[fortheDeclaration]

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.

[lews]

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

[lews]

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

[lews]

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