Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
The Douay Rheims was translated directly from St. Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate.
They all have strengths and uses. I'll usually try the King James first and if I'm finding it difficult to get a sense the n I'll try the NASB and a few others including the Douay Rheims. Sometimes a "thought for thought" like the Message helps. But I'll almost always look at an interlinear or at least a concordance and try to get a sense of what the greek and hebrew mean.
Has anyone here actually looked at the text of the AV of 1611? No, I don’t mean the revision in use today, I mean what a reader of the early 1600s would have read. Unless one already knows what they are reading it’s virtually unreadable. So if anyone says that the KJV is the only allowable translation they should get a copy of the original and use it not a revision of a revision.
The truth of God’s Word does not depend upon any paticular translation as the Bible its self shows.
No doubt Herod did not want to distract the Jewish people during their celebration and it would seem he would also want the full attention of the Gentiles...
Easter fits just fine in the verse...Easter was (and still is) a Pagan Holiday for Pagans...
I have it as one of my translations and it is hard to read:
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:
Joh 3:15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.
Joh 3:18 He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned
Has anyone here actually looked at the text of the AV of 1611? No, I don’t mean the revision in use today, I mean what a reader of the early 1600s would have read. Unless one already knows what they are reading it’s virtually unreadable. So if anyone says that the KJV is the only allowable translation they should get a copy of the original and use it not a revision of a revision.
The truth of God’s Word does not depend upon any paticular translation as the Bible its self shows.
The v’s and u’s have been reversed...Other than that, it was easy to read and understand...
The article's premise on this issue is:
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 other words, there were no gentiles in Judea that would have been observing a pagan festival of "Easter" in that area of the world. They wouldn't have known about it.
Easter fits just fine in the verse...Easter was (and still is) a Pagan Holiday for Pagans...
Maybe so, but that still doesn't justify using the word where it's not warranted.
Sorry about double post-interupted briefly. Your quote would be even more illustrative if you could reproduce the fonts of original but you make the point.
This just tells everyone you’ve not looked at the original or anything close to it. The quote above is just that- a quote, not a reproduction of text.
Yup.....that's why the Greek says [Matthew 28:1] MIA TWN SABBATWN....."On one of the Sabbaths". Most folks read this as first day of the week. In fact every text in the King James that says "First day of the week" is more properly translated "On one of the Sabbaths". Sunday never did have anything to do with the resurrection.
Excellent! If someone positively, absolutely has to have the AV this what they must read.
When doing hard core Bible exegesis I generally review several translations. For just reading the Bible I am sold on the English Standard Version.
I don’t see either one as wrong. The Greek word for “Easter” is “Pascha.” I am guessing it was this way by the 17th century, even if not in the 1st century. The Greek word “Pascha” also means “Passover.” Which one is right?
I think it depends on what the translator thinks the author was getting at. If the translator thinks that the author was trying to get inside Herod’s mind — then yes, “Passover” is a better choice. The derivation of “Easter” is not relevant — “Pascha” was in Herod’s mind — I will agree if Herod’s mind is the author’s focus, Herod was more likely thinking of the Jewish Passover rather than an unofficial commemoration of the Resurrection among the Christians.
If the translator thinks the author was trying to relate events to a Christian audience, then “Easter” is at least as good of a choice as “Passover” is.
I’ll consult some professional opinions though.
If that's the case then why would the Early Church of God still be celebrating Passover here....late second century? This is not some "whacko sect" of third and fourth generation Christians. These folks are disciples of the last living Apostle, John....who evidently...through Polycarp, had instructed them to observe a Christian "Passover" on the fourteenth!
***Yup.....that’s why the Greek says [Matthew 28:1] MIA TWN SABBATWN.....”On one of the Sabbaths”. Most folks read this as first day of the week. In fact every text in the King James that says “First day of the week” is more properly translated “On one of the Sabbaths”. Sunday never did have anything to do with the resurrection.***
According to the Bible, the first day of the feast of first fruits came on the day AFTER the weekly sabbath, or Sunday. this MIA TWN SABBATWN is merely their way of counting the first day of the first week of the seven weeks before Pentecost.
Luk 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the THIRD DAY since these things were done.
The fact is that Tyndale, who invented the word 'passover', himself used the word Easter.
As did all the Reformation Bibles.
Even the Roman Catholic Douey-Rheims did not have passover, they simply transliterated the word into pasche
Easter was in the Luther Bible, as late as the 1916 edition
The recent KJ21 had it as well.
Moreover, if you If you asked a Greek speaking individual today for their word for Easter, they would say pasche
Now just because Passover begins the beginning of the eating of unleavened bread and can be combined with the Feast itself, once that day has passed, the Bible always calls the days following the Feast of unleavened bread not the Passover.
Thus, the Bible has a parenthesis for a reason.
If it was irrelevant that it was days of unleavened bread, the Holy Spirit could have simply left that comment out and simply said Herod was waiting for the Passover to end to kill Peter.
But the commenting on the fact that it was the days of unleavened bread makes a point to give you a time reference, to let you know that the Jewish Passover day had passed, hence the use of the term of 'days of unleavened bread' and not Passover.
Now, what you want us to believe is , that the Bible used the term 'days of unleavened bread', when the Holy Spirit could have simply said what was said in Lk.22:1.
The reason is that once the actual Passover had passed, (in Lk22:1 both are coming), the Jews considered the 15th the actual beginning of the Feast of Unleavened bread, and that was never called the Passover, once the actual Passover day (14th) had passed.
So, in Lk.22:7, they are looking for the Passover day not the actual Feast week.
And you yourself have admitted that you make that same distinction, but somehow the Jews of that day didn't?
Clearly, by the wording of the passage, Herod is waiting for a special day, after which he would execute Peter, which is why Easter is the correct reading, not Passover, which had already passed.
Lk.22:6 makes it clear that Passover was considered a day and once it passed, the Feast of Unleavened Bread was celebrated.
That both the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are called Passover before the actual Feast began is irelevant to what the Feast is called after the Passover day had passed, which was the days of unleavened bread as it is called in Acts.12:4.
To prove your point, you would have to find a passage where the Feast is in fact called Passover during the actual Feast, not before the actual Passover began (combining the two).
So, your views that there is an error in translating pasche as Easter instead of Passover in Acts.12:4 are shown to be short-sighted to anyone looking at the evidence.
Wow, you jump from one mistake to another!
I am still waiting for you to explain how you are in the New Covenant with regards to Heb.8:11.
Tyndale, who invented the actual word 'passover' for pashe used Easter in that passage.
Today if you asked a Greek speaking person their word for Easter, they would say pasche
So Easter can be used for that Greek word as well as Passover.
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.