tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post813757412786044167..comments2023-09-13T11:53:45.702+01:00Comments on Strict and Particular: 'In The Beginning'Highland Hosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-79972384980736578242009-09-03T14:35:12.226+01:002009-09-03T14:35:12.226+01:00My congratulations on not using the 'Herod was...My congratulations on not using the 'Herod was really a pagan, so he was celebrating the feast of Astarte/Ishtar, though. As you must have realised, for that argument to work there has to be a difference between 'Easter' and "Passover' in the Greek text, which of course there is not. I urge every King James Only advocate to follow the Puritan's lead here and abandon the 'pagan Herod' argument.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-51107064524422929752009-09-03T10:22:26.136+01:002009-09-03T10:22:26.136+01:00My dear Puritan. I checked my copy of Tyndale with...My dear Puritan. I checked my copy of Tyndale with my faithful Cruden's concordance (AV, of course), and Tyndale uses 'Easter' irrespective of whether or not the event is before of after the resurrection. He uses 'Paschal' a couple of times, but not 'passover'.<br /><br />Your source said:<br /><br />"The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word "passover" BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ and then "Easter" the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts AFTER His resurrection."<br /><br />You said: "The KJV side don't say modern versions are in error in their use of Tyndale's coinage in that Acts verse."<br /><br />I think there may be a contradiction there.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-80596091558455259462009-09-02T10:45:52.213+01:002009-09-02T10:45:52.213+01:00The thing is that people aren't as familiar as...The thing is that people aren't as familiar as they ought to be with the Anglican background of the AV. They forget that there was a REASON for retaining 'Easter'. An error is a mistake, there was a deliberate reason for 'Easter'. Namely the High Anglican translators.<br /><br />Funny that you're now saying that the AV just isn't in error, not that it's MORE accurate for saying 'Easter', but there you go.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-54703103867443671672009-09-01T22:11:24.065+01:002009-09-01T22:11:24.065+01:00>One may claim that the AV is not in error, but...>One may claim that the AV is not in error, but one cannot on any objective basis claim that it is MORE accurate than those versions that read 'Passover'.<br /><br />Exactly. <br /><br />The KJV side don't say modern versions are in error in their use of Tyndale's coinage in that Acts verse. It is the critical text side that claims the KJV is in error for using easter. That is what the linked article and other articles disabuse them of. That has always been the issue.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-87049272984130844772009-09-01T21:24:55.809+01:002009-09-01T21:24:55.809+01:00I read the thing, and I concluded that the whole a...I read the thing, and I concluded that the whole article is at best nothing more than an extended exercise in begging the question, that is, beginning with the assumption that 'Easter' is the correct translation, we come to the conclusion that... 'Easter' is the correct translation. Odd, that. At worst it's mere smoke and mirrors, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."<br /><br />As the article notes, in modern Greek there is only one word for 'Passover' and 'Easter'. In English they are two different words. Thus modern Greek cannot help us. The writers notes:<br /><br /> "The Oxford English dictionary tells us that "Easter is one of the great festivals of the Christian church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish Passover, the name of which (Easter) it bears in most of the European languages. Greek -paska; Hebrew - pe'sah; Latin - pascha; French - pagues; Italian - Pasqua; Spanish - pascua." "<br /><br />But not English. I pause to note that the sources cited in the article are of course rubbished by Gail Riplinger, being Greek study tools.<br /><br />One may claim that the AV is not in error, but one cannot on any objective basis claim that it is MORE accurate than those versions that read 'Passover'.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-87825749883200107672009-09-01T17:04:05.595+01:002009-09-01T17:04:05.595+01:00Obviously you do not really differentiate between ...Obviously you do not really differentiate between the TR and the AV as a TRANSLATION of the TR. I had surmised as such by your prises of Gail Riplinger. The Geneva uses 'Passover' throughout, as the article you linked to said. <br /><br />If you think we ought to render all references to 'Pasach' after the death of Christ as 'Easter', well, don't let me stop you. It's better than the Ishtar/Astarte myth that some in fundamentalist circles teach, and it probably does reflect a deliberate choice on the part of the AV translators and/or final editors (two Bishops). They weren't careless enough for this to be a mistake, and they had definite ecclesiastical reasons for retaining 'Easter'. But at least you ought to admit that rendering it as 'Passover' is equally valid, since this is a translation issue, not a textual one (as you well know).Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-8731758372249565572009-09-01T01:02:59.465+01:002009-09-01T01:02:59.465+01:00The point here is this: Tyndale obviously knew he ...The point here is this: Tyndale obviously knew he was translating pascha with different English words, as did the various translators of the English Bible (including the Geneva 1557, if you'd read that article), including Luther, and including the AV translators. To say it is a 'mistake' is profoundly ridiculous. And to claim that modern scholars know more in this case when modern scholars have no clue that easter means resurrection is comically pretentious. C. L. Lewis was not known for trying to hurt people's feelings, but he couldn't help it when he wrote about textual critics and their pretensions to knowledge and understanding of literature and language.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-77765659115490777902009-09-01T00:54:53.088+01:002009-09-01T00:54:53.088+01:00HH, you didn't even read the article I linked....HH, you didn't even read the article I linked. Tyndale used 'passover' in the New Testament as well. It is only in the one place that easter is used, and you are pretentiously saying that Tyndale, Luther, all the translators of the English Bible up to the AV translators had not clue why they would do such a thing. Do you see why we on the received, traditional text, side can only grin at you guys?The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-77390095863629829382009-08-31T18:14:50.964+01:002009-08-31T18:14:50.964+01:00The AV was translated by a group of about 50 Angli...The AV was translated by a group of about 50 Anglican, all but one Anglican clergymen. Now, ask any Anglican what 'Easter' is, and they will tell you it is the festival of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ask any Anglican clergyman! The Prayer Book (which predates the AV) refers to 'Easter'. The business about the goddess Astarte is completely irrelevant here. <br /><br />Tyndale coined the word 'Passover' in the Old Testament translation, realising that 'Easter' was an anachronism before the death of Christ. He translated the New Testament first, as Luther did, and used 'Easter' there. Before he could finish the OT and revise the NT to reflect the OT translation, Tyndale was martyred. The Geneva, translating the Greek, gives 'Passover', not 'Easter'. But remember that many AV translators were High Church Anglicans, wedded to the Church Year. If the Bible contained 'Easter', it was easier to argue, against the Puritans, that the Ecclesiastical year was Biblical. So they 'retained' Tyndale's 'Easter'.<br /><br />It is a FACT that 'Pasach' is the word here in EVERY manuscript. How you can argue that the correct English is 'Easter' here but no-where else, and then turn around and criticise modern translations for using dynamic equivalence is frankly beyond me, but then I'm just a simple English Baptist minister.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-54716949759834366922009-08-31T11:38:47.588+01:002009-08-31T11:38:47.588+01:00From the linked article:
"Our word EASTER is...From the linked article:<br /><br />"Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate OSTERN. The German word for Easter (Ostern) is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION." This is quoted from "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," translated in 1850 by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437."<br /><br />Again, it is quite pretentious of modern scholars to think they know more regarding the meaning of the word easter than a Tyndale (who coined the term passover which modern scholars use as they use most all of the work of the English translators of the English Bible, without them their products would be babble) and Luther, et al.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-18062210049738810182009-08-30T10:40:12.249+01:002009-08-30T10:40:12.249+01:00The Puritan
Since is Easter is the feast of the G...The Puritan<br /><br />Since is Easter is the feast of the Goddess AEstarte I do not understand this statement:" 'The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word "passover" BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ and then "Easter" the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts AFTER His resurrection.'"waldensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563442885762610078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-54127056939042219762009-08-29T22:26:03.949+01:002009-08-29T22:26:03.949+01:00>'easter' in Acts, though, is either a ...>'easter' in Acts, though, is either a mistake or the High Church translators inserting a Church festival. The underlying Greek is 'pasch' in every manuscript.<br /><br />This is a perfect example, HH, of how so-called KJV-onlyists know more history than the other side (of which you are represented here, at least you are sympathetic to the other side). The AV translators knew exactly what they were doing with this word, just as Tyndale knew what he was doing. Tyndale coined the word 'passover', so one might think he knew very well what the underlying word was. <br /><br />Read this:<br /><br />http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html<br /><br />"The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha. Some say the word should only be translated as Passover and not Easter. The KJV is not alone in translating this word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's, Cranmer 1539, the Great Bible (which preceeded the KJB), Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter in 1545, and the German Luther version of 1912 also reads Easter (Ostern). The German word for Passover is a completely different word. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4 - "entending after EASTER to bringe him forth unto the people". You can see the 1557 Geneva Bible at this site here: http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm"<br /><br />"It makes no sense at all to believe that Tyndale, Martin Luther, Cranmer, Coverdale, Matthews, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible were referring to a pagan deity of the spring called Eastre or Ishtar when they called Christ the easterlamb."<br /><br />"The KJB is actually the most accurate translation, in that it uses the word "passover" BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ and then "Easter" the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts AFTER His resurrection."<br /><br />Read the whole thing. This is a good example of naive 'moderns' thinking they 'know more' than the individuals who gave us the English Bible. Many giving their very lives in the process.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-54221986169245191942009-08-29T16:38:01.511+01:002009-08-29T16:38:01.511+01:00It was not just "Puritans" who rejected ...It was not just "Puritans" who rejected the AV1611 when it came out. Baptists and independents did as well. Leonard Busher in his "Religions Peace or A Plea for Liberty of Conscience" states that if he had the money he would publish his work on the errors of the New Authorized Version. Independents, like the Pilgrims, objected to the "flowery language" of the AV as opposed to the more common language of the Geneva. What about the references and language notes in the AV1611, did they "not belong in the Word of God" either? <br /><br />As far as history goes, remember, it is usually written by the victor. Look at the Yankee histories of the War Between the States and their lies for proof of that!waldensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563442885762610078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-55193137970620284122009-08-29T10:04:57.738+01:002009-08-29T10:04:57.738+01:00The greatest problem is those true KJV-Only people...The greatest problem is those true KJV-Only people who hold the English translation AS WELL AS the Greek text to be inspired. Because if you do that, well the Geneva and the AV are rather different. They both use the same Greek text (broadly speaking), and the fact that the AV was commissioned by the same establishment that was persecuting the Puritans definitely prejudiced many against it. King James hated the Geneva Bible for its notes, which he thought supported overthrowing kings who the people didn't like (he was right, and look what happened to his son). Disparaging the AV is sadly something some people do. Personally I have inspected many lists of 'errors in the King James', and most of them aren't errors but archaisms. That is to say that they were good translations at the time. 'easter' in Acts, though, is either a mistake or the High Church translators inserting a Church festival. The underlying Greek is 'pasch' in every manuscript.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960380041268592011.post-4784065617754421542009-08-29T05:01:03.394+01:002009-08-29T05:01:03.394+01:00The Puritans were wedded to the Geneva for the not...The Puritans were wedded to the Geneva for the notes. Notes which don't belong in the Word of God. The superiority of the AV appeared naturally, not due to laws or propaganda or 'the decline of the Puritans.' <br /><br />Critical Text propaganda always poses an artificial chasm between the Geneva and the AV as if the Geneva were some how more on the side of the Counter-Reformation manuscripts and textual philosophies. Some of this always seems to seep into any academic treatment of the subject of the history of the English Bible. <br /><br />One thing I find continually amusing is how the so-called King James onlyists know all this history and in fact knowing this history is what in part makes them KJV-only while the victims of critical text propaganda and intentional historical silence on these issues (because history is not on their side and makes them look rather bad) assume all the historical ignorance is on the KJV side. <br /><br />It's difficult to admit to oneself that one has been had by the devil. It makes one question one's discernment. But there is no crime in this. One has to start somewhere, and starting with the very foundational Word of God is the best place to begin to develop one's discernment.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.com