Christian definitives for older words and their definitions

Because that is the meaning of the word. It has no other meaning. Why would you condone error. I have already demonstrated this in a multitude of different English translations, as well as some translations in other languages. Do you think that they are all wrong. Everyone but the KJV translators are wrong. Surely you have more sense than that. I have demonstrated to you that the meaning of the word is passover. A Greek lexicon gives that definition. There is no other definition. How can you possibly think that out of 29 times when the word is used the KJV translators translated it wrong 28 times?

It is not the duty of the translator to interpret a passage, but rather to translate the passage. We don't need their Anglican interpretation. We need the interpretation of the word from the Greek. If the translators simply give their interpretation they are no better than those that paraphrase. We have enough paraphrases on the market, and they all stink. I'll give you an example:

Ecclesiastes 6:9 Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.

In the Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor paraphrases this verse instead of translates it. Here is his paraphrase:

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
--He gave his thought on the verse, what he thought it should mean, not what it meant.

The same is true in Acts 12:4 with the KJV translators with the word "pascha." They gave an interpretation--what they thought the word should mean, not what the word meant. It was an interpretation, not a translation.

 

I will only say this: With all the modern day resources we have at our fingertips, and including those on the internet, you have no excuse.

 

Who changed the meaning? Give me a time, place and most of all a person that changed the meaning of this word.
Furthermore why does the word still have the same meaning among the Jews?
The Jews still celebrate the Passover to this day. You are mistaken.
The word "pascha" has never changed meanings. We are speaking of words and their meanings. Why can't you understand that?

That is wrong. Pascha means passover and nothing else. The KJV translators erred, and there is no excuse for it. It has no reference to the resurrection whatsoever. Even the context of the passage was referring to the Passover.

This is a ridiculous statement. The Greek is what the Greek is, and has remained the same since it was written from the time of Luke onward. It has not changed. The Greek is the authority from what we base our meanings of words, not any other language including English. It has nothing to do with Greek vs. English meanings. It has to do with the meaning of a Greek word, and that is all.
ENGLISH DOES NOT SUPERSEDE GREEK!

 

Tell that to the Greek Orthodox church:laugh:

 

We have plenty of excuses. Tv shows, movies, secular books, our favorite sports teams....all these are more important than some silly pursuit of learning more to know God better through His word.

Come on, DHK. Get with the times :laugh:

Sarcasm over....I say "Amen" to you, sir.

 

Of course it was. There is no translation without interpretation. Why? Because words only have meaning in context. The context must be understood to determine the meaning of individual words. Of course, the individual words must be understood to determine the context. Sound circular? Thus, a major difficulty of translation.

Many words can have more than one definition (in fact, most do). For example, what is the definition of the English word "trunks"? It could be the woody axis of trees, or the long nose of elephants, or large locking boxes used for storage, or men's shorts worn for swimming, or even something else. Greek words can also have more than one meaning. For example, arche (Strong's #746) can mean the 'beginning' (first of series), or 'corner' of something (like a sail), or even a leader (a person).

The interpretation of the context will most often determine which meaning was intended. Occassionally a context arises that is very meager or is so complex that making an interpretation is difficult because multiple meanings of a particular word could be possible.

So first, COULD pascha be defined as 'easter'? Yes, it could; that should be substantiated by citing other uses of that same word (pascha) in the same or similar contexts that clearly result in that definition (easter). We don't have that in the KJV; however, we do have that in some other early English Bibles. Part of the problem here is that 'easter' does not have a clear definition (or that the definition has changed over time or by cultural setting). Second, SHOULD pascha be interpretated here as 'easter'? That would need to be substantiated by its relevence to the context. Part of the problem here is that the context is just not that clear.

 

Actually, the context in Acts 12 is very clear and the meaning is the Jewish Passover.

Act 12
Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 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.
Act 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.[\i]

Herod was trying to vex the Church. So he arrested James and had him killed. He saw that this pleased the Jews, so he had Peter arrested also and planned to turn him over to the Jews - who were celebrating the days of unleavened bread (which is called Passover) - after the Passover.

 

1. Pascha does not have the meaning of Easter.
2. The only meaning pascha does have is Passover, in spite of your objections.
3. The word "pascha" is used 29 times in the NT, and only this one time it is erroneously translated by the KJV translated as "Easter" due to their Anglican bias.
4. As TC aptly pointed the entire context is Jewish in nature. The context is "Then were the days of unleavened bread". How can this be ignored, when it is right in the preceding verse--verse three. It is the Jews that celebrate the feast of unleavened bread, not the Christians. This was during the days or time of the passover (pascha), not easter.
5. Even more importantly, it would have been impossible for this word to be translated or mean Easter, for no such word existed and did not come into existence until about 900 A.D. There was no "Easter" at the time of the writing of Luke. It didn't exist. You are reading from the English back into the Greek. That is not only bad hermeneutics; those who continue to do so on a regular basis are a part of a cult.

 

Since when is the KJV the standard by which judge what a Greek word means? (with apolgies to Dr. Strong).

Nonetheless, please read some other early English translations (start perhaps with Tyndale).

 

I have already read many. 90% of them translate the word "pascha" as "Passover." It is not a few translations that make any difference. It is the meaning of the word as defined by lexicons. Words have meanings. The meaning of the word is "passover." Is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

Here is the meaning of pascha according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

NOTE: There is not a hint of "Easter" in these definitions.

 

How is the other 10% translated?

 

See post #72. It really doesn't matter does it.

 

That Tyndale was such a dolt. He didn't even know that pascha must always be translated "passover".

 

That is about the best evidence that you can give why one must always go to the Greek as their standard and not a man's translation. Our standard must be the Greek not English or any other translation. If the Greek word was pascha, then it is obvious that Tyndale made a mistake. After all, he was only a man. Only the original MSS were without error.

 

Shame on them for using that nasty pagan word!

 

Apostelgesch 12:4 Da er ihn nun griff, legte er ihn ins Gefängnis und überantwortete ihn vier Rotten, je von vier Kriegsknechten, ihn zu bewahren, und gedachte, ihn nach Ostern dem Volk vorzustellen.

And Luther too!

 

Yes it does, because Post #72 does not address the numerous times 'ester' (and similiar spellings of 'easter') are used in early English translations.