The AV1611: Purified seven times

Con, Thanks for your reply. This little discussion is helping me to get a better understanding of this controversy. However, I still have many questions regarding your points.

If I understand the reasoning behind your points you are basically saying that;

1. During the 1500's the term "Easter" was commonly used in place of the term "Passover" simply because the term "Passover" didn't exist. The term "Easter" was the best available english word to use at that time. To counter this problem, Tyndale, invented the term "Passover" to differentiate between the Christian celebration of Easter and the Jewish celebration of Passover.

2. Tyndale and the translators of the KJV used the term "Easter" as the proper translation of "pascha" in Acts 12:4 because they understood that the newly created term "Passover" (pascha) referred to the first day of the feast of unleaved bread that had already passed. Hence, they decided, "pascha" must be refering to the pagan celebration of "Easter" which was celebrated by Herod.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe those two points sum up the bulk of your argument in defence of the pascha / Easter translation. They are interesting points, but, I am not sold yet.

First, I have to question the strong reliance on Tyndale when, even though he invented the term "Passover", he used the term "Easter" in his version of the NT in nearly every occurance of the term "pascha". If he was the one who would be the top authority why doesn't he use the term "Passover" in his own translation when the context is very clear that it is refering to the Jewish celebration. Also, if he was such an authority, why did the translators of the KJV disagree with him on all but one occurance of the term.

Secondly, I would have to question limiting the term "pascha" to meaning the first day of unleavened bread. I did a very quick check and found that the term "pascha" or "pesach" (the Hebrew word) could refer to the passover meal, the sacrificial lamb, the Holy Day itself, or even the seven day period that makes up the "days of unleavened bread" which are refered to in Acts 12:4. Ezekiel 45:21 (attached below) makes that clear.

Eze 45:21 In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

I also have a hard time accepting the position that "pascha" here refers to the pagan Easter celebration. What we do know from the context is that Herod was interested in vexing the church. To accomplish this end he had James the brother of John killed. When he saw how it pleased the Jews he, in an effort to gain further Jewish support, seized Peter with the intent of killing him also. However, this was during the days of the unleavened bread and it might not have pleased the Jews to have a killing during this time. During this time it was typical for the Romans to release a prisoner as a show of good will (remember Barabas). It wouldn't be consistent with the spirit of holy day to kill someone. So Herod decided to wait till the Jewish Holy Days were over and he could safely kill Peter and win the support he desired.

The term Passover was commonly used to refer to the entire seven day period and the use of pascha (Passover) in this context is very appropriate. I do find it a bit to speculative to some how try to bring the pagan Easter into this narrative. I find it quite odd that it would be asserted that Herod, whose livelihood rested on keeping his subjects happy and peaceful, would delay giving his special prize (the killing of Peter) to the Jews because he was so devout that he had to celebrate the pagan Easter first.

Anyway, I appreciate your time in discussing this with me. Any further information you have is greatly appreciated as I sort through this issue.

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.

(Romans 10:17)

Maranatha!!

"God said He'd preserve His word (even if He used humans). If it contains errors, you are accusing God of the errors." AMEN!!!

I had a NASB bible that had a typo in it -- withdrawn was spelled withdrawm. What if the men who were responsible for the KJV [or any other translation] did similarly? They didn't have spell-check. Does such an error invalidate the translation as a whole?

When we say without errors, we are ofcourse, excluding typos and other such errors.

One version of the King James came out (1613) with thou shalt commit adultery instead of 'shall shalt not'.

That is known as the 'wicked bible' and the printers were heavily fined for their mistake

When we speak of the King James being error free we are talking about its text, not notes and other man made additions.

What has humored me is the fact that the greek word pascha is incorrectly translated as "Easter" instead of the correct word "Passover".

Actually, the one who coined the term 'passover' Tyndale, translated it as 'Easter'

If you look at the modern Greek you will see that the word for Easter is-pascha!

There are number of explainations of why the King James used Easter and not passover.

The King James 21 used Easter also.

Can't argue with you there!

As you say, not really a major issue.

No need to go to 'war' over it as long as we know we have the pure words of God.

What we are saying is that there are two major text types, the Received text as found in the Reformation Bibles, and the critical text type as found in the Roman Catholic and Modern Versions.

They use different manuscripts and thus have different readings.

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible. It's not bitterness towards the Bible or any version of it; it's a reaction towards a silly man-made elitist, exclusivist doctrine, whose proponents are basically saying "Unless you you love, read, and bow down before our translation, the KJV, you aren't a Christian."

And who ever said that?

You can be saved and not read the King James.

You will be saved by the pure word of God engrafted into your souls (1Pet.1:23) and it is the King James text that is the pure word of God.

So, where a reading follows that text, as in Jn.3:36 in the NIV/NASB you can be saved by it.

I've seen this "bitter" reaction towards cultists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say "I cannot believe the bitterness of these people who will not believe the truth that Jesus is Michael the Archangel."

The King James was the only Bible for some 200 years (not counting the RCC bible).

It is the Modern versions, using a Roman Catholic text that have divided the churches on this issue, not the King James defenders.

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches. Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen). >>>>>First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible. >>>>>Second, yes, if the Roman and Orthodox churches do not use the Received texts they are not using the correct texts. >>>>>Nothing 'circular' about it at all. Well, if you're saying that "all the Christian Churches" recognized its authority, and you admit that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don't and never have, then the only way for your statement to be true is to say that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not actually Christian. To me that is a bit circular, if you are in fact disqualifying as a Christian anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrine.

No, first I believe the Greek Orthodox church does use the TR.

Second, I would not regard Romanists as being saved if they follow the teachings of their church, salvation plus works.

A catholic may be saved despite being a Catholic by accepting Christ as his personal saviour and ignoring what the RCC teaches on the subject.

I guess what I'm really trying to get it is, do you feel that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not Christian? For that matter, anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV only doctrine?

It isn't the KJV only issue here it is faith plus Nothing (Gal.2:14)

No, it doesn't, but if we look for a common element on apostasy, the first sign of it is when the church gives up its Bible for alternative authorities like Popes, Councils, Priests,Creeds, Scholars etc. Well, to bring up Popes, Councils, and Creeds (it was the Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Reformation-era Protestants who followed the priests and scholars) is just silly, since the Christian Church was following those for over a millennia, and nearly all Christian Churches still recognize at least some of the Councils and Creeds.

And as a Bible believing Baptist, I believe that the Reformation did not go far enough in following Sola Scriptura.

They did have it correct in theory however, but did not put it into practice.

If you ask me, there are two common starting points when apostasy began. The first is the Reformation itself, for the rather broad reason that it gave approval to the idea that anyone who felt like it could start their own sect based on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. The second, is 1930 when the first Christian sect began endorsing artificial birth control. You can see that since then, the slide into moral equivalency has accelerated. To me, it's Christianity's need to "get with the times" that is hurting it.

Well, as far as I am concerned apostasy began when church combined with state under Constance.

That always leads to corruption and persecution.

That was another weakness with the Reformation.

What's the matter dr. a good Calvinist such as Gill is not enough to convince you?

The context of the verse is discussing the present world system.

Gill got it right without changing one word.

Naw, I am tired of dealing with you Dr. you have no honor or intergity to even admit when you are wrong!

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him(pr.26:4)

ftd: ***That was the view of Tyndale, who believed that the translation he made was equal to the original languages. Buynan felt the same way. ***

drsj: Quotes and source, please.

ftD: ***Naw, I am tired of dealing with you ***

It is a lot easier to make claims than to support them, eh ftD?

BTW, I will re-ask the question if you ignore it. So better dig out those quotes and sources.

12:16 fatuus statim indicat iram suam qui autem dissimulat iniuriam callidus est

Once again thanks for your input. I did get the opportunity to spend some time yesterday evaluating various explanations for the Easter reference in the KJV. However, I can't say that I found any of them convincing.

My reservations with the items you point out are listed below following your statements.

<< Actually, the one who coined the term 'passover' Tyndale, translated it as 'Easter' >>

Yes, I did learn that Tyndale was the one who originally coined the term "Passover" in english as a translation of the greek word Pascha. I also learned that before that term was created it wasn't uncommon to translate pascha as easter, and, as you pointed out, Tyndale did tranlate Acts 12:4 as Easter. In this you are correct.

However, I also learned that Tyndale also translated nearly every occurance (approximately 25 times) of the word pascha in his version as easter where as the KJV only translated pascha as easter only once. What I find odd is that the appeal is made to Tyndale as the ultimate authority in the usage of the term "Passover" in Acts 12:4 yet he is at odds with the KJV on nearly every other occurance of pascha in the NT. It appears to me that line of reasoning is self defeating. If you appeal to Tyndale to justify the Acts 12:4 occurance you must accept his other translations of the word or have a very good reason why the KJV translators disagreed with him.

<< If you look at the modern Greek you will see that the word for Easter is-pascha! >>

The use of the term pascha in modern greek is not what we are concerned with. The issue is the usage of the term pascha in NT greek which can be quite different.

Your previous comments regarding Tyndale made it clear that he saw the need to create a new english word for the greek word pascha that would clearly differentiate the Jewish celebration of Passover from the Christian celebration of Easter. The english term Passover was coined to eliminate the confusion surrounding the usage of pascha in modern greek. What I don't understand is why, after coining the english word Passover, he didn't readily use it in his own translation.

<< There are number of explainations of why the King James used Easter and not passover. >>

One thing I have learned from experience is that whenever a "number of explainations" are offered it is generally because there is not one good one in existence. That I have found to be true in this case.

Once such explaination was that the term pascha in this case refers to the pagan celebration of easter because, since the days of unleavened bread had begun, the passover was passed. In this case the term pascha is limited the mean the passover meal or holy day in the singular. However, by looking at the usage of the terms pascha and pesach (hebrew) in the OT and NT you will find that such a limitation is not justified. These two terms can refer to the passover meal, the sacrificial lamb, the holy day (singular), or the entire seven day period which occupies the days of unleavened bread as well as the feast. An example of this last usage is in Ezekiel 45:12 which says "In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." Clearly this verse indicates that the restriction of the term pascha to the singular feast day is inappropriate.

Secondly, I find the attempt to read into the verse the pagan celebration of easter equally wanting. It is hard for me to believe that anyone would suggest that Herod, in his rush to please the Jews, would deeply offend them by celebrating a holiday which was deeply offensive to the very people he was trying to win over. Now, if secondary information were given to back up this claim I might accept it, but, none has. For example, if it could be shown that Herod did celebrate these pagan holidays, or, that the pagan easter was celebrated in Jerusalem, I might buy into this argument. However, no one has made such a connection so I must guess that it doesn't exist. If there is more information on this please show me.

Anyway, please don't get me wrong, I am open on this issue, but, I just have't seen enough good information to satisfy my questioning. I still have a hard time with the inspiration = infallibility position that must be taken to accept the KJV only position. I'm also curious what your take of the NKJV is being that it translates this occurance as Passover and not easter.

God Bless

You can be saved and not read the King James.

You will be saved by the pure word of God engrafted into your souls (1Pet.1:23) and it is the King James text that is the pure word of God.

One of these statements contradicts the other....

You can be saved and not read the King James.

You will be saved by the pure word of God engrafted into your souls (1Pet.1:23) and it is the King James text that is the pure word of God.

One of these statements contradicts the other....

Shouldn't you back in your cave, feeneyite?

Riiiiight.... I'm gonna trust them to make the "perfect Bible."

I suppose if the measure of a trustable Bible is the perfection of those who were involved in translating it then you better throw out all those that Westcott and Hort had a hand in.

Happy Labor Day Weekend jude24! ;^)

See, thats the thing. For all the character assasination of Westcott and Hort, I've never seen any concrete proof that they were off-kilter. I dont trust Riplinger et al.

I've read Westcott (one of my elders is really into history, and he has a book on NT criticism by Westcott. I don't recall the title though. It might have been GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NT -- that would fit with the topic I was researching.) Admittedly, I can't claim to be exhaustive (I didn't read all of the book, since I decided that it wouldn't be helpful to what I was researching for, nor did I have time to read the whole thing), but I certainly can say that I got a sense that Westcott had an immense respect for the NT text.

Look at how frequently Westcott is cited by McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.