KJVOnly or KJV?

Many Christian sites and many non-Christian sites disagree with you because they KNOW Easter is pascha on Acts 12:4. Easter is a correct translation on Acts 12:4.

 

Totally out of line comment deleted

 

Thank you.

 

AMEN!!!!!!

 

Check out post #38 of this thread for some added info, Amy.G.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1339881&postcount=38

Ed

 

Thanks Ed. :thumbs:

 

Check this link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

 

PURE Spam!!

 

Your answer as to the 'source' of the term "Easter" and the use of it, by "the church",may in fact, be the correct one, but personally, I have some doubts. See my post #38, previously referenced, here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1339881&postcount=38

The primary reason I tend to question this is that Wycliffe and then Purvey did not render it in this manner 140 years previous, and neither did the D-R, which was translated whose translators certainly had no good reason to be influenced, by Tyndale and Luther. The French and Dutch versions, both NT of which predate Tyndalew, do not render, in this fashion. The Vulgate had never rendered this in this manner, The Geneva Bible so strongly influenced by Calvin, Whittingham, and Beza, et al., were certainly no apologists for Rome, yet remained consistent with Rome, here, adn likewise remained consistent with the Vulgate and Wycliffe, as well.

Only Luther and his influence on Tyndale basically break with this, and the English versions had bibt by bit, gotten back to square one, except here., and would even get back here with the next versions to appear.

Think about it. Gotta' run.

Ed

 

Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like spam to me.

I have grown increasingly fond of the KJV. I don't see the big deal in using the word Easter. It was used in several bibles prior to the KJV.

 

From your article:

I agree. I think either Easter or Passover is correct. It is not an "error" of the KJV. IMO as always.

 

I am glad -- it is good for you! :thumbs:

 

I love the KJVs. I've been reading KJVs by myself since 1950 - 58 years you who are adept at the maths. But my Mommy had a big ol' lap Bible called the ASV1901. It had some Middle Age drawings of the scenes in Revelation that were fairly scary to a 6- or 7-year-old. Not to mention that the scene showing King Soloman's wisdom with the two women and the one baby left no chance for error - it was a boy baby. So i preferred the Pew KJVs which didn't have pictures, just words.

I love the KJVs. Today I read on a daily basis three different KJVs:

1. the KJV1611 Edition (both electronic and the Nelson Roman character /the original used a Gothic font/ reprint )

2. the KJV1769 Family of Editions (both electronic & paper)

3. the KJV1879 Edition (paper only)

I love the KJVs.

 

I agree. :thumbsup:

 

"PURE Spam!!??"

Now that is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one.

Have you ever taken the time to read the label on a can of SPAM™?

Read it sometime. It likely will give you a real TREET®!

(Eating a full can at one time, is likely to give one plenty of time to read something other labels !)

I did just read some really sad news about the unfortunate demise of PREM® .

Apparently, this one is no MOR®. :tear:



Ed


Disclaimer: The above labels are easiest to read under bright sunlight, such as outside in the flower-bed beside a TULIP™.

 

Yes, exactly, it could be Passover or Easter.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that Easter meant the Jewish Passover.
Tyndale:
And his father and mother went to Hierusalem every yeare at the feeste of ester.

 

You go to great pains to make us aware of your opinion, which you are entitled to, that there are multiple versions of the King James Version. However, you clearly state the contrary, and rightly so, by your listing of the different editions of the King James Version. Tell us, Mr. Edwards, from which of the multiple KJVs did these editions that you listed emerge?

 

why Easter is in the KJV

The 1602 Bishops' Bible which the KJV translators were to use as their stating point had "Easter" 3 times. They changed two of them to "Passover," and it might be thought possible that they overlooked the third one.

On the other hand, there is available evidence that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at this verse. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover and Coverdale had even used it in the Old Testament a couple times, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to the more accurate and consistent rendering “Passover.“

The reason why I have read that the rendering "Easter" was put in the 1611 KJV is below, and it would not seem to be a valid reason.

Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning?

This evidence that indicates that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter would seem be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.