Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
There is never a problem in reading the Apocryphal books, as long as one doesn't consider them equal to scripture and part of the Canon.
Actually, pasch is simply a transliteration of the Greek word.
Easter is an accurate translation of that Greek word and is known as such today by Greek speakers.
That is because King James is scripture.
You think leaving out being redeemed by the blood in Col.1:14 is a small issue?
How about 1Cor.1:18 where in every modern version, it is said that 'to those being saved' [the Cross] is the power of God'
Are you being saved, or are you saved?
You think leaving out being redeemed by the blood in Col.1:14 is a small issue?
How about 1Cor.1:18 where in every modern version, it is said that 'to those being saved' [the preaching of the Cross] is the power of God'
Are you being saved, or are you saved?
Amazing how God could get us perfect originals, but couldn't perserve them?
It is always funny to read how 'scholars' cannot figure out how God can raise up godly men to get His work done.
So, the author begins like all King James critics as a Bible skeptic, believing that God almost preserved His words perfectly, but not quite.
Why was God able to keep most of His words (95%), but couldn't manage to perserve those last 5%, (the difference between the two major text types, the TR and the Critical)?
Why are the modern versions constantly changing their translations, usually to match the King James readings?
Why has the Nestle-Aland text had to reintroduce hundreds of readings from the TR and KJB into its 26th edition?
The King James Bible is God's perfect words in English.(pr.30:5)
So?
That was a humble statement made by humble men.
They didn't know that their's would be the last English translation God would use.
They did note, however that their translation would be attacked both Popish persons and certain brethren who reject every work not hammered out on their own anvil.
Examples of when it was wrong?
An interlinear NT of the Stephens text is very enlightening, especially in dealing with KJV only types.
Why?
Anyone who has to use an interliner cannot make any judgement regarding a translation.
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.
On that you are correct.
Christ was crucified on a Wed and rose sometime after 6PM Jewish time Sat., the first day of the week.
His body spent three full days and nights in the tomb
Which was in itself translated from some corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
Not all of the Latin is bad, but Jerome used some corrupt manuscripts, which Erasmus didn't.
You interlinear guys crack me up!
The way to understand a passage is to compare scripture with scripture, not to worry about the Greek or Hebrew, which you cannot read!
It is alot easier then reading Greek, espically from an interlinear!
Baloney!
Anyone could read the original 1611 with no problems.
The fact is that is irrelevant, the spelling and grammar, have been updated, so your complaint about the original 1611 is a mute one.
But if all that was around was a original 1611, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to take it over any 'easy' to read modern bibles with their corrupt readings.
The King James translators knew such a goddess existed under that name and that is why they used the term Easter.
Context is the primary way a word is translated, not its etymology.
Thus, Easter was a dynamic equivalent, to explain that Herod was waiting for a pagan holiday, by whatever name he knew it as, it represented for the current modern pagan holiday of Easter.
Are you saying the practice of Easter, bunny rabbits and egg rolling are instruction from God?
From the article:
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]
I have Tyndale's bible in my bible programs and sure enough, as the article states, he translates nearly *every* instance of pascha as "ester". So the fact that he translated Acts 12:4 as "ester" isn't even germane.
A lot of Bibles leave the apocryphal books out, which is too bad. You can get the King James Bible with Apocrypha, if you look closely at the title page, or you can, more usually, get the King James Bible period, without the Apocrypha.
Too bad, because there are a lot of important stories left out if you do that.
(I’m in the middle of a move and my reference books are still boxed up, bear with me please!)
1Cr 12:1 ¶ Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
The Greek work translated ‘gifts’ is pnuematikos, better translated ‘matters’ (other words are better for gifts...dorea...dorema, etc) and the theology taught with these spiritual matters being gifts has robbed many of their potential in Christ.
An interlinear helps here.
As it would dealing with this verse:
Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
If you look up the literal translation in an interlinear you’ll see that it disagrees with the KJV in a way that challenges traditional teachings.
You can also look this up in Bullinger’s Companion Bible.
I don’t understand your reluctance to use a valuable research tool.
That all depends on who wrote the definitions in the interlinear, and what agenda they might have.
Personally, I think it’s a lot more valuable to study the epistles in chronological order, couched within the historical timeline of the Roman Empire and other relevant events of the first century, not the least of which was the tension between Jewish and gentile Christians. (google ‘chronological ecclisiology’ for more info.)
Getting involved in semantics and minutiae over specific Greek words is an exercise in futility. Just my opinion- I’ve approached the NT both ways, and the history approach is much more revealing and fruitful.
sorry- google ‘ chronological ecclesiology ‘— I misspelled it.
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.