Here you go. It sums up my argument plus adds a couple.
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.
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.