust His Word!

Paper written by: W.A.B.

 

[SwordOfGod]

I did not know there was a KJV only camp...

 

[WAB]

I did not know there was a KJV only camp...

O-o-oh yes... and some go so far as to say that if you find a discrepancy between legitimate manuscripts and the KJV, one must disregard the manuascript and hold to the KJV rendition.

 

[justified]

Let's never, ever use Strong's to define a word, okay? It's called a concordance for a reason. You want to define a word, use a lexicon. Preferably in the NT Baur Arndt and Gingrich.

 

[WAB]

Let's never, ever use Strong's to define a word, okay? It's called a concordance for a reason. You want to define a word, use a lexicon. Preferably in the NT Baur Arndt and Gingrich.

Just in case you missed it... In the back of the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, there are dictionaries with meanings/definitions in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek.

In addition, I use: Unger, Vine, Gesenius, Thayer, etc., etc.

If you are objecting to the definitions presented in the post re wine, why don't you correct them from your perspective?

Also, just in case you are unaware... Gesenius' and Thayer's happen to be lexicons.

I have been castigated on several occasions for making the posts too long.
That is the reason for not including all the references. i.e. damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

One of the reasons for referencing Strong's is that far more people have that volume, and I have yet to see a legitimate refutation of any of the definitions I have posted referencing Strong's.

You may not like the idea/truth that Jesus made genuine wine out of water, but that is what the Word of God declares.

 

[WAB]

P.S. to response to "Justified" in #5... If you are unhappy with the definitions found in the paper re "Easter", then the same applies as to "Wine".

 

[WAB]

P.P.S. to #'s 5 & 6.... Even the terribly corrupted "New World Translation" has "passover" in Acts 12:4.

 

[justified]

Just in case you missed it... In the back of the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, there are dictionaries with meanings/definitions in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek

Yes, it's a veritable dissertation, isn't it? Strong's has a mini-dictionary in theback. I like to call it Strong's Miniscule Lexicon. It's simply not a good source for word study.

In addition, I use: Unger, Vine, Gesenius, Thayer, etc., etc.

Thayer is not bad. I'd stay away from Vine's and Ungers. These are ancient and are so cheap because of that and because they required less scholarship to produce.

Seriously, the best lexicon out there that can be bought at a reasonable price (around 70 US, I think) would be the third edition, Baur Arndt Gingrich and Danker.

If you are objecting to the definitions presented in the post re wine, why don't you correct them from your perspective?

Um, this has nothing to do with wine. It has to do with methodology.

P.S. to response to "Justified" in #5... If you are unhappy with the definitions found in the paper re "Easter", then the same applies as to "Wine".

You can hardly call what you wrote a "paper." Just so we're clear, I happen to agree with your conclusions in both threads. But the way you got about "proving" it is full of holes. An amateur could shred your argument apart. One ofthe reasons is that you rely on Strong's, which isn't a true lexicon. It's just a word dictionary. Another reason is that you oversimplify the issue.

I'm not tryin to discourage you. Just make you into a better writer.

 

[Nazaroo]

Let's never, ever use Strong's to define a word, okay? It's called a concordance for a reason. You want to define a word, use a lexicon. Preferably in the NT Baur Arndt and Gingrich.

Something we can agree upon!

 

[WAB]

Yes, it's a veritable dissertation, isn't it? Strong's has a mini-dictionary in theback. I like to call it Strong's Miniscule Lexicon. It's simply not a good source for word study.


Thayer is not bad. I'd stay away from Vine's and Ungers. These are ancient and are so cheap because of that and because they required less scholarship to produce.

Seriously, the best lexicon out there that can be bought at a reasonable price (around 70 US, I think) would be the third edition, Baur Arndt Gingrich and Danker.


Um, this has nothing to do with wine. It has to do with methodology.


You can hardly call what you wrote a "paper." Just so we're clear, I happen to agree with your conclusions in both threads. But the way you got about "proving" it is full of holes. An amateur could shred your argument apart. One ofthe reasons is that you rely on Strong's, which isn't a true lexicon. It's just a word dictionary. Another reason is that you oversimplify the issue.

I'm not tryin to discourage you. Just make you into a better writer.

Beg to differ... The paper (or would you prefer papyrus?) on wine had to do with WINE! The one on "Easter" had to do with exactly that. I happen to believe that when the Word of God warns the Believer as in 2 Cor. 11:2,3...
"...I am jealous for (or over) you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his craftiness (or subtilty, same Grk. word, which means: adroitness; trickery; sophistry), so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity (i.e. without dissimulation) that is in Christ."

Complicating the issue does not help. If you agree with the conclusions presented (as you affirm), then why don't you "...shred [my] argument apart."
Conclusions are arrived at by consideration of the evidence.

There is so much "sophistication" presented on these threads that one who does not have the educational background claimed by quite a few posters here could easily become discouraged.

Paul was an extremely well-educated and informed scholar of the Law. After he put his trust in the resurrected Christ, he daclared in Ph'p. 3:7 that: "...what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ."

This is not to say that education is a bad thing. Far from it. But as Christ said in Mt. 18:3... "...'Assuredly I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

The purpose of any born-again believer should be to win the lost in as simple a way as possible.

Again...complicating things does not help... Vine's and Unger's are indeed old, and I don't agree with all that is presented in them, but tell me... do you think that Baur, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker are faultless?

Your Brother because of Calvary, WAB

P.S. Because you are enamored of Baur, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, parhaps you would be kind enough to post something (anything) they put forth that would contradict what has already been presented?

 

[justified]

If you agree with the conclusions presented (as you affirm), then why don't you "...shred [my] argument apart."

Honestly? Because I have better things to do.

BTW, you seem to have some interesting translations:

unless you are converted and become as little children