How much difference does one word make? It isn’t often that a word stirs up as much controversy among otherwise rational Christians than does the word “Easter” as placed in Acts 12:4 in the King James Version of the Bible. Let’s see what that verse says according to the translators of the KJV:
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.
In the context, Herod had already killed James the brother of John, pleasing the crowd before him. Seeing this, he decides to capture Peter as well, and he throws him in jail, intending after Easter to bring him before the people. These events took place during the “days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:4).
This “Easter” of course is a translation of a Greek word, pascha, which occurs 29 times in the New Testament, and in all but one instance (above), it is translated “Passover.” Only once did the King James translators choose to render the word as “Easter.”
King James Onlyists, such as Terry Watkins of Dial-the-Truth Ministries, may insist that because the KJV is the only translation to rightly translate Acts 12:4, the use of Easter “ends the argument once and for all.”:”(Terry Watkins, according to his homepage as of June 29, 2006.)”:
But is Acts 12:4 the ultimate proof of the KJV’s perfection, or does it contain a mistranslation? It is very possible that the King James Only tradition stands or falls upon this verse. If it is a mistranslation, nothing else the Onlyists say concerning their position matters.
I have looked at the claims of two King James Onlyist defenders, a Mr. Jack A. Moorman and a Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. Both men insist that “Easter” is the proper translation of pascha in Acts 12:4, and they both do so for the same reason.
Moorman says,
It is precisely in this one passage that “Easter” must be used, and the translation “Passover” would have conflicted with the immediate context. In their rush to accuse the Authorized Version of error many have not taken the time to consider what the passage actually says: “(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)…intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
And Dr. Gipp likewise states (emphasis his),
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
These arguments make sense. If Passover represented the beginning of the Feast (or days) of Unleavened Bread, then it wouldn’t make sense for Herod to be waiting until after the Passover in Acts 12:4 for it had already passed and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was underway.
Dr. Gipp provides numerous scriptures in his attempt to show that the Passover always precedes the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but it can be summed up as he stated above, “The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover.”
That is an absolute statement. It comes from one with a doctorate in theology. And though many may be inclined to believe it, it is an error, and may be a blatant (may I be so bold?) lie used solely to vindicate the King James Onlyist position.
Forgetting the claims of Moorman and Gipp for a moment, let us turn to the word of God. We’ll use the King James Version so we cannot be accused of using a “faulty version” for this. Watch what God says:
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.:”(It is very interesting that in all the pro King James Only material I have read concerning the “Easter” issue, I have never seen Ezekiel 45:21 mentioned. Numerous verses are listed showing a distinction between Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but this verse which combines them is conveniently ignored. I used to be a King James Onlyist, and I was honestly shocked when I stumbled upon Ezekiel 45:21. Should King James Onlyists separate what God has joined together in order to defend their position? NAY!)”: Ezekiel 45:21, emphasis mine
What was that? Did you catch that? How can that be, if the Passover is strictly a one night affair? How can that be if the weeklong feast is separate from the Passover?
God Himself defines the Passover for us as “a feast of seven days,” shattering the claims of Moorman, Gipp, and other KJV Only defenders that the Passover was a single night followed by the days of unleavened bread.
Let the word of God stand on its own:
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after pascha to bring him forth to the people. Acts 12:4
The previous verse tells us that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was going on. Ezekiel tells us that the Feast of Unleavened Bread is known as Passover. Knowing these things, what do you think Luke was inspired to write in Acts 12:4?
Logic and consistency demands that the Passover is meant in Acts 12:4; there is no contextual reason to assume that Luke meant something different in using pascha than it meant in the other 28 times it is used in the New Testament.
This is an error in the translation of the King James Version, one which has failed to be corrected in the version’s numerous revisions. I am not saying that you should not use a King James Bible or even that you should not believe it is a wonderful and mostly accurate version. It is those things. However, it is not perfect, and you are deceiving yourself (and perhaps others) in thinking so. We do not have a perfect version; only God does, for His word is settled in Heaven.
Thank you for this post and the verse in Ezekiel!
God: “I’m going to lay down the rules to the letter, however, I’m not going to give you an exact copy of those rules for you to follow. I’ll keep those here in heaven where you can’t access it”
Some “God” who can create the entire universe with his spoken word and yet cannot even preserve his word perfectly for those he created to read? It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Unless of course it makes for a convenient way to put question on God’s word and gives the flexibility to “interpret it” since we supposedly don’t have an exact copy. Especially when the first attack in the bible was to put a question on God’s word when Satan said, “Yea, hath God said?” i.e. “should it really say Easter?” That in of itself says a lot. Ears up, radar on kind of words. The first thing he attacked was God’s word. And he questioned it in much the same way. Did God really say that? Again, ears up, radar on. I smell a rat and the wind isn’t coming from God’s direction. I don’t question what God says because I don’t understand why he said it. I just believe what he says. Jesus told us in John 8:44 how to recognize these tactics. Same tactics, different century.
Written with a clear bias. One verse in Ezekiel, that can be read either way, is not proof of the issue. If there was no difference between the Passover and the days of unleavened bread why did God mention ” (verse 3) these were the days of unleavened bread” why not say, “these were the days of the Passover”? We cannot jettison all the other witnesses for Ezekiel 45:21; the other verses give the correct meaning to this verse. An example of this is found in the gospels when the cloak they put on Jesus is referred to as purple in one Gospel and scarlet in another. These two seemingly contradictory accounts reveal to the reader the cloak was both scarlet and purple, the colours of the King. “Every word of God is pure” (Prov 30:5)
I realize this is an older post, but I came upon it as I searched for this issue. I think your logic is good and the verse in Ezekiel does support your position on the passover including the entire 7 days.
However, I also know that when one says “Happy Easter” in Greek they say “Kalo Pashcha!” (beautiful Easter). So Pashcha is translated as Easter.
I then searched for “pascha” in the Scriptures and found it used 29 times. Of those 29 times only 3 were after the resurrection of Christ. One is of course the verse in Acts. Another is in 1 Corinthians 5:7 where it refers to Christ being our passover — as he did come to take the place of that yearly sacrifice and save us (become the propitiation for our sins). And then in Hebrews 11:28 which is a reference to Moses and the initial passover.
So to me it does seem fitting to say “Easter” when the Greek word does indeed also mean “Easter” and this verse is clearly referring to a time after Christ’s resurrection — and the passover feast has already been mentioned. We know that historically the resurrection did occur at the end of the Passover. The two are intrinsically linked and if it weren’t for changes in calendars would occur together each and every year.
I’m maybe not good at writing out all my thoughts on this, but if you take a look at this comment I would like your feedback on the issue, as to me it seems that the translation is fine as is, and is indeed not in error, even with Ezekiel taken into consideration.
Part of the issue is that pascha was not meant to mean “Easter,” nor did it for quite some time after the events of the New Testament. The tradition of Easter is rooted in paganism and has been “retconned” into New Testament history where it doesn’t belong. This is partly why Easter is a movable feast rather than being tied to Passover, like it would be if it were an actual biblical festival (which is not — no one in the New Testament is ever said to mark the anniversary of the resurrection; rather, we have the Lord’s Supper as often as we will).
Greeks today may say “Happy Pascha!” for “Happy Easter!,” but there was a time in early church history where people didn’t wish people “Happy Easter!”; there was the Passover, and there was the Lord’s Supper.
So is your argument that we shouldn’t indeed bother celebrating Easter? I know that it is not a Biblical Feast ;) However, I also don’t see the harm in celebrating and commemorating it. I see it as something different than the Lord’s Supper (which I understand we are to take when we wish to, so long as we do not make it a time to simply indulge as the Church was doing in Corinth)
Because the Easter events are tied to the passover — it is clear in the Bible when they happened, and it is in relation to Passover. It’s not some assigned date like Christmas is.
Maybe bunnies and baby chicks and eggs are part of the Pagan festivals but is celebrating the resurrection of Christ really considered pagan? What I’m saying is that we know when the resurrection occurred. The Bible does not forbid remembering that day (indeed our attention is brought to those events over and over). Does the fact that some person with poor judgment somewhere in history decided to bring Pagan symbols into the “Easter” deal negate the fact that we know exactly when the resurrection occurred, and that if we choose to remember that day when it historically occurred, we are correct in placing it right after the Passover meal?
I’m asking because your response feels as if it is heavily laden with malice for the entire celebration of the resurrection. Indeed having the Lord’s Supper and remembering that his body and blood were given for us is important — but the finished work of Christ lies in the fact that he rose again and ascended to the right hand of God.
I see though where you are coming from in saying that “easter” per say did not exist as “Easter” in the NT times when Acts was written. I think I will go back and re-read all the surrounding passages again. It is still interesting to me that this one time it is translated as such is indeed after the resurrection when there could have been a marking of the day Christ died. Surely his disciples remembered the day as we remember the day of a friend’s death. Surely many, many people remembered the day, being so significant and such a big spectacle, as we remember tragic world events on their anniversaries even today. It didn’t take long at all for “911” to mean something other than an emergency number to every one in the United States…
Thank you for your reply.
I don’t have a problem celebrating the risen Savior; if I boast, let it be in Him.
My issue is that I believe the Lord was wise enough to instruct us how to worship — in other words, I believe in the regulative principle, which teaches that when we worship, we should not only not do those things He forbids but we should also only do those things which He commands.
When we make up annual festivals, add tradition upon tradition to church services, and so on, we obscure simple, biblical worship — and we often neglect it in the process. Altar calls? Christmas services? Pulpits? Membership rolls? Corny tracts?
None of that is Christianity, at least not biblical Christianity. And I take exception to it because I respect what the Lord has said in His Word.
I don’t mind if a Christian wants to celebrate a particular day — in the keeping of sabbaths and festivals, I cannot judge — but I can encourage those that do so to admit that these are simply traditions, not true aspects of the Christian faith.
You might want to read my post. It is a different take on the word Easter in the KJV.
It is a different take, though it seems entirely based on an assumption that the King James Version is correct, working backwards from there. Unfortunately, that isn’t how scholarship works.
If anyone compares the greek words instead of the english it is obvious that easter does not belong.
If you read the letter to the readers which was written by the 1611 translators. They openly admit they done their best and it is not perfect but as close as they could get.
Any further argument is vain!!!!
So your assumption is that in 400 years, no scholar has been able to exceed the translators of King James’ Bible, a Bible which was openly “translated” using language which was had no business being in there, such as “bishop,” but which fit the church polity of the king.
A few years ago, I did an extensive independant study on why the word Easter is in the King James Version. Anytime anyone states that the King James Version is Uninspired in any way, I take the opposite position on the subject matter. First, we must acknowledge that the Bible was written by Jewish people only, not Gentiles. This is important, as many Gentile interpretations occur when discussing issues pertaining to Jewish Traditions that Gentiles can only speculate on, twisting the meanings, ending in a redefinition. Then, we must learn everything we can pertaining to every detail about the Jewish Passover. Then, we must determine, from a concordance, about the English Language that was spoken in 1611, and not to pretend that the words used in 1611 have the same meanings as they do in 2009. Then we can take all details of everything we learn, from independant study, and finally put ALL of Acts chapter 12 into context, rather than just consentrating on one verse, that is, Acts 12:4.
The English words, Passover, and Days of Unleavened Bread are indeed the same. They both begin AT the same time. The Jewish day begins at sunset. According to Leviticus 23:5, Passover begins on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan) at even(ing). That is the same as saying Nisan 15 (not Nisan 14). Luke 22:1 states “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”
Passover, which is indeed called the Feast of unleavened bread, is a seven day feast, not a one day feast.
So, in Acts 12:4, it was indeed passover, as the Greek word translates. But it begs the question, which day of the passover, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day?
Now, we see the word “After” in Acts 12:4! Some will see that word, and automatically assume that this word, “after” means when passover ends.
Wrong! This particular word, “after” means “AMID”, which means “during”. Acts 12:4 is discussing a PARTICULAR day within (amid) the Seven Day Feast of Unleavened Bread, otherwise known as Passover. But which Particular Day?
Why would it please the Jews to have the disciples of Jesus killed during Passover? Would it be because they were preaching the resurrection of Christ? Yes…it would! And which day of Passover might that be? Could it possibly be Easter? Absolutely. The third day of the Feast of Unleavend Bread!
The reason why the word Easter is used in the King James Version, is to denote a PARTICULAR DAY of the Passover, called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is NO misinterpretation, for it is there for a reason.
If I get a reply, we can further this discussion, as well as look deeper into the reason why the word “Easter” exists, rather than listening to the wack jobs say that it was because of some pagan goddess named Istar, the goddess of fertility. That is so absurd.
So, if celebrating the Resurection of Christ is a sin, please show me the 614th law (out of 613) that states that it is a sin to celebrate the resurection of Christ.
You state that you try to look at things as the Jews do and also admit that Pascha is the Passover; you then have to make the non-Jewish assumption that one use of Pascha is used to refer to the Sunday of the resurrection.
I’m okay with the fact that you use assumption to defend your stance, but I hope no one is gullible enough to be convinced to King James Onlyism by it.
I highly recommend the work The King James Only Controversy by James White.
Believe me when I tell you that liberating yourself from adhering to the extra-biblical tradition of King James Onlyism opens up a much more vibrant Bible study life. (At the very least, I no longer had to pretend like King James Onlyism was a biblical teaching anymore.)
Whether or not it is the way that scholarship works, I think it is more important that it is the way that the Holy Spirit works, and teaches, as scripture states that we need not that any man teach us. I say this Humbly, but boldly that I enjoy looking deeper into scripture to find the spiritual things, rather than the carnal. For example, the life of Joseph was NOT about Joseph, even though it was about Joseph. No, the life of Joseph was about Jesus, not Joseph. My point is, I don’t care about scholarship. The foolishness of Jesus outweighs the knowledge of the scholars! So, yes, I still hold the point that the King James Version is correct. What your organization does, is spend more time telling us why the word “Easter” should not be there, rather than giving the one good reason why it should be there. Not only that, you have yet to consult the sourse of the reason why it was put there in the first place. You are quick to say that it is wrong, rather than researching why it is there. Who put it there and why is the question we all must research. What discussions were there and why was there a consenses to keep it there. Who objected, who agreed. If people would spend more time asking the “who, what, why, where, when, and how” questions, we would find the answers.
In addition, Passover is a “seven” day feast, not a one day feast. Passover was already underway, so it was not discussing the first day of the passover. Not only that, but, the word “AFTER” does NOT mean when Passover has concluded. The Greek word used for the word “AFTER” is “META”, which means “AMID”. Now, I was a sailor at one time, and I remember the term, “Amid-ships”, which means in the middle of. Meta means “in the midst of”, which means anywhere between the first day of the passover and the seventh day of the Passover. You want to separate the word Passover from the phrase “Feast of Unleavend Bread”. You cannot do that.
Finally, you don’t ask the tough questions, such as, Why would it please the Jews, who saw the crucifixion of Jesus, to have the disciples of Jesus killed “DURING” (amid), not at the conclusion of, the Passover (a seven day feast, not a one day feast). When a twelfth disciple was being sought out to replace Judas, that twelfth HAD TO BE A WITNESS of the RESURECTION of Jesus. The Jews, who saw the crucifixion of Jesus did not like the fact that anyone would preach the resurection of the same.
And finally, yes, Jesus did instruct us on how to worship when he said that God is a spirit and we are to worship him in spirit and in truth. What does that mean? That means that we don’t have to go to Jerusalem on a particular day of the week, as God resides in us. We worship God anywhere, anytime. You seem to think that we can only worship God based on the breaking of bread and drinking wine at communion? No! That’s what cults say in order to tell people not to celebrate Christmas and Easter. They tell them that “God instructed proper worship…blah, blah, blah, and it doesn’t include Christmas and Easter. My comment to them is, study to show thyself approved! Let the Holy Spirit guide you, and not a theologyn, or a scholar. Remember the foolishness of Jesus overrides the scholars.
The word “Easter” is there for a reason. What is that reason? To say that it shouldn’t be there is not the answer to my question. My question to you is, “Why is it there?”
Question: If the Greek word μετα really means ‘amid’ and not ‘after’, why does the KJV translate it as ‘after’?
Because in one definition of the word “after”, the word “Amid” and “After” are synonyms. For example, read the following sentence:
“The bank manager resigned his position (Amid/After) allegations that he embezzeled money”.
And, yes, that Greek word, Meta, really does mean “amid”.
Can you give an example from the KJV of the word ‘after’ meaning ‘amid’ (besides Acts 14:2, of course)? I know that the Greek word can mean ‘amid’, but the KJV translators seemed to make the decision that here it means ‘after’.
The King James Version translators also assumed that the love of money is the root of all evil. ;) It’s as if by the time they got to the New Testament, they forgot that money hadn’t even been invented at the time of Adam, Eve, and Cain’s evil.
Or maybe Adam and Eve bartered fruit from one another using palm leaves as currency? Such an absurdity must be assumed for King James Onlyism to be a tenable position, after all; otherwise, the Onlyists must admit that their version contains a blatant lie, and only the most tenacious of adherents would actually do that!
Rick, by your comment, I see that you are not a serious student of the Bible. You mock people by your sarcasms. Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit!
Jesus, Paul, and God Himself used sarcasm throughout the Scriptures; don’t limit yourself by avoiding it.
I see by your comment, though, that you tend to avoid actual issues in order to circularly reason others into accepting your traditions. As a former King James Onlyist, though, you can consider me immune to such tactics.
Oh, no, I never avoid a good argument. I used to like to watch Hannity & Colmes on Fox news. The difference here is, you show a lot of ignorance in your argument, therefore, it is wise to not engage in sarcasm with you, as you don’t bring to the table any facts. So, a debate, yes, if you have knowledge about facts, and not making them up as you go along. God tells us to reason. Asking questions, and researching the answers. You do neither. You dictate. Stop being a know-it-all, tearing down those of us who do learn much more than you will ever learn from the KJV. Jesus never used sarcasm to his disciples, as you seem to believe (again, no facts to back up your statement) and Jesus never avoided them in their questions about things. He welcomes questions. He didn’t take to kindly to those who thought that they knew it all, like you seem to think. That is called “Pride”.
Context, Context, Context. Choosing one verse to twist is what cults do VERY well, without putting the whole chapter into context to figure out what was being said. The context of the previous verse of 1 Timothy 6:10 (verse 9), WHICH YOU FAILED TO REFERENCE (another cult trick), was about rich people. They love money. THEY (The Rich), being the key word. Rich people love money, do they not? To those who love money, it is indeed the root of all of their evil. THEIR being the key word. For the love of money is indeed the root of ALL EVIL for those who love money. Do you see how twisted you can be in your sarcasms? Adam and Eve couldn’t love money. Oh, and by the way, God did not mandate any rules or regulations to them about how to worship God. They were ignorant, just like a child, and God was pleased. It was Satan that wanted them to have “Knowledge” of both Good, and Evil. Is it a sin to be naked in the Garden? Yes. Did God put them in the Garden naked? Yes. Oh, and another word that God changed was Immanuel to Jesus.
King James version isn’t the only one that says it i can give you 10 translationso and they’d all say the same thing I guess they all are wrong and on the same page as the king James translators then. There are no errors in God’s word sir.
Yes, they’d all be wrong. Here’s a good list of Bible versions on that particular verse; which ten agree with the King James Version’s rendering?
The following site gives very good insight to your question:
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3326.
You will see the word “Amid” used in the NAS version, and for those who can’t stand the KJV, I scoff at “thee” (KJV Humor) since the word “amid” is used, instead of the word “after”. But, if you do your research, you will understand that the word “after” and “amid” are interchangeable. We must also realize that the English that we use today is corrupt. The earlier the English, the more pure the English.
I see nowhere in an old English dictionary that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’. Yes, the Greek word meta can mean both ‘after’ and ‘amid’, but that does not mean that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’. If the word here does really mean ‘amid’ as you claim, the KJV is incorrect.
(I believe, however, that the word is properly translated here ‘after’, so the KJV is correct in that. The NASB also has ‘after’ here.)
You cannot claim that the KJV is perfect and then use external claims and reasonings to explain it. If the KJV were perfect you wouldn’t need to try to explain away any of its word choices.
First of all, I don’t “claim” anything. I cannot argue a dictionary definition of the Greek word Meta. It means “Amid”. Amid means “during”. Did I invent that? Hardly!
You said that “Yes, the Greek word meta can mean both ‘after’ and ‘amid’, but that does not mean that ‘after’ can mean ‘amid’.”
What? If meta can mean after or amid, that does indeed mean that you can use either word and it means the same thing. Meta does not have multiple meanings. Meta has multiple English words that can be used, however, and English words have multiple meanings.
The word, “After” was used in the KJV, so what? We don’t live in the year 1611. Our English is different and corrupt than it was then. The KJV translators used the word “After” because it meant “Amid” (mid) in their day. Why are we telling them how to translate THEIR words, or why are we telling them that they used the wrong word? Who are we? Did the English Language begin in the twenty first century? We need to understand them, rather than them understand us. They are the experts, we aren’t.
I will find an example for you, though. I will reply when I find it.
The Greek word gyne can mean either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’. Does that mean that the English word ‘wife’ can therefore mean ‘woman’? I believe the case is similar with meta. I hold that ‘after’ has never meant ‘amid’, 1611 or 2009.
“The earlier the English, the more pure the English.”
Then why do you use the King James Version? English was spoken for over six hundred years prior to the translation of the King James Version; doesn’t that mean there is six hundred years of language corruption in it? Also, there are earlier English translations; wouldn’t that necessarily make them purer as well?
The very fact that language is different today than it was four hundred years ago is a very strong argument why the King James Version isn’t a “end all be all” English translation. The argument that “language is corrupt” is meaningless; translate the Bible into today’s English, and all the problems disappear — except those which come with dealing with tradition-bound King James Onlyists.
Your reply shows your ignorance.
And your reply shows your refusal to deal with reality.
People have asked me why I refer to King James Onlyism as a cult; it’s because those who hold to those beliefs are blind to simple reality, to anything which might shatter the allegiance which holds them to the King James Version. Your reply is evidence of that, and I implore you to open your eyes and think outside of the narrowly defined box of an Onlyism.
“One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” but never “One Translation.” The important truths are expounded upon repeatedly in the Scriptures and are made crystal clear to those who have been quickened by the Spirit; given the amount of effort spent by King James Onlyists to defend their beliefs to others, one would expect that God mentioned something like “Thou shalt useth only translations which forceth you to talk like Shakespeare.”
Too bad that isn’t in there. Onlyists have to resort to translation histories or any of a number of other things to defend their claims, all the while sacrificing sola Scriptura on the ironic altar of defending what they believe to be the purist Scriptures!
Why do KJO make nasty comments when in a debate ? It seems to be something you all do.
This is a very old post, and I don’t usually comment with my opinions, but here is factually information that is being grossly misrepresented by someone who obviously is a complete ignoramus when it comes to Greek. I hate to be that blunt, but it is true. You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but you want to portray yourself that you do. And God is not deceived by it. But unfortunately, I have to answer because some men might be deceived by your mask.
Simply trying to read some sort of concordance without learning the language itself leads many many people to many many false conclusions. You actually need to take classes on the Greek syntax and start reading it in multiple contexts and from multiple Greek documents to begin to get a feel of it. Just because a word can technically be translated with more than one meaning, doesn’t mean that that meaning is available for that word for every context, and the translators are not randomly picking and choosing when this word is translated one way and then translated another way.
When “meta” is coupled with a genitive noun, it means “with” and when it is coupled with an accusative noun, it means “after”.
The noun “to pasxa” in Acts 12:4 is an accusative noun. Therefore in Acts 12:4, “meta” means “after”. It must be rendered “after the Passover.”
(I am not a King James Only person by any means. Having learned Greek, I can say that the closest I have found is the New American Standard — which especially renders many of the ‘characters’ questions properly (in Greek there is a way to ask a question that expects a “yes” or “no” answer, but this is not portrayed by any translation except for the NAS or mine own personal translation), but ithe NAS still falls short in many areas.)
So Ed, you have proven the KJV is flawed, after is an error and amid is correct. Hmmm. And furthermore you now have the text saying something really weird.
You have the text saying: intending amid Easter to bring him forth to the people. That does not even make any sense. Of course one could argue that it could read: intending amid passover to bring him forth to the people. How does one do something “amid Easter”. KJV is just simple wrong, incorrect and in error. It is not perfect. I used to be a KJV onlyist once myself, but I repented of that and now know better. Praise YWHW he has shown me the truth.
You’re being too inconsistent to reply to, at least in any way that would do any good.
For instance, you criticize my studying the Scriptures to determine how I am to worship by telling me to study the Scriptures, and you tell me to study the Scriptures while at the same time defending extra-biblical traditions like Easter and Christmas.
You’ve also done nothing to defend the King James Version’s use of Easter — or why we should only use the King James Version. You’re not alone; no King James Onlyist can answer my King James Version Only Challenge simply because it is an extra-biblical tradition that cannot be defended scripturally. It must be assumed, yet assumptions are not what God told us to build our faith upon.
God was very specific that the Scriptures are sufficient, and if King James Onlyism could not be determined from the Scriptures in the year, oh, 712, then there’s no way that the doctrine is there today. It’s something traditionalists have made up, yet they are too blinded or scared or whatever to admit it.
Last, whether the Jews were making plans for “after” or “during” Passover is really of no effect for your argument. Even if “during” or “amid” is the intended meaning in this instance, there’s still no reason to assume that “Easter” is necessarily the proper translation.
Do you have any arguments for your position that aren’t circular or non sequiturs?
Where is my inconsistancy? You preach scholars to me, and I preach Holy Spirit to you. I think that God would be pleased about that. Have you not read I Cor. chapter one? And you preach that it is a sin to celebrate “Easter”. “Easter” is NOT extra biblical. It is a fallacy to preach to people that the first century Christians did not celebrate Easter. It is also a fallacy to preach to people that Easter has a pagan origin. I will get to that topic in time (my time, not yours), but are you willing to research things from a believers standpoint, rather than listening to wack jobs that claim that we are not to celebrate Easter or Christmas? Yes, I do critisize your worship, but from a biblical standpoint. God did NOT establish rules and regulations for Christians in the worshipping of Him. We do worship God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, celebrating Easter and Christmas. If that stumbles you, you have NO FAITH!
And your argument about Holidays is terrible in light of the Jewish Holiday Purim. Who established it and why? What does Purim represent? Was it celebrated in the days of Jesus? Is it still celebrated today? Find out in the book of Ester.
Last, you say that it is really of no effect for my argument whether it is during or after passover. YES IT IS! My question to you, which you refuse to answer is:
WHAT DAY of the Passover was King Herod going to kill Peter?
The answer to that question is extremely important! But, you say that it is of no effect. I highly disagree with you on that.
But, you can’t answer that question, can you? Or will you even research it? If you don’t research it, how can you conclude that the word Easter should not be there? In Chapter 13 of Acts, the Apostle Paul was PREACHING the resurection of Jesus. In I Cor. 15, a Christian must believe in the resurection. You have a problem with the KJV, that’s fine, but don’t tell us KJV onlyists that the KJV is wrong. It isn’t. But if you want to use uninspired versions, i.e., the NIV, then go ahead.
It is NOT out of character for God to change words in the Bible. He changed Abram’s name to Abraham, which changed the meaning. He changed Jacobs name to Israel. He also changed many other words, as well, many words. We also use the English words, “The Lord” in replacement of the Hebrew word YHVH. Where is your argument there? I don’t care what version you use. Only a select few will render YHVH with Yahweh or Jehovah, and one of those is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Should we, or should we not use the words “The Lord” in the Old Testament? You are quick to argue the word Easter, so how about the words, “The Lord”? Again, I ask, where is my inconsistancy?
Your inconsistency is that while you disagree with my appeal to scholarship, you are quick to appeal to scholars — the authors of concordances and dictionaries, for instance — to make your case. In other words, if you were consistent and dropped the appeals to scholarship, your argument would be “Easter is in the King James Version because it is in the King James Version.” Obviously such a circular argument isn’t going to stand, so you must do a little bit of scholarship, which is just fine. I’m willing to allow your use of scholarship, but you seem to hate mine; that, Ed, is inconsistency.
I believe that we must worship God in truth — which is defined in the Bible — and that traditions tend to obscure the truth. That is why I don’t accept Easter or Christmas (or Christian tithing or full-time pastors or church-to-church evangelists or all sorts of other such things) as Christian. I believe that God was wise enough to instruct us on how to worship Him and that we dishonor Him when we instead follow our own paths of worship. To this end, God gets the glory wholly and completely. I find no evidence in the Scriptures that God desired us to keep an annual memorial to the crucifixion or the resurrection or the birth of Christ; rather, we are to at all times preach Christ crucified and boast in His resurrection. There is nothing annual about it; there is simply “in season and out of season.”
What does scholars have to do with definitions of words? No, you are wrong to say that I appeal to the scholars. I don’t. I don’t know where you get that, but you are wrong. The BIBLICAL definition of the word Truth, is “Jesus”. We worship God in Spirit (Father), and Truth (Jesus, the Son (the Body). That is what the Holy Spirit teaches. You can take your scholarship elsewhere. Well, since you don’t accept Christian “traditions”, I consider you wicked. You have a twisted insight to what God is discussing in His Word. “Traditions of men” has nothing to do with your topic of Christmas or Easter celebrations, or Birthdays, or Tithing, or all of the other things you mentioned. Have you not read Colossians chapter thee? You set rules upon yourself, “touch not, taste not, handle not”, that is not Godlike. As the Book of Galatians states, who bewitched you? Do you know what “LIBERTY” means? FREEDOM! Do you know why Abraham didn’t have the Law? So, tell me, as well. Do you celebrate your aniversary with your wife? Or did she divorse you due to your wacky interpretations of scripture? I, too, can be sarcastic. But that is part of my charm.
Nothing at all wrong with sarcasm; Jesus was, Paul was… It makes making a point all the easier.
Tithing… is biblical, if it involves giving a tenth of one’s increase to the temple in Jerusalem for the nourishment of the Levites. The New Testament doesn’t prescribe tithing for the Christian.
Holidays… we have freedom in. We can celebrate Easter and Christmas and Sabbath days and whatever we want. I celebrate quite a few holidays, though not as many as others simply because so many are so silly (“Sweetest Day”? Really? lol). However, to say that Christmas or Easter is biblical, well, that’s what I take exception with. I prefer to worship God according to what the Truth (the Word of God, not just Jesus, as you erroneously state) states, which allows for a much simpler worship structure. If you’re not allowing me that freedom, then it is you who is heaping up the rules by adding traditions unto the Scriptures.
When you understand from the New Testament, that we, as Christians, are Kings and Priests, and that Jesus preached the “Kingdom” of God, and you understand what a Kingdom is, and the concept of a Kingdom, then you will understand the need for tithing. Not only that, we Christians may not be in Jerusalem, yet we are the TEMPLE of God. And, As God’s Children, we need to help one another, AS NEEDED. Remember Annanias and Saphiras? Some people don’t believe in tithing, so they give 20% instead of 10%. But, God loves a cheerful giver. If you don’t give from the heart, but rather make it an obligitory function of life, you have missed the meaning of “GOD’S KINGDOM”. Do you know what a Kingdom is and it’s functions? We know that God judges the heart, and not the deed. There is a NEED for tithing. If you want to hoard your money, then God doesn’t want your money. In the Spiritual sence, WE (Christians) are the Levites, so that we, as Christians, can help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit the widows and orphans. We, as Levites, or priests (Christians), do Gods will (service/minister/serve). That takes $$$$. It takes $$$$ to “GO YE” into all the nations. But, I can tell that you are a selfish individual, and self centered, as you despise Valentines Day, or as you call it Sweetest Day. Where is your Love? Where is your compassion? You are so dogmatic on the “Proper” way to worship, that you miss the whole point of “real” worship. Loving others is Loving God, as when we sin against another, we sin against God.
You hold a belief that is unbiblical! Celebrating Easter means to celebrate a Biblical Jesus that Biblically rose from the dead. I applaud that, and you despise that, as you think it is unbiblical. If your son had died on the operating table, and three days later rose from the dead, wouldn’t that be cause for celebration? Would you celebrate his death? Or would you celebrate his Life? And where do you come up with garbage that states that celebrating these things get in the way of worship? What nonsense is that coming from?
Oh, and the Biblical Definition of the Word of God is Jesus. The Biblical Definition of the word Truth is JUST Jesus. I guess that you are one of those New Agers that believe that there are MANY Truths? It’s All About “JUST” JESUS.
Micah John, You said:
“The Greek word gyne can mean either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’. Does that mean that the English word ‘wife’ can therefore mean ‘woman’? I believe the case is similar with meta. I hold that ‘after’ has never meant ‘amid’, 1611 or 2009”.
My response is this: Is a wife a woman?
Of course, but that doesn’t mean that you can read ‘woman’ instead — or vice versa. Take Ephesians 5:23, for example. You can really misinterpret it by reading ‘The man is the head of the woman’. Similarly, to read ‘wife’ instead of ‘woman’ in other places would also cause problems.
Well, at least we know that the man is the head of a ‘gyne’. Now, we should know that Eve was a woman. Eve was also Adams wife. In the context of your argument, the word woman refers to the wife, not a single woman. If it were a single woman, what man would be the head of her? No man would. Think about what is being discussed first, then you would know which word to use. In either case, what was the Greek word? That is unchangeable. If you want to argue the meaning of the Greek word, I can’t, as it is self explanitory when reading the topic of the conversation.
In other words, either word (woman or wife) could have been used to convey the same meaning, in your example.
Finally, if it were a single woman, a different Greek word would have been used…remember that for future reference.
But the point is, that the KJV has ‘after’, and ‘after’ in English does NOT mean ‘amid’. If the KJV really is perfect, ‘after’ means ‘after’ and would not need to be corrected to ‘amid’ using external evidence.
Wrong!! You keep a premise that the word “after” does not mean “amid”. That is an incorrect statement. I gave you an example of the use earlier. The example is:
The bank manager resigned his position (amid/after) allegations that he embezzled money.
Either word can be used. I have seen this example in dictionaries. I will find it and post it when I find it, OK?
“Amid” and “after” have two different meanings in that sentence. If the bank manager resigned after the allegations, that implies that the allegations have ceased or have otherwise been resolved.
If the bank manager resigned amid the allegations, that implies that the allegations are still ongoing.
“Amid” means — and has meant since its earliest usage in Old English, predating the King James Version by quite a bit — “in the middle of” (source); “after” — also from an Old English word — never means “in the middle of” but instead means “at a subsequent time” or similar (source). Even Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, which did a lot to help bring sense and consistency to the English language and was largely influenced by word usage in the King James Version, states that after always means “subsequent to,” not “in the middle of.”
Are there any dictionaries — from any year, for that matter — that define “after” as “in the middle” rather than “subsequent to”?
Let me ask you something! Does not the word “after” also appear in all of the other translations, as well as the KJV? Yes, it does! Your argument holds no water, therefore. Why? Because we all know that the Greek word used is Meta, which means “AMID”. This is not a KJV Onlyist argument. It is a definition argument. Is not the word “Meta” defined as “AMID”? You cannot argue that. So, again, I ask…(when are you going to stop avoiding the actual question?) Which day of the passover (1−7) was King Herod going to kill Peter?
Can you provide a single source where meta is translated as “during” or “amid”? That’s the challenge, which you seem to be missing.
You can claim it means the same thing until you’re blue in the face, but you’ve provided no evidence of that. Even the King James translators knew that the word meant “after,” a word which has been shown above to always mean “next” or “past the conclusion of” or similar, never “during.”
Which day of the Passover? No, no, the text says “After the Passover.” If you disagree with that, your issue is not with me but with the language experts behind a myriad of trusted translations.
And if you want a truly informed conversation, I’d invite you to discuss the matter with James White. He’s much more knowledgeable than I am, and much better at articulating that knowledge that I could ever hope to be. (Don’t worry, though, I won’t be surprised if you decline to take the matter to someone like him; you wouldn’t be the first King James Onlyist to shy away from a true challenge… David Cloud has whole articles on his site about why he refuses to defend his Bible beliefs against someone who so obviously knows better.)
The English word may say “After”, yet we know that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. We have to take it to the Greek definitions of words, not English definitions. Why do you keep converting to the English definitions, when it is the Greek we have to conform to? The Greek word is “Meta”. You define it as something that it is not. Meta means “Amid”. And I am blue in the face. How many times can I say that Meta means amid. I don’t care what the word “After” means. It is irrelevant. I only care what the Greek word is defined as. THIS is where we learn that the word AMID can also mean AFTER. Or didn’t they teach you that in scholarship school?
Look up the Greek word, Meta. Your defence of the definition of the word AFTER does not equate to the definition of the Greek word, META. I DON’T HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANYTHING, as you beg me to do. All YOU have to do is define META. I cannot change definitions of words. Cults do that.
Strongs Greek Concordance #3326
meta
(met-ah’)
a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; “amid” (local or causal); modified variously according to the case (genitive association, or accusative succession) with which it is joined; occupying an intermediate position between apo — apo 575 or ek — ek 1537 and eiV — eis 1519 or proV — pros 4314; less intimate than en — en 1722 and less close than 4862): – after(-ward), X that he again, against, among, X and, + follow, hence, hereafter, in, of, (up-)on, + our, X and setting, since, (un-)to, + together, when, with (+ ‑out). Often used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.
Look here.
First thing: Look carefully at Strong’s.
Note that last phrase: ‘or accusative succession’. That means, when meta is used with the accusative case rather than the genitive it indicates succession (‘after’) rather than association (‘amid’). Yes, words can mean more than one thing. Further, in Greek the case is more important than the preposition: the preposition merely clarifies the meaning of the case while having less of an intrinsic meaning of its own (see Davis’ grammar).
Second: If you really were right that meta can only mean ‘amid’, you are explicitly stating that the KJV has an error.
Immediatly following “less close than 4862” you will see “: – ”.
When you see a colon with dashes, that means that the words to the right of the colon and dashes are the English words used for the Greek word. I am surprised that you, as a scholar, didn’t already know that.
Meta only means ONE thing, yet many English words are used to convey that particular meaning. The word “after” just so happens to be one of them. I am sure, that you as a scholar, would know that the Greek Language is so precise in it’s words, insofaras definitions, that there is no way possible to miss the meaning of what is being said. Tell ME Mr. Scholarman, how many definitions can you get from the Greek word, Meta? If it is more than one, then you are incorrect. That would go on your permanent record.
And, Rick, I am NOT a KJV Onlyist. I do comparison study, yet default to KJV. For many years, many people only had a KJV. Do you mock them, too? Does God like it when we mock people like you do? The Good news is the Cross of Christ. That is in the KJV. The Bad news is in the Bible as well. The Deity of Jesus is clearly defined in the Bible. And YES, the words TRINITY and RAPTURE are indeed in the KJV Bible. The KJV is the Word of God. It was the Word of God in 1611, and still is today. I suppose that you haven’t considered the strange translations of the NIV, which a lot of churches use these days, yet I don’t consider one of them to be a cult. Yet, neither are any of the KJV Onlyist. We are ALL BELIEVERS in Christ Jesus. We know WHO Jesus is. Why do you pick on the KJV Onlyist? You are saying that none of the KJV Onlyist are Christians when you define them as a cult. You, sir, are wicked. You have a lot to learn. Jesus would never mock believers in him. Why do you?
Who is James White? And to say that he is more informed than you are, tells me that you don’t rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you. You rely on mankind (James White) to guide you into weird truths, which are not truths at all. I believe that it is a sin for Christians to beat up Christians. Anything that is not of faith is sin. What I mean by the last two sentances, is that you have no faith, as you beat up other Christians, calling them cults. A cult is a Jehovah’s Witness, Morman, etc., who redefines Jesus, sin, salvation, evil, etc. A cult is not persons who prefer one translation of the Bible over another. Someone has bewitched you, and you need to get faith.
“gyne” literally means woman. Usually in Greek, when someone is being referred to as a “wife” (a word which they actually do not generally have), a Greek writer would state “the woman of Abraham” or “the woman of his” or “his woman”. Therefore, “woman” still always means woman. One cannot simply choose “woman” or “wife” when and where he pleases. You would have to derive that information from the context. And many times there is not enough context to determine the idea that is to be portrayed.
Therefore, I perfer to ALWAYS translate this word to “woman” and NEVER “wife”. The translators only translate it to “wife” when they decide that they want it to mean that (unfortunately), or that the context clearly suggests that. So, the Greek reader would ALWAYS see the word “gyne” or “woman.” The context of the sentence will then tell the reader when the idea of “wife” is meant. However, many times this is vague. Therefore, I prefer to leave the word as “woman” in all cases, and let the context of the sentence (as it would for any original Greek reader) to determine whether a “woman” or “a woman of a man” is meant. Otherwise, if I choose “woman” in all vague contexts, and “wife” only in contexts that I think that the idea of “wife” is meant, then I risk that someone may not understand that “wife” could possibly be meant in a vague situation where I leave it as “woman”. Therefore, leaving it as “woman” in all cases allows the context of the sentence (as any Greek reader would have to allow it to do — the Greek reader must determine this by the context, he doesn’t have to words to choose from as they do in English) to determine if a “woman” or “a woman of a specific person” (i.e. “a wife”) is meant. I would rather allow the original context to tell me that, instead of a translator’s decision.
Love in Christ,
Andrew
Hey Micah John,
There are other Greek words that are used for the English word “after” as well, which have a different definition than meta, and more closely is defined as what you want the word “after” to mean. Why was the Greek word Meta used instead of the other Greek words available that mean what you are trying to convey to me? Do you have a strong’s? How many Greek words equate to the word “AFTER”? Why was Meta used in Acts 12:4 instead of the others listed? If they really wanted to get our attention to the fact that when Passover was over, then why Meta, when we know that then were the days of the FEAST of UNLEAVENED BREAD, which is called the Passover, and that there were other Greek words available to PRECISELY convey that when the Feast of Unleavened Bread was completed, then King Herod would Kill Peter. So which days was the days of the feast? Historically, that is important. How can you conclude, given the definition, that it is when Passover was concluded, rather than in the midst of Passover? Even your own explanation states that the Greek word Meta has more than one meaning. So which was it? Amid, or After? And why do you concluded that? I, myself, do not conclude that Meta has more than one meaning. I, myself conclude that Meta means amid, based on many factors, and that the KJV translators got it right when they transliterated Pascha to Easter, which would be “AMID” (AFTER) Passover.
Hey Micah John,
Here is the example that you are looking for:
Did Jesus rise from the dead ON the third day? Or did Jesus rise from the dead when the third day was already completed? Jesus himself states that “after three days I will rise again.” Yet we all know that Jesus rose ON the third day. This is one example that shows that the word after and amid are one in the same. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the fourth day, which would be “after” three days.
I looked up all eight occurrences of ‘on the third day’ in the New Testament and none of them uses meta.
Excuse me, WHAT???? Did I SAY that “ON THE THIRD DAY” equates to the word “meta”? NO! What I said was, that we all KNOW from scripture that Jesus rose from the dead ON THE THIRD DAY. He did NOT rise from the dead on the FOURTH day. When Jesus stated in Mark 8:31, “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”, he said, “and AFTER three days rise again.” It is this word, “AFTER” that is the Greek word, META.
So, I will try again, did Jesus rise from the dead ON the third day, or did Jesus rise from the dead on the fourth day, which would be “after” three days.
1 Corinthians 15:4 states the following (KJV) “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
So, again, I make my point that “AFTER THREE DAYS” means “ON THE THIRD DAY”. Why? Because the Greek word used for the word “After” is, again, “META” which means, AMID.
If Jesus had risen, based on your interpretation of “META”, then Jesus would have risen from the dead on the fourth day, your “after three days.”
So the KJV was wrong (according to you) by using ‘after’.
Again, WHAT? NO, I admit only that YOU and your kind have a misconception of the word “AFTER”. I continue to say that the KJV is correct. It is people like you who say that the KJV is incorrect, due to your ignorance of, and hatred of, King James English. THIS generation doesn’t even talk like we do. This generation has sayings that were unheard of a hundred years ago. “My Bad”, for one. What does that mean to someone from the early 20th century? But, if they use that today, and record it, is the next generation going to attempt to tell them that their language was wrong? NO! It was right for the time that it was used. Who are you to try to convince me that the Language that KJ used was wrong? No, they weren’t wrong. It was their language, not ours. You are wrong for telling them that they were wrong.
As I said, it’s the case in Greek that’s important. Have you studied Greek? One of the first things you learn is that most Greek prepositions have more than one meaning depending on the case that goes with it. For example, δια means ‘on account of’ with the accusative case but ‘through’ (something completely different) with the genitive. υπο can mean ‘by means of’ with the genitive and ‘under the authority of’ with the accusative. προς means ‘at, on, near’ with the dative but ‘to, toward, for the sake or purpose of’ with the accusative.
One must realize that no language is 100% logical. We have many different words that express more or less the same concept (e.g. ‘amid’, ‘amidst’, ‘during’, ‘while’ and ‘as’ can mean the same thing). Greek is no different.
Since when has the English Language been Logical? Have you ever watched Gallagher? He states, “What’s with this i before e stuff, as Einstein has it wrong twice in his name.” One, or won. Two, or to, or too. What is with the words “off” and “on” on a light switch. If it’s on, you can see it’s on, if it’s off, you can’t see to read. It is the English words that are not logical. Greek was explicite. You ask me if I study Greek. As much as the Concordance will allow, I do. No formal study. I know you haven’t yet either, otherwise, what is your credentials. But I do know someone who has. Her name is Pastor Melissa Scott. She is a linguist, and knows many, many, many languages, and speaks, and writes them fluently. She has an hour show each weeknight on the ION network. She comes on late at night (1:00 – 2:00 AM). You can also find her online. Her husband, Dr. Scott, was also a linguist. On her show, she has THE manuscripts, and the other languages written on the dry erase chalkboard, which takes up the whole stage. Wheter it be in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Ethiopic, and a whole slew of others. She knows them. And she teaches from the KJV. NOT the NIV, or others. I would rather learn from her, than to listen to all of the amature expterts out their cutting and pasting the Greek letters, making it sound like they are the experts at Language. All I do is research the definitions. I don’t need scholarship to do that.
Mr Ed Chapman: You are the one throwing around the word ‘cult’. You directly addressed Rick Beckman, on whose site you post, as ‘wicked’.
Yes, the KJV is the word of God, but so are the NIV and ESV. The KJV is a fine translation — but nothing more. None of us worships it or bashes it. This blog post was only to counter an argument of extreme KJV-Only-ists.
I suggest that you read the preface to the King James Version. The translators here defend variety of translations and explain some of their reasoning. (You can read it here or here.)
Yes, I do believe that the things that Rick propagates is indeed wicked. If that offends him, well, the Gospel offends. And since you yourself admit that the KJV is indeed the word of God, then what are you doing? If KJV Onlyist exist, let them be. It is by Grace, THROUGH faith, that saves. If we would concentrate on that, Grace, Mercy, and Faith, we would find common ground with the KJV Onlyist, rather than to antagonize them. No, but Rick wants to concentrate on rules and regulations of worship, of which, there is no rules or regulations for Christians. God wouldn’t live in our bodies if there were. Are there rules and regulations for you in loving your spouse, or children? Yes — LOVE. Define Love for me!
Ed Chapman: “Pastor Melissa Scott” — Oh, well there’s part of your problem. At the risk of being told I adhere to far too many rules or whatever to worship, I trust what the Scriptures say: a woman should not teach the church (1 Timothy 2:12) and that church leaders must be the husband of one wife, explicitly excluding women from the position (1 Timothy 3:2).
You’ve posted a lot to reply to, which I don’t have time to get to at the moment, so here are but a few quick points from your comments:
1) You criticize me for referencing James White for being more knowledgeable than I am, but you reference a woman pastor and her husband as teachers we should refer to because of their knowledge, which apparently is greater than yours.
2) Go look up the word scholarship. I have no idea why it leaves such a bad taste in your mouth; researching definitions — well, research of any kind — like you admit to doing is scholarship. Please stop playing word games. Thanks.
3) None of the definitions of “cult” include twisting or perverting the Gospel. That’s simply how certain Christian apologists use the word, and that’s fine. One of the dictionary definitions of the word is “An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.”
Across the nation, King James Onlyists gather apart from users of various other translations. I contend that my use of the word “cult” to describe Onlyists is correct, and I don’t apologize for that. It has nothing to do with them denying Jesus Christ or anything else, and no true dictionary can be twisted to say that.
I’m sure she would support me in saying that ‘after’ means ‘after’. Never has the word ‘after’ meant ‘amid’ in the history of the English language. Please give one source — old or new — that says that ‘after’ means ‘amid’.
The Greek language is no more intrinsically logical than English.
Sorry about my misinterpretation of your previous comment about the third day. But Mark 8:31 proves what I’m saying. Read it: “…and after three days rise again.” This does not mean ‘amid’, even thought the word is μετα.
By the way, I do not cut and paste Greek letters: I have a dedicated Greek keyboard layout. I can read Greek better in its own script than transliterated.
Your interpretation is twisted. Scripture does not prohibit women from teaching men.
1 Timothy 2:11~12 (about as literal as you can get it without sounding like nonsense)
Let a woman be learning in tranquility in all subjection. 12 But I am not permitting a woman to be teaching, nor to be controlling a man; instead, she is to be in tranquility. 13 For Adam was fashioned first, next Eva. 14 And Adam was not deluded; but the woman, after she was fully-deluded, has come-to-be in a transgression. 15 But she will be saved through the childbearing, if-at-any-time they might remain in faith and love and holification with sound-mindedness.
1 Corinthians 14:33~40 (about as literal as you can get it without it sounding like nonsense)
As in all the assemblies of the holy-ones, 34 let the women be being-silent in the assemblies. For it is not being permitted to them to be uttering, but instead let them be being subjected, exactly-as the law also says. 35 But if they are wanting to learn anything, let them be inquiring-of their own men at a house. For it is shameful to a woman to be uttering in an assembly. 36 Or did the account of God come-forth from all of you*, or did it reach to you* alone? 37 If someone is thought to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing the things which I am writing to you*, that they are an instruction of the Lord. 38 But if someone is being-ignorant of this, he is being made-ignorant.
Hey Micah John,
If you still believe that after means after, and never amid, then you must believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the fourth day.
Well, Rick, I do have to humbly admit, that in points #1 – 4, you are correct. But…I have to say that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing of the word of God.” Faith is the key word. We should acknowledge that theologyns can throw us off of the word of God. Faith, Hope, and Love, but the greatest is LOVE (Charity for us KJV geeks). But, we should also have enough knowledge of the Word of God (Jesus) to distinguish the difference between what is true, and what is not true. Theologyns are more wrong than they are right, because they miss the point of Faith, Hope, and Love.
The ancients counted days inclusively. Thus ‘after three days’ would mean ‘on the third day’, while ‘amid three days’ would mean ‘at some point in a three-day period’, though I’ve never seen that used.
The Romans also used this system. January 1 was ‘the Kalends of January’, December 31 ‘the day before the Kalends of January’, and December 30 ‘three days before the Kalends of January’.
Hey Micah John. We need to concentrate on the Jewish Days, and how they (JEWS) counted it. Romans had nothing to do with it, and neither did the ancients. The Jews day begins at sunset, regardless of what time of the day that it is. The Bible was written by Jews, and not the Gentiles (ROMANS). Now I know that there is an argument that Luke was a Gentile. He wasn’t. Paul was a Roman Citizen, yet a Jew. Genesis 1:5 indicates God’s days, as He called the darkness night, and the light day. Therefore, the Jews have a different take on what a day constitutes. Now, I know that Jesus himself stated, “are there not twelve hours in the day?”. Well, during that part of the year, yes, there were indeed twelve hours of daylight, but not in November. I have heard your argument before, but that isn’t what the Jews do in calculating days, or parts of days. So, my point is, that the phrase “after” three days, according to your definition of the word “after”, would mean “the fourth day”, not the third day. Especially since you define the word “after” to NOT mean amid. If indeed it doesn’t, IS NOT THE THIRD DAY AMID THREE DAYS, as the third day did not complete itself?
This is also how the infamous “Three Days and Three Nights” comes to play, as a Jewish day begins at sunset. It was dark when Jesus died, that was night #1. Then at about 3:00 PM until sunset came daylight. That was day # 1, which completed one day in a matter of 6 hours or so.
But according to the Romans, or the ancients, that would be incorrect.
Hey, Michah. You said:
Thus ‘after three days’ would mean ‘on the third day’,”
I find that intriging that you would say that, as we need to go back to Acts 12:4 now, and equate that statement of yours that “After Passover” would mean “On Passover”, since after three days would mean on the third day. I see that you, sir, are in a quagmire.
So, does after mean after, or does after mean on?
Gotcha!
I agree with you that after means on (which means amid when taking into consideration that passover is not yet complete), and since Passover is a seven day feast, which day of the passover, which is “on” passover, was King Herod going to kill Peter?
‘After’ means ‘after’.
‘After one day’ means ‘the day after’.
‘After two days’ means ‘the second day after’.
‘After three days’ means ‘the third day after’.
Simple as that.
If μετα meant ‘amid’ here (i.e. if it was the genitive case instead of the accusative) it wouldn’t make much sense at all.
Another thing: if μετα with the accusative really did mean ‘amid’ — as no Greek scholar would state — then the KJV has an error. The English word ‘after’ has NEVER meant ‘amid’.
Only when a specific number is mentioned can μετα with the accusative be reasonably substituted as ‘on’. Take the first instance of ‘after’ in the N.T., for example:
Are you saying that this mean ‘on’, ‘amid’, or ‘while’ they were being brought to Babylon? (And, yes, μετα is the word used here.)
Or how about the last instance of ‘after’?
(Again, μετα is the word used.) Does this mean that the Devil is loosed at the same time as he is shut up? To me that’s absurd.
Ed Chapman: I’m flattered that you spent about an hour here working on those comments earlier, but seven in a row isn’t really necessary. I just switched threaded comments off to help make this thing easier to follow, and there’s really no reason at all to post more than one comment at once now, unless someone needs to correct a mistake they made in their first comment. Thanks.
Actually, if everyone here could keep that in mind, it’d be great. There’s no limit on comment length, so pack in your message. :D
Thanks Rick, and sorry for the numerous posts.
Hey Micah John,
Well, I must do more research (how you say, scholarship?) in what you are saying. Again, I am NOT convinced, but I am unsure about the definitions of the words genitive, and accusative. But that is not to say that you are not correct. Maybe you are, maybe you aren’t. But, this much I know, that when you look up the word, Meta, and at this point I could care less of the Greek lettering system, the FIRST definition is AMID. Please do not deny that. And, there are other Greek words specif in the word After that equates to what you are discussing. Is there, by your reasoning, any use in the NT that the Greek word “meta” is used to mean specifically “amid”? We tend to be consentrating so much on the English word “after” that we almost have forgotten the definition of the Greek word used, that the FIRST definition is indeed “AMID”. Help me to understand what sentence in the NT is specific to AMID.
I hate to say this, but I won’t be able to respond for about 6 weeks, as a job opportunity has arisen for me that is a split shift out of town, so I will need as much sleep as I can possibly muster. I will be back, so feel free to respond. You too, Rick!
I have taken considerable time and read so much debating over such trivial and contraversal subjects. A scholar I am not. A workman pursuing the LORDS approval I am. And traditions of man most certainly makes void the WORD of GOD. I find it of none accident that on every Christian HOLY DAY, there is pagan tradition mixed in, thus leading us to co-exist with all religion. Therefore I have determined that all of this has been a legalistic approach to studying the WORD. My 4 year old knows the definition of Easter, and it is English for Ishtar. Satan uses confusion as this to convolute the truth. THE LORD THY GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD. If any version does not carry over with the original text, simply don’t use it. Satan is the master of deception not a mere practitioner. And he has been tearing his way page by page for thousands of years pitting man against his own understanding of the WORD. in closing may I lead you to the center of the Bible, psalms 118:8, with LORD being the center. So obey this verse. >
I was looking for information on why KJV uses the word ‘easter’ and found this conversation. I am confused…when I click on your website you state that you are atheist and yet, you make this type of declaration on here: “I believe that we must worship God in truth — which is defined in the Bible — and that traditions tend to obscure the truth. That is why I don’t accept Easter or Christmas (or Christian tithing or full-time pastors or church-to-church evangelists or all sorts of other such things) as Christian. I believe that God was wise enough to instruct us on how to worship Him and that we dishonor Him when we instead follow our own paths of worship. To this end, God gets the glory wholly and completely. I find no evidence in the Scriptures that God desired us to keep an annual memorial to the crucifixion or the resurrection or the birth of Christ; rather, we are to at all times preach Christ crucified and boast in His resurrection. There is nothing annual about it; there is simply “in season and out of season.” What am I missing? You do or do not believe? Thanks!
I used to be a Christian — fervently defending the tenets of the faith. But that was a different lifetime, and I’ve no longer any need for religion. So no, I’m not a believer.
Wow, “i used to be a Christian”. What was it that caused your Apostasy, or could it be that you were never saved in the first place?
Well, biblically, no, I was never “saved in the first place”; the Bible teaches the perseverance of the saints, after all. I suspect most people who claim to be saved don’t meet the biblical definition, though, so no big deal. LOL
That said, I ceased being a Christian because the of the Bible’s requirement, under the old covenant, that a single woman who was raped must marry her attacker. The moment I read that that passage, I felt my beliefs melt away, never to recover. You can read about it elsewhere on this site, if you’d like a more thorough explanation of what I’m talking about.
Rick,
Resolving the Easter issue at Acts 12:4 requires some basic Greek linguistic expertise. The idea that Greek “meta” is limited to the sense of “amid” is wrong. It means “after” when a certain event or time is involved, as in the case of Matthew 24:29 that says,” after (meta) the Tribulation,” and “after pascha” correctly reflects the Greek at Acts 12:4. While “pascha” applies elsewhere, Acts 12:4 is the one place in the New Testament where “Easter” is the correct rendering, as I’ve discussed below.
Easter Is the Correct Rendering
Scholars think Greek pascha in Acts 12:4 is incorrectly rendered “Easter” in the KJV, saying passover is correct. And they note the term Easter wasn’t adopted until well after the New Testament was written, so they consider it totally inapplicable, and White agrees with them (White, J.R. The King James Only Controversy. p233), but they’re mistaken. The pertinent KJV verses are as follows:
12:2 And he (Herod) killed James the brother of John with the sword.
12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread).
12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison…intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Introduction
Modern scholars say the KJV follows Tyndale here in rendering Easter for pascha in the New Testament, but pascha is rendered passover everywhere else in the KJV, Acts 12: 4 being the only case where it’s rendered differently. We should ask if there is a unique sense of the term in Acts 12 calling for a different rendering.
English versions preceding the KJV were moving away from Easter, and it appeared in the Bishop’s Bible in just two verses. KJV translators retained the term only in Acts 12:4, and this is indicative of excellent scholarship. Nonetheless, providential guidance is also indicated by Tyndale’s use of Easter and by the later steady movement away from the term until only one appropriate use in Acts 12:4 remained. KJV translators would not likely consider Easter as the correct translation if Tyndale had not made it so prominent, and the fact that they eliminated the term in one of the two remaining cases in the Bishop’s Bible indicates that their studies provided very good reasons to retain it at Acts 12:4, reasons that prove to be based on context and history.
All this suggests that any providential intervention in translation work applies mainly to words that influence the sense of a passage, the great scholarship of an ordained translation committee being sufficient to ensure accuracy of the bulk of a verse or passage. It also indicates that providential intervention in a translation tends to be subtle, perhaps to ensure that it’s not confused with inspiration.
Analysis
When we study the context of Acts 12 and related history, we find that Providence has preserved something uniquely important here through the KJV. The case parallels that of Isaiah 7:14 where “virgin” refers to Mary in regard to the Savior’s Virgin Birth. The Hebrew for virgin has more than one possible meaning, and it can be rendered young woman or maiden in some contexts. But it can only be rendered virgin in Isa. 7:14 since passage context and related word choice demand it. Pascha in Acts 12:4 has more than one possible meaning, and Resurrection Day or Easter is demanded by context & related history.
In verses 2,3 Herod killed James and imprisoned Peter during the days of unleavened bread. As others note,* this can refer to the feast of unleavened bread, the 6 days that follow an initial Jewish Passover feast day. Lev.23:5,6, and Ex.12:18 say passover is at evening on the 14th day of the appropriate month, and the feast of unleavened bread is 6 days from the 15th (at evening) until the 21st day (at evening) — Including Passover day gives the 7 days of unleavened bread of Lev.23:6. If this is the right interpretation, in saying Herod killed James and imprisoned Peter in the days of unleavened bread, he did this when Jewish Passover day was already over. Thus in verse 4, when Herod is said to put Peter in prison to keep him in bonds until after passover, this would be a passover day that comes after the usual Jewish one. Acts 12:4 can refer to something other than Jewish Passover day so that “after Passover” would be incorrect.
*See Moorman, J. A. Conies, Brass & Easter. The King James Bible Page, Articles.
Yet the term passover might include the feast day and 6 days of unleavened bread. Its use as a 7‑day event appears in Ezek. 45:21 that says…in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. Acts 12:4 might seem to mean Herod killed James and imprisoned Peter during a 7‑day period that included Passover day and the 6 days of unleavened-bread, which had not yet ended, and that he meant to kill Peter after this 7‑day Jewish Passover, but that interpretation proves to be wrong.
Context study in relation to history denies rendering pascha as passover in Acts 12:4. That can only mean Hebrew Passover in this passage dealing with days of unleavened bread, and that doesn’t fit context/history. A lack of a fit relates to the friendship of Herod with Roman Caesar Caligula who was despised by the Jews, and also relates to the Edomite ancestry of Herod, Edomites being a people historically antagonistic to Israel. (see the Broadman Commentary. Vol.10. 1970. Nashville. p75-76). Herod’s rule was complicated, but he endured, ingratiating himself with the Jews by favoring their religion and culture.
Acts 12:3 says Herod took Peter prisoner since the Jews approved of his execution of James. They would see James as an enemy as fast-growing Christianity threatened their religion and culture. Herod would want to further ingratiate himself by executing Peter right after James, so he had no reason to wait until after Jewish Passover, the first Passover day or the entire 7‑day feast. Executing Peter right after James was not a problem with the Jews. Yet he intended to wait, risking a problem with the Jews by a suggestion of changing his mind in acting against the foremost leader of the fast-growing church.
Now scholars are wrong in saying that Herod had to wait until after Jewish Passover to execute Peter since Jews objected to executions during their holy days. That usually was the case, but it wasn’t a concern at this time in history. By this time Christians were considered heretics by the Jews, so a public execution reinforced the Jewish position. As Acts 12:3 says, the Jews approved of executing James during their holy days of unleavened bread at that time. Thus context and history deny interpreting the Acts passage to mean Herod intended to wait until after Jewish Passover to kill Peter.
But pascha as Resurrection Day fits context and history. The initial Jewish 1st-century church knew that Hebrew passover was typological, and was fulfilled and superseded by Christ the ultimate Passover, so they would observe a pascha that was based on the Crucifixion/Resurrection. Timing of Pascha observance by this church would fit Acts 12 days-of-unleavened-bread context and history since the only initial basis for the timing was the Crucifixion/Resurrection timing relative to that of passover. The Crucifixion occurred on a passover preparation day just before passover began that evening (Mt. 27:62, Jn.19:14), requiring a 3‑day Crucifixion/Resurrection observance beginning the same day as 7‑day Passover, and at evening to keep them closely linked.* Herod could execute James and imprison Peter on an evening that began the Jewish Passover day, or on the next day, which would be during the days of unleavened bread, and he might wait to execute Peter until after the third day, which would be Resurrection Day. That this was the case is verified by Herod’s political situation.
* In the 1st-century church, pascha was a Crucifixion/Resurrection observance starting on the evening that Jewish Passover began (other details, including number of days, are murky). In the 2nd-century eastern church, a 1‑day pascha was observed starting the same time, likely reflecting 1st-century timing of a 3‑day pascha starting at that time. By starting pascha observance on Crucifixion Day and making it 1‑day long, Resurection-Day observance falls on the day signifying Crucifixion Day, an irregularity likely derived from an earlier 3‑day event starting the same time, (see Easter and Paschal Controversies. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology” 1984. Baker).
Herod ever ingratiated himself with the Jews, being devout in their religion, but he was despised by the Roman military and citizenry of Judea (see the Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia Vol. 13. p81) that were crucial to his political control (see also Lk.23:12). Resultant political tension would control any significant political act that he indulged in. Pleasing Jewish leaders would always be a priority, but with his Roman situation, he could not afford to antagonize any large segment of the population of Judaea that could cause political unrest and give local Roman leadership an excuse to depose him from office (they would need a good excuse since Caesar appointed Herod). He would worry about the reaction of Christians to Peter’s execution (The large Christian population still had political status since the governing Romans wouldn’t persecute them for another 20 years). He killed James without repercussion, but would fear that killing famous Peter, right after killing James, might incite an uproar, especially if he did so at the time of Resurrection Day. To Christians the day of Christ’s Resurrection is sacred, a time when public execution of Christ’s most famous disciple would be very politically antagonistic, mocking Christ’s victory over death in the Resurrection. By such an act, Herod would make a political statement like the following: “Is this your day of victory of eternal life over death? I’ll kill Christ’s great disciples at this time and make it a day of death. I’ll show you what I think of your God.” Christians endured persecution, but killing Peter right after killing James and insulting Christ might incite an uproar, and Herod would see the possibility. Executing Peter a little after Resurrection Day would allow Herod to side with Jewish leaders without unduly risking great widespread protest by Christians that would add to his difficulties with the Romans. This would seem wise to Herod, and it is the reason he would wait until after Christian Passover, not Hebrew Passover.
Thus pascha in Acts 12 relates to Christ, the Passover of Christians (1 Cor.5:7). For Jews passover observance is 7 days, as Ezekiel 45:21 says. But the early Christian Passover observance would be 3 days from Good Friday to Easter. To avoid political antagonism, Herod meant to kill Peter after Christian Passover, or more specifically, after Resurrection Day, the day of greatest concern to Christians and thus to Herod.
Herod was well-informed on matters of religion and would now focus on the Christian Passover, especially the third day signifying Resurrection Day, the day he had to get past to execute Peter and continue to satisfy the Jews, without unduly aggravating Christians. Herod’s only reason for pleasing the Jews was to keep his throne, and to continue doing so, he would now be thinking of Passover in the Christian sense, and would wait until after the last day of Christian Passover, or after Resurrection Day, to execute Peter.
Actually Acts 12:4 can only refer to Christian Passover. Christ’s Passover superseded the Jewish one in the Resurrection, so pascha can only be Christian Passover in the New Testament after the Resurrection, or after Acts 1 where it appears 3 times. One use in Hebrews 11:28 refers to Old Testament times, so it isn’t pertinent. Another use in 1 Cor. 5:7 is the very passage showing Christian Passover superseding the Jewish one, so it must be rendered “passover,” and it clearly denotes Christian Passover since Christ and the Cross are its basis. The third use in Acts 12:4 can only be the Christian Passover. Further, “after Christian Passover” is properly replaced by “after Easter” since that is better understood by all readers. And Easter fits the Acts 12 context since it communicates the full sense of Resurrection Day to readers, even though the 1st-century observance was uniquely different from that of later times.
The text must recognize that Herod’s action would be governed by timing of Christian Passover and by its superseding of the Hebrew Passover in the book of Acts to give pascha a new meaning, thus bringing Easter into the picture. Today pascha equates with Easter day, but the initial sense is uncertain, so KJV translators would use Hebrew passover in a Christian sense for the 44 A.D. scene of Acts 12:4. They would know that Hebrew passover signifies deliverance of God’s people from slavery in Egypt and from God’s judgment of Egypt, a nation signifying the world. They would see all this as being paralleled and fulfilled by the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus that delivers God’s people from slavery to sin in the world and from judgment of the world unto eternal death. Thus they would see the 1st-century Christian Passover as a 3‑day Crucifixion/ Resurrection observance paralleling and fulfilling the 7‑day event. And they would see this 3‑day Passover, ending after Resurrection Day, or Easter, as the one Herod had to wait out to execute Peter.
Now some object to rendering Resurrection Day as Easter, for the term didn’t have a Christian sense until well after the New Testament was penned so that its use in Acts is anachronistic. But Pascha signified Resurrection Day by the 4th — 5th centuries, and Resurrection Day was Easter by the 8th, so ever since the 8th century, the KJV after Easter for after Pascha/Passover has been the proper current way to note the end of the 3‑day Passover Herod had to wait out to execute Peter. So why are 17th-century KJV translators scorned for proper use of current terminology? Modern translators do this often and are only praised for communicating with modern readers. For example, the NIV “gallons” (Lk.16:6, Jn.2:6) is fine for today, but it’s an anachronistic term, and it never applied to Hebrew, Roman or Greek culture, so it’s literally less suited to a 1st-century setting than “Easter” is.
Only the KJV reinforces the 1 Corinthian 5:7 teaching on Christian Passover superseding the old one, which is one indication that the KJV alone is God’s Word in the English language. The KJV precisely reflects the Greek text to us today, use of “Easter” signifying the last day of Pascha in the first century to avoid uncertainty on the number of days that Pascha lasted and to specify the day that Herod had to get past. Modern scholars represent translation precision as if it were error! KJV translators exhibited outstanding skill in scholarship that has never been remotely approached by scholars today
I used to be a Christian — fervently defending the tenets of the faith. But that was a different lifetime, and I’ve no longer any need for religion. So no, I’m not a believer.
The least you can do is not decieve yourself, Rick.
Read 1 John 2:19 in any translation you care to look at.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (KJV)
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (NASB)
Your professed atheism and current state of denying the truth in unrighteousness proves conclusively that even if you at one time called yourself a “Christian,” such was not in fact the case. This is the part where the atheist (you), who does not believe in the God of the Bible, protests that “yes, I really was a Christian,” in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching (in any translation) otherwise. Will you, as an atheist, argue with me on this from a book you no longer accept as true? It’s always funny when atheists refer to the Bible to “prove” that they “used to be Christians.”
No, you were not. You always were ‑and still are- dead in your sins and trespasses.
I pray that you be granted mercy and repentance.
Justin
I don’t have a problem with your belief that a “true Christian” is always a true Christian; that’s fine. What I have a problem with is the belief that there is anything different between a “true Christian” and a Christian who eventually walks away. In practicality, in faith, etc., there is no difference. The only difference comes when the one grows out of the primitive need for religious belief, at which point the “true Christian” finds comfort in his holy book (all the while claiming it isn’t a crutch), clinging to verses that point out that even though a person realizes the absurdity of religion, it isn’t because they grew in wisdom & understanding but because they simply were never a Christian in the first place and good riddance to them.
But if you take what Jesus said about how you would know a Christian? Yeah, I was a Christian, and I defended such. It’s all those people sitting in churches each Sunday that look nothing at all like the Bible’s “true Christians.”
Here is more from Dr. Gipp explaining why the KJB is correct in using the word “Easter” which is, indeed, a pagan festival celebration.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html
Since you’re going to censor my comments here by not publishing them, then please unsubscribe me from your blog.
I don’t censor comments, David; you might consider exercising some patience, though, in waiting for your comment to be approved. Monitoring & moderating this site isn’t my full time job. ;)
If you wish to unsubscribe, there should be a link to do just that in any email you receive from here.
“protests that “yes, I really was a Christian,” in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching (in any translation) otherwise. ”
Where is that found? I find the following:
Hewbrews 6:4 – 6 “4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance.”
The writer is clearly describing someone who was fully and completely part of the salvation experience. “Repentance” is discussed as a state in scripture in which someone has turned their back completely on all sin. To come “back to” repentance therefore means someone who was initially IN repentance.
The writer isn’t talking about people who “never were.”
Hewbrews 10:26 – 27: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
The word “knowledge” there is “epignosis”, or “complete knowledge”, again describing someone who is completely and fully aware of and inside the state in which eternal life is the end result.
Therefore, according to these verses, there are, indeed, people who are authentic, 100% fully accepted, adopted sons of God, who then choose to turn back to sin…a high-handed act of rebellion indeed.
These are not people “who never were.” They clearly were, and chose to reject.
2 Pet 2:21 – 22 “21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.22It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.””
Again…these are people described as knowing the way of rightesouness, and not just being aware of it, but knowing it in the “biblical sense”, that is, living it.
No doubt, there are millions of people who call themselves “christians”, and are anything but…John the Apostle says that multiple times…but to say that EVERYONE who calls themselves a believer, who then turns away, was never really one to begin with is a clear refutation of what scripture itself says.
If we look at the historical context of Hebrews 6 we see a different interpretation.
Hebrews was written to both Jews and Gentiles. It was written to both believers and unbelievers. Some of those addressed were ‘saved’ before Jesus Christ died on the cross for sins. They were saved because they believed in Jehovah and the coming Messiah. They were the ones who were in danger of ‘losing their salvation’ if they would not embrace Jesus Christ as the coming Messiah who has now come. Thus, they would “crucify again for themselves the Son of God,.”
The previous verses show the context of the OT and teachings found there:
“repentance from dead works”
“faith toward God,”
“doctrine of baptisms,”
“laying on of hands,”
“of resurrection of the dead,”
“of eternal judgment”
“once enlightened”
“tasted of the heavenly gift,”
“become partakers of the Holy Spirit,”
“tasted the good word of God”
“powers of the age to come.”
All of the above phrases are OT teachings in the word and traditions. They were to move beyond them and realize the Jesus Christ is the Messiah that the Word pointed to.
Well, the argument is settled. Easter is indeed the correct word to use as noted in the link I posted above. Rick Beckman has yet to address said link so it must be surmised he agrees.
Absence of response is not evidence of agreement. That said, the very article you linked to is referenced in the original post above. Did you even read before replying?
I mean, I know Christians are in the habit of believing the Bible without taking time to read *it*, but the above post is nice and short and shouldn’t pose too much an imposition on you. ;)
Rick writes, “Absence of response is not evidence of agreement. That said, the very article you linked to is referenced in the original post above. Did you even read before replying?”
No, it’s not, Mr. Beckman. This is an entirely different article. I suggest you read it.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/easter_is_not_a_mistranslation.htm
You said this:
I linked to that exact same article in the sixth paragraph of the original post (not counting the first blockquote). I suggest you read. ;)
Jesus-Is-Savior.com is another pinnacle of scholarship (up there with Jesus-Is-Lord.com, AV1611.org, and WayOfLife.org, all of whom don’t have a clue how to understand the Bible let alone reality). The “Easter Is Not a Mistranslation” article you just linked to uses the same “reasons” as the articles I dealt with in the above article. I suppose you don’t actually want to deal with facts, though, and are happy simply dropping links?
I wonder if that worked for you in school. “No, I didn’t write my essay, but I’d like to refer you to my classmate’s work here, where you can clearly see the answer.”
bla bla bla
Your well-reasoned, well-researched response has swayed me entirely. I’ll believe every word you say, and I’ll recommend others to do the same.
Not. ;)
Numbers 33:3
“And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.”
We see from the Bible Passover was only one day. Easter is the correct translation. Evidently this means all modern version have AT LEAST one error. This was an interesting article, but should not be taken very seriously. We shouldn’t mistake fairly tails for truth.
Eze 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
have the Passover on the 14th day, then a feast of seven days of unleavened bread. This verse is the same as all others dealing with the Passover. You are just trying to read into it what you want.
Eze 45:25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.
You see on the 15th day is the feast of seven days.
Is the 14th day the same as the 15th? I think not.
The entire convocation including the Passover and the 7 days of unleavened bread is 8 days.
Exo 12:18 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.
14th day to the 21st day. Counting the 14th day as day 1 you add 7 more days to get to the last day the 21st.
I was wrong the entire feast is 7 days with the Passover being on the first day.
Good day Rick!
You sure have stirred up a lot here. And over words? You say you were a Christian once? That in mind did these verses ever come to mind before you chose to first post ideas like this? 2 Timothy 2:14 – 21 “Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. {15} Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. {16} But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. {17} And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; {18} Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. {19} Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. {20} But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. {21} If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”
More over being that you have clearly stated that you no longer even believe why even post any thing in the first place? Grained you might feel like helping poor miss directed Christians? I don’t Know! However again if you don’t even really believe why waist what little time you have left to live before you die. To help people who are just going to die and not be anymore just as you if your right? Maybe to save the rest of the world? But for what if life was really so devalued from the start what point is there to anything? Even to the point of facing another day. As your only trying to delay the inevitable end of what? What must happen if we really didn’t have a GOD who so loved the world HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON! So much that HE would even carefully put things into play so the KJV would be formed! That as some have pointed out is in fact CHRIST in the form of the WORD OF GOD!
It all seems silly to me! See you clearly have had some things happen to you. Maybe it is in misunderstanding GODS WORD? Maybe it was from facing unchristian things in the Church. I don’t know. But I could feel for you on enter point. I was very confused on GODS WORD at one point. Fact that is what brings me to even take the time to say any thing. I came to first understand these matters around THE WORD OF GOD. As I faced aftermath of being in for jail 2 months. And waiting for years for my name to be fully cleared. From being accused of crimes I didn’t commit by leaders in the so called Christian church! This made what I learned even of more value! As it greatly helped in understanding how important this issue really is getting down to it. I was not a KJV BELIEVER at the time. But was asking the right things and standing up for more disabled people being exploited by those who could get away with it at the time in leadership!
In short I have told you all this. As someone who has faced even more crazy stuff like this in the so called Church. So I could say this Rick! Get over this. What ever this is! People have and are facing even worse. And worse will yet come to this world. As a person who says they were once a Christian I know you would know this. I do take it you even made these posts to try and help. That in mind I remind you people need real help in these matters. And the KJV that everyone is attacking it has all the reasons this and thing like I faced is going on! If people in the Church really BELIEVED IN THE KJV MESSAGE! Crazy stuff like this would not be allowed! However the world is on course to fully reject the KJV! In that ask who would have the most to gain? Then ask yourself if you really want to keep posting things like this that help them get the world to fully reject the message of the KJV? To all you out there tricked into going after the KJV and people who hold to the KJV! Think about what these verses would have to say about your mindset around that! 2 Timothy 2:23 – 26 “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. {24} And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, {25} In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; {26} And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
By that way those of you who may not like the name! I would take it your in the CHURCH! That in mind I chose the name for two reasons. At first it was the personal reason for having faced so much in the Church.
But after all the study I did on mainly the KJV issue. I kept the name to make the deeper point to those in the CHURCH. That the Church is willingly Forsaking the TRUTH OF GODS WORD. And you can see the world is getting darker as they do. Also I want to make it clear I do not fully hold to a KJV only view! More to the point before my in-depth study on the KJV issue I use to shamefully say I was NIV only to my KJV only friend to try and stop him from telling me the TRUTH! That is not that hard to get down to. All you need to do is look at the so called bibles of today next to the KJV! And after weeks and weeks that lead in to months. You start to see that not only is the KJV is the most accurate. You see that satan is working in other so called bibles to make himself look like CHRIST! Surely that is why the following verse reads as it does as do others. That show the end game in all this! Revelation 20:4 “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
This discussion may be closed at this point — I don’t know. Let me just respond to Rick’s article on the “Easter” verses “Passover” argument:
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and did you get that I totally agree with your conclusions? ha
Have a wonderful day!
The answer, the non-Gipp version: https://web.archive.org/web/20210711005352/http://www.kjvtoday.com:80/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124