That's a foolish statement that screams you didn't read what I wrote. Nobody on the planet denies that Pascha means passover. (oh, an I love the irony of this phrase)
1)That's not an argument for this being correct as it begs the question that it would be "highly unlikely." 2) We already have evidence of where the groups were inconsistent in translation. So no, not highly unlikely with evidence it already happened. You surly don't think that having a group means no errors are possible do you? You do realize that groups of renowned scholars also disagree....
You didn't address anything I said. In face you showed you didn't even actually read it. It doesn't matter why they did what they did because nobody knows why. They are not around to tell us.
Now, address the argument presented. You have provided no sound evidence that it should be Easter instead of Passover. Please show us from the text that the word "pascha" should be interpreted as a pagan holiday instead of the Passover which is being spoken about in the context.
scriptural case for or against KJV-only
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 30, 2012.
Page 6 of 6
-
-
As far as the KJV using Easter here, the definition of Easter and Passover had been separated. Even the 1755 dictionary(the oldest I can find online) doesn't mention Passover as a meaning in Easter.
As I told Winman though, it doesn't matter really what the KJV translators meant here as it does with what Luke meant when he wrote it. All evidence points to Luke meaning Passover and not Easter. The KJV translators are inconsistent at least on this point. -
-
10 pages +
Samo samo
Genug ist genug
Page 6 of 6