Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
"Easter, Passover and the KJV"
By Fred Butler
There exist in American Christianity a rather vocal group of advocates who defend the King James Version as being the only true, infallible English translation. Their contention is that it contains absolutely no transcribal or translational errors and can rightly be called the pure, inerrant Word of God. Donald A. Waite, the director of Bible For Today ministries sums up the KJV only position when he writes:
“If we really want to know what the Hebrew in the Old Testament says and what the Greek in the New Testament says in the English language today, the KING JAMES BIBLE – in my studied opinion – is the only translation that completely and accurately reflects, in English, the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.[1]
Thus, according to the KJV defenders, the original language texts of Hebrew/ Aramaic in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament, utilized by the translators of the King James, are derived from copies containing the very words originally written by the authors of scripture. Moreover, they believe with certainty that the translators of the King James Bible provided the absolute best word-for-word translation from the original, biblical languages into English than any other language translation both before and after its publication. Thus, they conclude that the King James translation, first published in 1611, is the only English Bible that inerrantly, and with precise accuracy, captures the exact meaning of the original words written down by God’s people as the Holy Spirit moved upon them.
However, any person with just a basic working knowledge of the history behind the transmission of our English Bible, as well as a general understanding of translation theory, recognizes the inherent difficulties in such a misguided belief. This is especially true when one takes into consideration the translation of ancient, handwritten documents like the manuscripts of the Holy Bible. Textual critics have to first comb through myriads of variants and weigh and compare internal and external manuscript evidence just to come to a reasonably informed judgment as to know what to translate into another language. Then, there is the process of determining grammar and syntax of the original language and translating it into another language a thousand years removed from it. Even though linguists have performed an outstanding job of rendering a readable translation of the Bible into another receptor language, a person is exaggerating the facts to claim any one language translation is absolutely free from all transcribal error.
Yet, in spite of the difficulties to their position, KJV only advocates continue to insist that the King James translation is the only error-free, English Bible, even when examples of translational errors can be demonstrated. One of the more notorious translational blunders in the KJV is found at Acts 12:4. It reads:
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12 is the account of Peter being captured and imprisoned by King Herod Aggripa and then set loose by a divine act of God. According to the King James Version, Herod intended to bring Peter out to the people after Easter. More than likely, it was with the intention of having him publicly executed. The translational problem with this verse is found in the word “Easter.” The word “Easter” is translated from the Greek word pascha and 28 other times in the KJV it is properly translated as “Passover.” In each of those 28 other instances, pascha is referring to the historic, OT event as described in Exodus 12 when God established the feast of Passover with the Jewish people, killed the first born of the Egyptians, and brought the Children of Israel out of their captivity.
The English word “Easter,” however, is the name of the Christian celebration of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from His tomb three days after His death on the cross. Though the Christian Easter is often celebrated around the same time as the Jewish Passover, and there are spiritual connections between the Jewish Passover with Jesus being a type of the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), the two celebrations are not one in the same. Easter celebrations did not develop until a few centuries after the apostolic age. There is nothing in the immediate context of Acts 12 that even hints at the idea that Herod had in mind the celebration we know as the Christian Easter. Thus, the translators of the KJV have created an historical inaccuracy by their translating the word pascha as “Easter.” It creates an absurd anachronism, implying Herod would be bringing Peter out after the Easter celebration, when such celebrations were not even established at that time.
Now, how do the KJV only advocates respond to what is obviously a mistake in this grand translation? KJV defenders regularly publish Bible study articles supposedly offering problem solutions to textual difficulties found in the scriptures. Such things, for example, as parallel accounts of the same biblical narrative containing conflicting information about the number of soldiers fighting in a battle, or the number of years a particular king actually reigned on the throne, and so forth. Some of these publications can be genuinely helpful in offering solutions to a difficult passage, however, the bulk of them are designed to protect the English text of the KJV from any meaningful and much needed revision. KJV advocates will insistently argue for the King James rendering of the difficult passage under scrutiny as the best way for it to be translated. Any change in translation of a word or phrase, they claim, will either introduce a contradiction into the text of scripture, or a Bible believer will miss out on uncovering a hidden “nugget” of truth that would otherwise be lost if the passage is revised. This is the approach taken by KJV advocates for retaining the word “Easter.” Rather than admitting that the KJV is in need of revision at Acts 12:4, they have concocted an elaborate excuse as to why the word “Easter” should never be properly translated “Passover.”
The case for maintaining the word “Easter” is grounded upon two key arguments summarized as follows:
1. King Herod was a pagan, not a Jewish believer, so he would not have respected the Passover of the Jews. Because of his paganism, Herod would be involved with the worship of Isthar or Astarte, the Chaldean name for the “Queen of Heaven.” The word “Easter” is derived from the name of this ancient, pagan goddess.
2. Acts 12:3 is an important key to properly understanding the reason for retaining “Easter.” The last sentence in the verse states then were the days of unleavened bread. The reader should note the word days. The Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar. Peter was put into prison during the days of unleavened bread, and therefore after the Passover had been celebrated.
It is argued, then, that the Holy Spirit divinely directed the KJV translators to correctly translate pascha as Easter, not Passover, because Herod would have been celebrating the pagan festival of Isthar (Easter), not Passover. Additionally, a contradiction would be introduced into the Acts narrative, because the “Days of Unleavened Bread” follow after the celebration of Passover, which had already passed when Peter was placed into prison. This is the viewpoint defended by such KJV advocates as Jack A. Moorman[2], Sam Gipp[3], and D.A. Waite[4].
The solution is quite clever. I can recall as a young, enthusiastic KJV onlyist, contacting none other than Gail Riplinger, who had recently come to fame for her big book, New Age Bible Versions, and asking her to provide me with some help in defending the KJV against the charge of having an error at Acts 12:4. She sent me two articles, one from Sam Gipp’s Answer Book and another from an unnamed author, and both of them basically outlined the KJV only defense of the word “Easter” as I noted above. My KJV only friends and I were blessed beyond measure when we read through the information on “Easter” and “Passover” that Mrs. Riplinger supplied. Our faith in the King James was affirmed and we were more convinced it was the only translation accurately representing God’s Word from the original texts.
Since my early days as a KJV only advocate, however, God has matured me in my faith, and I have abandoned KJV onlyism as a system of belief.[5] Furthermore, I have returned to re-examine the KJV only arguments for retaining “Easter” at Acts 12:4 and have discovered that they are fundamentally and indefensibly flawed. Let me offer a response to these arguments KJV onlyist put forth in defense of “Easter” as it is translated in the KJV.
Argument number one: King Herod was a pagan and he celebrated the fertility festivals surrounding the ancient worship of Astarte or Isthar.
It is important to mention at the outset that KJV advocates are dependent upon a 19th century book written by amateur historian, Rev. Alexander Hislop, entitled The Two Babylons, as a source in support of this argument. Mr. Hislop’s book attempts to draw an historical link between the sacramental practices and iconographic imagery of Roman Catholicism with ancient Babylonian pagan worship ceremonies. The book, sadly, is a terrible fraud that contains an abundance of imaginative conspiratorial nonsense, poor historical research and contrived connections between Roman Catholicism and Babylonian paganism that are clearly illogical. A handful of apologists have performed a fine service for the Church by debunking Mr. Hislop’s imaginary book,[6] but many Fundamental Christians who defend KJV onlyism still accept his work as being truthful. As a result, when they employ Hislop’s material as evidence for Herod celebrating in fertility festivals named after the goddess Astarte as a reason the word “Easter” should remain in the KJV, they are guilty of promoting at least three historical inaccuracies.
First of all, there is absolutely no historical proof that Herod was the least bit religious, even as a “pagan.” In fact, most historical accounts about Herod indicate that he was non-religious and more akin to being a political secularist. Yet, despite his a-religious tendencies, he still respected the Jewish festivals out of necessity, because it was politically expedient for him to do so. He did not want to stir up trouble with the Jewish establishment and in turn, incur the wrath of Roman for not keeping the peace in his district. It would have been foolish for him to engage in pagan worship practices and not show respect to the Passover, because it would cause trouble with the religious Jews.
A second major inaccuracy is the claim that the fertility goddess Astrate/Isthar was worshipped in Israel during the time of Herod. Again, there is absolutely no historical evidence to suggest anyone during that time participated in any pagan worship practices, let alone those dedicated to Astrate/Isthar. Any and all ancient pagan worship practices were abolished when the Jews returned from exile in 535 BC. They had, in a sense, learned their lesson about committing spiritual adultery against their covenant God. If Herod was in the habit of overtly engaging in paganism, then he (and anyone else for that matter) most certainly would have been under fire from the Jewish leadership and in danger of loosing his appointment as ruler over the district of Judea.
Moreover, the English word “Easter” is not derived from either Astrate or Isthar, or any other near-Eastern pagan god or goddess. This fact alone absolutely devastates the KJV onlyist’s argument defending Acts 12:4. It is true “Easter” is named for a goddess, but it was one King Herod never knew existed. Easter comes from an old, Anglo-Saxon word Eostre that is the name of a Saxon goddess of fertility and sunrise whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox.[7] Our modern word east is also derived from Eostre, because east is the direction of the sunrise. According to Venerable Bede, an 8th century, English pastor and theologian, Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted the goddess’s name along with many of the celebratory practices for the Mass of Christ’s Resurrection.
In an article posted at the Trinitarian Bible Society website, William Tyndale was the first English translator to employ the use of Easter as a translation for the word pascha:
When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the season of the passover was known generally to English people as 'Easter' … The Greek word occurs twenty-nine times in the New Testament, and Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, esterlambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall lambe three times. When Tyndale began his translation of the Pentateuch he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12.11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, passover, and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is therefore to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word. His labours on the Old Testament left little time for revision of the New Testament, with the result that while passover is found in his 1530 Pentateuch, ester remained in the N.T. of 1534, having been used in his first edition several years before he coined the new word passover.[8]
As other English translations began to follow after Tyndale’s initial work, the translators of the various English editions recognized the confusion the word “Easter” caused as a translation for pascha, so they began the process of removing references to “Easter” and rightly translating in its place the word “Passover.” By the time the King James was translated, all the references to “Easter” in place of “Passover” had been corrected. The one exception was Acts 12:4. More than likely, this was an unintentional oversight on the part of the editors for the final draft of the KJV. Some historians speculate “Easter” may have been retained for ecclesiastical purposes, but if that were the case, the translators would have hardly been satisfied with just one instance.[9]
Argument number two: The word “Easter” must be retained, because to change it to “Passover” would create a contradiction. Peter was imprisoned during the days of unleavened bread that followed after the celebration of Passover.
At first glance, this argument seems to hold some weight. The Days of Unleavened Bread appear to follow after Passover and the narrative of Acts indicates it was during this time following Passover that Peter was imprisoned. KJV only advocates appeal to Leviticus 23:5 that states Passover is celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, whereas the 15th day of the month (the next day) begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Does this mean, then, there are two, clearly distinct celebrations?
A closer study of scripture reveals the actual Passover day was not separated from the entire week of Unleavened Bread as KJV only proponents wish to suggest, but was the first day of the entire week of Unleavened Bread and because of that fact, the week can also be correctly termed Passover. The King James Version itself affirms this. Beginning with the historical narrative of Exodus 12 where the Passover is instituted, the scriptures record,
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day [Passover] ye shall put away leaven out of your houses…
16 And in the first day [Passover] there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you …
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
Throughout this passage, the words leaven and unleavened have a special emphasis. If other biblical references to the Passover are to be checked, such as Exodus 13:6,7; Leviticus 23:5,6; and Numbers 28:16-25, they too place a similar emphasis on the word unleavened. The entire week is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In Exodus 23:15, the Lord commanded all the adult males from the Children of Israel to keep three annual feasts. The first one is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when Passover would be celebrated.
Yet, because the actual Passover meal was eaten on the 1st day of Unleavened Bread, the week came to be known as the Passover Week, or shortened to the Passover. The Passover is synonymous with the Days of Unleavened Bread. This is further affirmed in the New Testament by Luke himself in his gospel. Luke 22:1 reads in the KJV, Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover. Exodus 23:15 establishes the fact that the first feast to be celebrated by the Jews is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke 22:1 then states the feast, which encompassed the entire week or Days of Unleavened Bread, is also know as the Passover. Hence, the Feast, or the Days, of Unleavened Bread are the same as the Passover, and KJV advocates are severely mistaken to think Luke is distinguishing between two specific celebrations with his narrative in Acts 12:3,4. There is no hidden “nugget” of truth waiting to be uncovered in the KJV by a genuine Bible-believer if the word “Easter” is kept in favor of “Passover.” Luke is simply stating the same thing in two different ways. First, Luke points out that when Peter was taken prisoner, it was during the Passover feast, or the Days of Unleavened Bread, and Herod determined to deal with Peter after the Passover, or when the Jewish holy week came to an end. The text could not be any clearer.
Before drawing some conclusion, it is worth noting that a minority of KJV only advocates recognize the inherent difficulties with these two arguments, especially the first one concerning Herod’s supposed worship of Isthar or Astrate. They understand Herod was not religious in any fashion, nor would he even know the Saxon goddess, Eostre, from where the word “Easter” is derived. However, this minority will still insist Easter should be retained as the correct translation of pascha, because Easter is considered a post-Resurrection word tied to Jesus Christ being the type of the Passover lamb.[10] All other NT uses of the word pascha are pre-Resurrection and are rightly translated as Passover.
This line of argumentation is also fraught with at least two problems. First, the proponents of this viewpoint begin with the unproven assumption that God intended the King James translation to be the final, English Bible forever representing His written Word. For example, KJV advocate, Scott Jones, argues the translators were under a spiritual unction from the Holy Ghost, implying there was a supernatural move of God upon them to accurately choose the rendering of Easter over Passover at Acts 12:4.[11] Though many KJV proponents are cautious to suggest the King James translation itself is directly inspired by God, this assertion by Mr. Jones of some special unction upon the translators can only lead such a conclusion. Obviously, a special, providential move by God upon the translators could only suggest their entire work bears this mark of spiritual unction. Thus, any revision in the form of updating spelling, language usage, or translational correction would be tampering with something directly given by God through an alleged “unction.” This conclusion is pure subjectivism and overstates the true spiritual abilities of any translator, let alone those who translated the King James Bible. It ascribes to God something He never promised to do: preserve His word in one specific translation in only one specific language, English.
Moreover, Acts 12:4 is not the only post-Resurrection use of pascha recorded in the New Testament. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that Christ is our Passover. If these KJV advocates are correct and pascha is to now be understood in connection with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that any post-Resurrection use of pascha in the NT is to be translated as Easter, then why was there no unction from the Spirit to render pascha as Easter in this verse? The theological aim of Paul’s teaching in this passage is showing Christ’s sacrificial relationship with His people. If Christ’s Resurrection so impacts pascha that it is to be rendered as Easter, then God should have providentially guided the translators with translating Easter instead of Passover in this instance. Apparently, God saw no need to guide the translators, so the pre/post-Resurrection argument is just as contrived for the sake of maintaining an unrevised King James text as the traditional KJV argument we have examined in full.
Now, some may ask, “Why is this so important?” It is important because of the simple fact of a Christian’s duty to the truth. Ephesians 4:25 states that Christians must put away lying and speak the truth. A Christian believer must be committed to truth in all things, including the accuracy of Bible translations. Furthermore, when KJV advocates are shown the truth about the word “Easter,” they must have the humble fortitude to admit error exists in their favored Bible version and conform it to the correct translation. Donald Waite has written,
“I think that the KING JAMES translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic … and the Greek, putting it into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the Greek meanings, as they translated the English language. There are many other choices in English they could have used, but what they did pick was within the rules of both the Hebrew and Greek grammar and English grammar. Therefore, I have not found any translation errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE.”[12]
Can Mr. Waite honestly say, after offering such a bold declaration, the KJV translators provided the best word-for-word translation of pascha with their choice of “Easter” that fits the rules of both Greek and English grammar? If Mr. Waite is an honorable man, and I am sure his comments express the sentiments of many other honorable KJV defenders, then he must recognize the utter silliness of adhering to such an obvious mistake all for the sake of promoting an unsubstantiated belief in the total accuracy of a 17th century English translation.
Bible-believers cannot make a habit of inventing fantastic excuses for what they may perceive as helping out God by defending His written Word. Granted, KJV advocates believe they are speaking the truth with their explanation for retaining the word “Easter” at the text of Acts 12:4, but when placed under the tests of genuine historical and biblical scholarship, their explanation is severely flawed to the point of embarrassment. To further cling to this argumentation, even after it has been shown to be bankrupt, does not serve God, but scandalizes the gospel and hinders the work of the Church.
End Notes
[1] D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, (Collinswood: The Bible for Today Press, 1995), p. 1. [emphasis his].
[2] Jack A. Moorman, Conies, Brass and Easter, (Collinswood: The Bible for Today Press, n.d.), pp. 13-15. Available on line at: http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbconies.htm#Easter [accessed February, 2005]
[3] Sam Gipp, The Answer Book Online: http://samgipp.com/answer/gipp_answer_02.html [accessed February, 2005]
[5] My departure from King James Onlyism is detailed in my testimony found here: http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb019.html
[6] See for instance Ralph Woodrow’s refutation entitled, The Babylon Connection? A brief testimony by Mr. Woodrow explaining his involvement promoting Hislop’s work and his subsequent refutation can be viewed here: http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm [accessed February, 2005]. It is my contention that Alexander Hislop was a 19th century fore-runner to such modern day Fundamentalist conspiratorial propagandists and quack researchers as Texe Marrs, Gail Riplinger, Jack Chick and Larry Vance.
[8] T.H. Brown, The use of Easter at Acts 12:4. Listed under online articles at the Trinitarian Bible Society website: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/onlinearticles.asp [accessed February, 2005]
[10] See for example the online articles by two Internet KJV only apologists.
Scott Jones, Easter or Passover?, http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/acts124.html and Will Kinney, Easter is Correct, http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html [both accessed February, 2005]
Here you go. It sums up my argument plus adds a couple.
I had no idea!!!!!
Translating "passover" as "Easter" here would ruin the metaphor.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Hmm...you would prefer "after Passover" or "after the Passover" here?
"Pascua" in Spanish is either "Easter" or "Passover" depending on the context.
I would not have interpreted "Easter" here as Herod's pagan celebration though, but rather as a commemoration of the Resurrection, even if it wasn't officially done yet.
Thanks diego, there was some good stuff in the especially the wording changes having to do with the fact that salvation can be lost if one chooses to leave Christ.
It's not a question of what I prefer, but rather of what it is.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Why not translate "Pascha" as it is translated in all other places? Why make an exception? Are metaphors more important than accuracy?
If it pleased God to use the Greek word for passover, no argument is sufficient to use an unrelated word.
There are problems with almost every English translation of the Bible. It helps to be aware of them.
I generally quote from the King James Version, because it was the standard Bible in England, known to English writers for hundreds of years and influencing numerous poems and novels, and the style is beautiful. There are errors in translation, but they are not all that numerous.
When I taught the Bible I preferred to use the Revised Standard Version. This version was agreed to by a committee of Catholic and Protestant scholars, and where they disagreed the differences are clearly noted. It is based on the KJV, but it corrects those kinds of errors. Unfortunately, it also changes “thou” to you, which I think was unnecessary.
Since the RSV, there have been numerous translations, and most of them have gone sharply downhill. The NRSV introduces numerous errors in the name of feminism and political correctness. The more recent the translation, the more likely that it has been infested by political correctness or dissent. The Catholic version used in the liturgy, the NAB, is atrocious in style and frequently misleading in translation.
The Catholic translators of the Jerusalem Bible did a good job, but it never widely caught on.
Yes, certainly it is foolish to imagine that the KJV is inerrant. But it remains a better translation than most of the politically correct junk that has been published in recent years.
Ignatius Press has put the RSV back into print, and that’s the one I’d generally recommend. It includes what Protestants refer to as the Apocryphal books, but they are clearly labeled as such in case Protestant readers are worried about that. And in fact Protestants like John Milton read and used many of the Apocryphal books without any fear of being contaminated.
As I told Protestants who were assigned this text for the class, you get more for your money, and you can decide for yourself whether they are worth reading.
Well, it just goes to show that the KJV is a defective translation. This is just one example of the defects that exist throughout.
Unfortunately, this defect in a Protestant version of Scripture has been the call for a whole lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. The amusing thing is that the English version of Scripture authorized by the Church (the Douay-Rheims version) that was in existence prior to the KJV actually used the word “Pasch” — the more accurate term, as indicated by the author of this article.
Thanks for posting it, and have a wonderful celebration of the Resurrection of Our Lord.
Narses, thanks for pinging me to this thread.
I agree for the most part. I "think" scripture in King James and turn to it first when researching passages.
I was raised in a Baptist church and was taught that the newer translations or versions were not used in our churches because they left out the phrase “the blood” of Christ.
Examples of omissions in the NIV & NAS are Colossians 1:14 “through his blood” omitted,
Romans 3:25 “in his blood” omitted,
Ephesians 1:7 “through his blood” omitted.
Regarding marriage the NIV cuts Matthew 19:5, short, leaving out “...and they twain shall be one flesh.” v6 (is missing) “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Although these are small omissions, that was the
argument for KJV. I have enjoyed reading your article regarding KJV mistakes. Definitely worth pondering.
Young's Literal Translation: [Colossians 1:14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Young's: [Roman 3:25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God
Also Young's: [Ephesians 1:7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace
I have found that Young's Literal Translation helps me the most when trying to figure out just exactly what it is I am reading. The translation...like it says....is literal, so it is difficult to read some passages. I do feel, although it is a very honest attempt to faithfully translate.
All human translations are just that....they are not inspired....nor are they divine!
When all else fails read “From the Translators to the Reader” in the old KJV.
• 12 Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church:
• 13 as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.
As for Acts 12:4, I'm not sure what they were thinking. There are various philosophies of translation, one of which is that word A in language B always equals word C of language D.
Another is that the translator *really* has to know the context.
Also:
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
In the KJV NT every italicized word is one that was supplied by the KJV writers to help smooth out translation difficulties. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
An interlinear NT of the Stephens text is very enlightening, especially in dealing with KJV only types.
On a separate note, the week Jesus died had two sabbaths; one the the weekly sabbath then the ‘high’ sabbath.
Jesus was arrested and tried then put to death Wednesday afternoon, spent three days and three nights in the grave, and was already up and about when the women and Peter went to his grave.
So Good Friday is just another created holiday that smudges the truth of the Resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.