Tell you what, I used to be a member of the Worldwide Church of God, and we observed the Old Testament Holy Days.
NEVER have I heard the ENTIRE 8 days referred to as Passover!
If anything we called it the Spring Holy Days!
And how do you know they referred to it as such back then, especially with Verse 3?
Besides, why would the writer of Acts SPECIFY that Peter was taken DURING THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD?
If they considered the whole thing Passover?
Considering the modern versions are inaccurate, based on a completely different text (the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus), it's obvious that their use of Passover in that verse is incorrect.
The King James translators were very diligent in their translation.
So why would they make an error like that?
They didn't.
I used to be ignorant and think any Bible version was okay.
Then my eyes were opened.
not that this proves anything, but among orthodox jews today the night (actually 2 nights, long story) of the seder begins the week long festival that everyone just commonly
and collectively calls pesach (passover).
was this the case in the first century? i have no idea.
like i said before, the term "easter", at the time of the translation of the kjv could signify either the christian OR jewish celebrations, so the translation is not in error in any case.
Yes, technically this is true for the time it was translated. However, today, "Easter" and "Passover" are considered different things. The error lies in the KJV-O defense of "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and in saying "Passover" is wrong.
The question of why the translators chose to use the word "Easter" once and only once is still perplexing. Was it carelessness? Maybe.
There is a theory that the translators wanted to keep the liturgical word "Easter" - which the Puritans did not celebrate - in the Bible and chose this occasion to do so.
Those who maintain Easter and Passover once were interchangeable have a good point, but not in 1611. Tyndale had already coined "Passover" to refer to the Jewish holiday and the Geneva Bible got it right.
Another point along this line to consider: Today, the main KJV-O argument against "passover" in Acts 12:4 is because "Herod was a pagan" and would have observed Easter, but not Passover - the point being Passover = good, Easter = evil. Even in this thread, Alexandra even linked to a site that makes this argument. However, anyone who has seen a 1611 reprint can see for themselves that the KJV translators themselves *honored and observed* Easter, putting it in their Calendar in the front, and including tables for calculating the date of Easter for any given year. If the passage must say "Easter" because Herod was a pagan, what does that say of the very men who gave us the KJV in the first place?
It tells me that the translators of the KJB were
HONEST men that knew a
EDOMITE (Herod) does not recognize Jewish Passover,but Easter instead.Really folks,study the history of the New Testament Church before you post,and save yourselves the embarrassment.The KJB is correct.
It tells me that the translators of the KJB</font>[/QUOTE] Are they translators or writers of scripture?
Only Holy Spirit inspired writers are qualified to change a meaning from what it had always been before.
Who honestly thought Baptists were criminal heretics and therefore honestly persecuted them.
Honestly, I cannot understand why you aren't Anglican or at least a legitimate offshoot like the Methodists.
Really MVN, you should recognize that fallible accounts of church history should never be used to 'correct' the uniform testimony for what God's Holy Word said.
The only way the KJV is correct is if the Anglican translators were inspired to rewrite scripture.
In that case, you should very seriously study and probably adopt their doctrines since there is no evidence that God ever used someone who was doctrinally unsound to write scripture.
Just a friendly suggestion.
If you want to be taken seriously and be engaged then you should make your own points rather than relying on the unbiblical opinions of others.
Many of us have read all or part of the links you give.
Our disagreement by and large is not because we haven't heard the arguments of KJVO's.
Our contention is that they are both historically and scripturally unsupported in their beliefs.
Just a friendly suggestion.
If you want to be taken seriously and be engaged then you should make your own points rather than relying on the unbiblical opinions of others.
Many of us have read all or part of the links you give.
Our disagreement by and large is not because we haven't heard the arguments of KJVO's.
Our contention is that they are both historically and scripturally unsupported in their beliefs. </font>[/QUOTE]So my points agree with the points of others.
Bottom line is, the NKJV, the NIV, et al, are perversions.
It tells me that the translators of the KJB were
HONEST men that knew a
EDOMITE (Herod) does not recognize Jewish Passover,but Easter instead.
</font>[/QUOTE]You miss the point. The KJV translators recognized Easter as well. If the word should be Easter because Easter/Herod = bad (Passover/Peter = good), then that implies KJV translators = bad.
Besides, Herod *would* recognize Passover, for political reasons. Herod killed James, which pleased the Jews (verses 2 and 3). That's why he took Peter in the first place, because he saw that killing an apostle made the Jews happy. The motivation for taking Peter was political - he's not going to mess it up by killing a Jew during the Jewish feast, which the Jews would not tolerate. To keep the Jews happy (which is what he wanted), he had to hold Peter until after the feast of unleaven bread (Passover) was over.
Really MV-neverist, read Luke 22:1 before you post, and save yourself the embarrassment. "Passover" is correct.
;)
I've never really looked into it for two reasons: 1. even if they were related, "Ishtar" in Herod's time would be quite a different celebration than "Easter" in King James' time. and 2. I'm not one to be to concerned about Christian celebrations/traditions that may have pagan origins, because the whole principle of "redemption" is about turning something bad into something good.
the oxford english dictionary disagrees with you, quoting the av1611 verse in acts as an example of the now archaic usage of the term 'easter' to mean the jewish passover.