An Open Letter to Mitex

Mitex said:
biscuit1953 said:
"This debate would never had come into existence if Wescott, Hort and Crew had stuck to the task of updating the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures instead of producing a NEW Translation from their newly formed and sectarian Greek text."  Mitex

"As it stands now with so much "heat in the air" it's probably not best to wash your windows in a hurricane or open the door even for the postman when there are wolves at the door."  Mitex


I knew that would be your answer.  The standard Peter Ruckman answer.  It is a dishonest answer.  Arthur Farstad updated the KJV with the Majority Text and immediately Dr. Ruckman and all of the other translation idol worshippers started nitpicking the updates just as they did the Critical Text versions.  When are you going to use one of my favorite Ruckman quotes which goes something like, "These educated asses don't have enough sense to fill the left eye of a blind mosquito."

Are you reverting to your bad attitude again? You can do all things through Christ, so hang in the there brother, you'll get over it.

My answer was not dishonest as you falsely charge. The only ones nitpicking on this board are the ones nitpicking archaic/obsolete words and differences in our English Scriptures. You have never heard me nitpick any version, let alone Farstad's. As i stated previously I don't know anyone personally who is a "translation idol worshiper", although, I have met some Roman Catholics who had enshrined their preferred version (a modern translation following the most up-to-date modern axioms of the textual critical art-form) on an alter with candles and such and prayed before it. If you have a problem with Dr. Ruckman then take it up with him, not me.

As for favorite quotes of Dr. Ruckman, B.A., B.D., M.A., Th.M., Ph.D., how about:

"We do not refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God'. We refer to the AV as the Holy Bible, inerrant and infallible, preserved by the grace of God in our language, with the words that God wants us to have." Pastoral Epistles, pg. 317.

“Where was the word of God before 1611? All over the ever-lovin’ blue eyed world!” He lists French Bibles Lefevre (1530), Italain Diodati (1607), Valera (1602), Visoly Polish Bible (1590)? Biblical Scholarship, 1999 Reprint, Peter S. Ruckman, pg 150.

“Where was the Bible before 1611? All over the cotton pickin’ continent!” He lists Luther, Holland (1523), Denmark (1524), Iceland (1540), Yugoslavia (1584) Croatia (1562), Poland (1551) [John Seklucyan, a personal friend of Luther, NT only], Finland (1548), Ibid pg 149

In your haste to display your bad attitude you missed some questions:
* Do you agree that the autographs were the Standard at one time?
* When the autographs crumbled to dust and became worm food what became the new Standard? Why copies and translations became the new Standard!
You confessed you had no problem with them updating the KJV in the 1800's but now you reject it.  I not only have a problem with Peter Ruckman, I also have a problem with someone who parrots him and defends his stand on killing unborn babies.  The New King James was not translated from the critical text and yet you are not happy.  It is obvious that nothing will satisfy someone who sets an idol up and then relishes in tearing everyone else's  Bible down.  Leave Ruckmanism.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Mitex said:
biscuit1953 said:
"This debate would never had come into existence if Wescott, Hort and Crew had stuck to the task of updating the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures instead of producing a NEW Translation from their newly formed and sectarian Greek text."  Mitex

"As it stands now with so much "heat in the air" it's probably not best to wash your windows in a hurricane or open the door even for the postman when there are wolves at the door."  Mitex


I knew that would be your answer.  The standard Peter Ruckman answer.  It is a dishonest answer.  Arthur Farstad updated the KJV with the Majority Text and immediately Dr. Ruckman and all of the other translation idol worshippers started nitpicking the updates just as they did the Critical Text versions.  When are you going to use one of my favorite Ruckman quotes which goes something like, "These educated asses don't have enough sense to fill the left eye of a blind mosquito."

Are you reverting to your bad attitude again? You can do all things through Christ, so hang in the there brother, you'll get over it.

My answer was not dishonest as you falsely charge. The only ones nitpicking on this board are the ones nitpicking archaic/obsolete words and differences in our English Scriptures. You have never heard me nitpick any version, let alone Farstad's. As i stated previously I don't know anyone personally who is a "translation idol worshiper", although, I have met some Roman Catholics who had enshrined their preferred version (a modern translation following the most up-to-date modern axioms of the textual critical art-form) on an alter with candles and such and prayed before it. If you have a problem with Dr. Ruckman then take it up with him, not me.

As for favorite quotes of Dr. Ruckman, B.A., B.D., M.A., Th.M., Ph.D., how about:

"We do not refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God'. We refer to the AV as the Holy Bible, inerrant and infallible, preserved by the grace of God in our language, with the words that God wants us to have." Pastoral Epistles, pg. 317.

“Where was the word of God before 1611? All over the ever-lovin’ blue eyed world!” He lists French Bibles Lefevre (1530), Italain Diodati (1607), Valera (1602), Visoly Polish Bible (1590)? Biblical Scholarship, 1999 Reprint, Peter S. Ruckman, pg 150.

“Where was the Bible before 1611? All over the cotton pickin’ continent!” He lists Luther, Holland (1523), Denmark (1524), Iceland (1540), Yugoslavia (1584) Croatia (1562), Poland (1551) [John Seklucyan, a personal friend of Luther, NT only], Finland (1548), Ibid pg 149

In your haste to display your bad attitude you missed some questions:
* Do you agree that the autographs were the Standard at one time?
* When the autographs crumbled to dust and became worm food what became the new Standard? Why copies and translations became the new Standard!
You confessed you had no problem with them updating the KJV in the 1800's but now you reject it.  I not only have a problem with Peter Ruckman, I also have a problem with someone who parrots him and defends his stand on killing unborn babies.  The New King James was not translated from the critical text and yet you are not happy.  It is obvious that nothing will satisfy someone who sets an idol up and then relishes in tearing everyone else's  Bible down.  Leave Ruckmanism.
You have me confused with the scarecrow in your head. I don't parrot Ruckman. As for "killing unborn babies" - not sure what you are talking about. Have I ever nitpicked the NKJV? I don't have any idols. Whose Bible have I torn down? Come out of your bad attitude before you have a blow out!
 
Well here is what the ex-Church of England Adam Clarke has to say about the bad translation of Easter.
I have much more to say but will hold it in reserve.

Pascha is not Easter and Easter is not Pascha.


"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text. But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following. The first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day is either on the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day after it. The vernal equinox, according to a decree of the council of Nice, is fixed to the 21st day of March; and therefore the first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after. Hence it appears that the next Sabbath after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon, which is called the Paschal term, is always Easter day. And, therefore, the earliest Paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22d of March is the earliest Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest Paschal term, the seventh day after, that is the 25th of April, is the latest Easter possible.
The term Easter, inserted here by our translators, they borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from the version of the Gospels, which always translates the το πασχα of the Greek by this term; e.g. Mat_26:2 : Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover. Wite ye that aefter twam dagum beoth Eastro. Mat_16:19 : And they made ready the passover. And hig gegearwodon hym Easter thenunga (i.e. the paschal supper.) Prefixed to Mat_28:1, are these words: This part to be read on Easter even. And, before Mat_28:8, these words: Mar_14:12 : And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover. And tham forman daegeazimorum, tha hi Eastron offrodon. Other examples occur in this version. Wiclif used the word paske, i.e. passover; but Tindal, Coverdale, Becke, and Cardmarden, following the old Saxon mode of translation, insert Easter: the Geneva Bible very properly renders it the passover. The Saxon Earten, Eartne, Eartno, Eartna, and Eartnon are different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated by our pagan forefathers on the month of April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called Easter month. Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd.

Mitex, stop lying to yourself.
I believe Adam Clarke knows far more about this than you do.
He is writing in the early 1800s long before W and H.

Easter is not Pascha and Pascha is not Easter.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Well here is what the ex-Church of England Adam Clarke has to say about the bad translation of Easter.
I have much more to say but will hold it in reserve.

Pascha is not Easter and Easter is not Pascha.

"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text. But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following. The first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day is either on the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day after it. The vernal equinox, according to a decree of the council of Nice, is fixed to the 21st day of March; and therefore the first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after. Hence it appears that the next Sabbath after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon, which is called the Paschal term, is always Easter day. And, therefore, the earliest Paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22d of March is the earliest Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest Paschal term, the seventh day after, that is the 25th of April, is the latest Easter possible.
The term Easter, inserted here by our translators, they borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from the version of the Gospels, which always translates the το πασχα of the Greek by this term; e.g. Mat_26:2 : Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover. Wite ye that aefter twam dagum beoth Eastro. Mat_16:19 : And they made ready the passover. And hig gegearwodon hym Easter thenunga (i.e. the paschal supper.) Prefixed to Mat_28:1, are these words: This part to be read on Easter even. And, before Mat_28:8, these words: Mar_14:12 : And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover. And tham forman daegeazimorum, tha hi Eastron offrodon. Other examples occur in this version. Wiclif used the word paske, i.e. passover; but Tindal, Coverdale, Becke, and Cardmarden, following the old Saxon mode of translation, insert Easter: the Geneva Bible very properly renders it the passover. The Saxon Earten, Eartne, Eartno, Eartna, and Eartnon are different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated by our pagan forefathers on the month of April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called Easter month. Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd.

Mitex, stop lying to yourself.
I believe Adam Clarke knows far more about this than you do.
He is writing in the early 1800s long before W and H.

Easter is not Pascha and Pascha is not Easter.

Well, at least now we know where Barry got his term "absurd" from; I guess it wasn't his 6th grade teacher after all.

And the translators of the Anglo-Saxon Gospel's Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, now Becke (Clarke), also Luther, Polish, Czech and a host of other translators used Easter long before Adam Clarke's great-grandmother met her future husband. The English term "Easter" had the meaning of "passover". That meaning is now obsolete.

Once again the Oxford English Dictionary1
1. a. One of the great festivals of the Christian Church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish passover, the name of which it bears in most of the European langs. (Gr. parv0, ad. Heb. pésa0, L. pascha, Fr. Pâques, It. Pasqua, Sp. Pascua, Du. pask).
1593 Hooker Eccl. Pol. iv. xi, Keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Jews kept theirs.

†2. The Jewish passover. Obs.
  971 Blickl. Hom. 67 Hælend cwom syx da¼um ær Iudea eastrum.  c1000 Ags. Gosp. Mark xiv. 1 Æfter twam da¼um wæron eastron.  1398 Trevisa Barth. De P.R. ix. xxxi. (1495) 366 Ester is callyd in Ebrewe Phase, that is passynge other passage.  1535 Coverdale Ezek. xlv. 21 Vpon ye xiiij. daye of the first moneth ye shal kepe Easter.  1563 Homilies ii. Whitsunday i. (1859) 453 Easter, a great, and solemne feast among the Jewes.  1611 Bible Acts xii. 4 Intending after Easter to bring him foorth. 

971 Blickl. Hom. 67 Hælend cwom syx da¼um ær Iudea eastrum.

1398 Trevisa Barth. De P.R. ix. xxxi. (1495) 366 Ester is callyd in Ebrewe Phase, that is passynge other passage.

1563 Homilies ii. Whitsunday i. (1859) 453 Easter, a great, and solemne feast among the Jewes.

1726 Ayliffe Parergon 236 Thus the Lord's Passover, which we commonly call Easter, was order'd by the Canon-Law to be celebrated every year on a Sunday, otherwise stiled the Lord's-Day. 

Correspond
...
2. to be similar or analogous; be equivalent in function, position, amount, etc. (usually followed by to  ): The U.S. Congress corresponds to the British Parliament.

Early Versions:
J 6:4 Saxon Gospel A.D. 995 hit wæs gehende eastron iudea freolsdæge;
J 6:4 Tyndale 1534 And ester / a feast of þe Iewes / was nye.
J 6:4 Coverdale 1535 And Easter þe feast of the Iewes was nye.
J 6:4 Matthew 1549 And easter a feast of the Iewes was nye.
J 6:4 Great Bible 1540 And easter, a feast of þe Iewes was nye.
J 6:4 Luther Es war aber nahe Ostern, der Juden Fest.
J 6:4 Czech Bible 1613 Byla pak blízko velikanoc, svátek Židovský
J 6:4 Polish Bible 1632A była blisko wielkanoc, święto żydowskie.

"In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term 'Easter' is used frequently to translate the word 'Passover.'" Barnes

"The term Easter, inserted here by our translators, they borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from the version of the Gospels, which always translates the το πασχα of the Greek by this term..." Clarke

"The rendering 'Easter' is an attempt to give by an English word the notion of the whole feast. That this meaning and not the single day of the Paschal feast is intended by the Greek seems clear from the elaborate preparation made, as for a longer imprisonment than was the rule among the Jews. Peter was arrested at the commencement of the Passover feast (14th of Nisan), and the king’s intention was to proceed to sentence and punish him when the feast was at an end on the 21st of Nisan.
to bring him forth to the people] that they might take notice of the zeal for Judaism which would be shewn by the sentence passed upon Peter. The verb is employed by St Luke about the trial of Jesus (Luk_22:66), 'As soon as it was day … they led him into their council.'" Cambridge

You still have a lot of questions to answer:
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/160/

Easter is not Pascha and Pascha is not Easter.
Since you claimed earlier that your beloved mother taught you Greek and Latin, would you care to translate "Happy Easter" into both of those languages?
Greek: Καλό Πάσχα (Kaló Páscha)
Latin: Felix Pascha

In Greece Pascha is most certainly Easter! Καλό Πάσχα - Happy Easter! I bet all them boys down at Walmart's, I mean Walgreen's, are confused without their dictionary!
Aren't the Greeks down at Walgreen's confused in Athens?

You and your cohorts are guilty of Semantic anachronism (thank you Barry for the technical term!). Semantic anachronism is when a late or modern use of a word is read back into earlier literature. Semantic anachronism would be interpreting the meaning of a 17th English word by an appeal to the meaning of the twenty-first century English word.  Interpreting the meaning and use of Easter by the opinions of those congregating down at Walmarts, I mean Walgreens, and forcing that meaning into the English Scriptures, i.e. into earlier literature. Your only response was that they are all wrong and you are right! I call that arrogance on your part.

Are you lying to yourself? I have no idea. It is obvious that you are being willfully ignorant - stubborn, too proud to admit you are wrong. 

1 You'll have to get out the kiddy section of your local library and go into the grown-up section. Be sure to ask your guardian for permission before getting off the merry-go-round. If you still can't find it ask the librarian for help.
 
[quote author=Mitex]
Easter is not Pascha and Pascha is not Easter.
Since you claimed earlier that your beloved mother taught you Greek and Latin, would you care to translate "Happy Easter" into both of those languages?
Greek: Καλό Πάσχα (Kaló Páscha)
Latin: Felix Pascha

In Greece Pascha is most certainly Easter! Καλό Πάσχα - Happy Easter! I bet all them boys down at Walmart's, I mean Walgreen's, are confused without their dictionary!
Aren't the Greeks down at Walgreen's confused in Athens?[/quote]

Are you honestly trying to define English words by an appeal to foreign languages? Surely, you realize that you determine a word's meaning by its usage in the language you are considering, not some other language, right?

Given this, do you want a real quick method of finding out whether or not "Easter" and "Passover" mean the same thing? Ask an Orthodox Jew. For that matter, ask virtually anyone with any knowledge of Christianity and/or Judaism...well, anyone that isn't a KJVo-ist...
 
admin said:
And yet Mitex wanted to retain the Polish word for Easter in his own work. Good thing the other comittee member didn't let that happen.

Mitex is committed to a tradition, not the text nor the meaning of Scripture.

Willful ignorance and a false accusation on your part. You never listen, so, for the benefit of the Gentle Reader:

The word in Polish "Wielkanoc", like the word Easter in English, has amplified its meaning over time. The literal meaning of "Wielka Noc" is "Great Night"! A great word indeed to describe, Passover. However, with the morphing of the two words into one "wielanoc" it came to mean - Easter, as in Easter Sunday a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Christ. Today, in the year 2014(!), it is used in such sentences as "Easter eggs", "Easter bunnies", which of course has nothing to do with Easter - the Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Christ. The questions that arose with the update committee:

1) "Is wielkanoc truly archaic or obsolete?"

2) "Is the meaning clear in the context?" J 6,4  A była blisko wielkanoc, święto żydowskie. Which the astute reader, not any of the wild-eyed ones of either side of the debate, will note defines wielkanoc (Easter) as a Jewish holiday and NOT a Christian holiday.

3) "Was there a better word that our target audience would readily understand?

As to point #1 the committee, being moved along by the Spirit of God of course(!), decided that two words, "Wielka Noc" might work, but the singular word "wielkanoc" was so engrained in the Polish society with the meaning of a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Christ that even in context clearly defining it as passover some would be confused. By way of example, the English word "breakfast" means "the morning meal" or "the first meal of the day". Very few would grasp that breakfast is "that with which a person breaks his fast in the morning" even though it is in the dictionary. The two words, "Break Fast" might help, but would seem awkward.

As to point #2, the committee, being moved along by the Spirit of God of course(!), decided that some contexts wouldn't be as clear as John 6:4. As to Acts 12:4 it was decided that although "the days of unleavened bread" in verse 3 should be enough to give a clue to the reader, that other places and in general it would cause more confusion that clarity.

As to point #3, there was much discussion amongst the committee members, Brent, the "three persons of the Godhead" and others of course(!). What other word? "Pascha" wasn't technically a translation, but rather a transliteration of the Greek word pascha. "Pascha" isn't a word that common Poles would recognize.

In the end we went with "pascha" because "Wielka Noc" would have been too awkward, "wielkanoc" with the intended meaning of passover was obsolete, and "pasha" was the consensus word of all the other Polish versions. 

And that's the rest of the story! Moral of the story? Don't ever believe the slant the media or Barry gives on a subject.
 
Mitex said:
1) All translators were accused of purposely making a mistake in the translation of Song. 7:2. That is all translations, not just a particular much-loved and respected version (KJV)revered by a particular individual believer here, were accused of a mistake in Song. 7:2. Do you agree? Please explain. I call it arrogance on the part of the accuser.

Can someone explain this or provide a link?
Every English version I looked up has the same basic translation for this verse.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Mitex said:
1) All translators were accused of purposely making a mistake in the translation of Song. 7:2. That is all translations, not just a particular much-loved and respected version (KJV)revered by a particular individual believer here, were accused of a mistake in Song. 7:2. Do you agree? Please explain. I call it arrogance on the part of the accuser.

Can someone explain this or provide a link?
Every English version I looked up has the same basic translation for this verse.

I pointed out that every translator has deliberately mistranslated this verse due to the sensibilities of the readers. (I'd also note that Mitex's statement that I accused them of "purposely making a mistake" doesn't even make grammatical sense. People involved in translation really should not be so sloppy in their word choices.)

See for example, this explanation.
 
[quote author=admin]We know and we see that your hypocrisy in attacking the rest of us for not liking "Easter" in the KJV has been noted. What Sawbones said is true. You like arguing, for arguing sake.[/quote]

Personally, I'd be willing to give some of his other arguments (some) additional consideration if he would just own up to his KJVo-ism. But I'm not going to give someone much academic consideration if they insist on hiding their own biases since my view is when people hide their biases in academic settings, its usually for less-than-honest reasons.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Mitex said:
1) All translators were accused of purposely making a mistake in the translation of Song. 7:2. That is all translations, not just a particular much-loved and respected version (KJV)revered by a particular individual believer here, were accused of a mistake in Song. 7:2. Do you agree? Please explain. I call it arrogance on the part of the accuser.

Can someone explain this or provide a link?
Every English version I looked up has the same basic translation for this verse.
Post #25
"And if your English, Spanish, or Polish Bibles don't adequately relay the author's meaning because the final languages are "flatter" than the original or because the translator(s) missed the intended meaning?
(Or, because the translators are trying to more in line with the reader's sensitivities and intentionally mis-translate as is the case in at least one passage?)"

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/25/

Post #32
"I know of at least one clear place where every English translation I have ever seen mistranslates for the sake of the reader's sensibilities."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #39
"They didn't 'get it wrong'. They intentionally 'mistranslate[d] for the sake of the reader's sensibilities.'"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #42
"One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine 'brass'."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/42/

Post #58
"Maybe you would explain why the author of SoS is being completely illogical at this point?"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/58/

Online Dictionary - www.dictionary.com
purposely
1. intentionally; deliberately

That should be enough.
 
I realize that this is an open letter to Mitex, not prophet...

But I wonder if one could not gather from the text of Mark 14, in the Tyndale, that pascall (Passover, pascha) and Ester(Easter), are used to describe the same exact thing, in the same verse?
Mar 14:1-12
1 After two dayes folowed ester and the dayes of swete breed. And the hye prestes and the Scrybes sought meanes how they myght take hym by crafte and put him to deeth. 2 But they sayde:not in the feast daye leest eny busynes aryse amonge the people. 3 When he was in Bethania in the housse of Simon the leper even as he sate at meate ther came a woma hauynge an alablaster boxe of oyntment called narde that was pure and costly:and she brake the boxe and powred it on is heed. 4 And ther were some that were not content in them selves and sayde:what neded this waste of oyntment? 5 For it myght have bene soolde for more then thre hundred pens and bene geve vnto the poore. And they grudged agaynste hir. 6 And Iesus sayde:let hir be in reest why trouble ye hir? She hath done a good worke on me. 7 For ye shall have poore with you all wayes:and when soever ye will ye maye do them good:but me ye shall not have alwayes. 8 She hath done that she coulde:she came a fore honde to anoynt my boddy to his buryinge warde. 9 Verely I saye vnto you:wheresoever this gospell shalbe preached thorowout the whole worlde:thys also that she hath done shalbe rehearsed in remembraunce of her. 10 And Iudas Iscarioth one of the twelve went awaye vnto the hye prestes to betraye hym vnto them. 11 When they herde that they were gladde and promised yt they wolde geve him money. And he sought howe he myght conveniently betraye him.

12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

It is the same entree, on the same table, eaten by the same mouths...etc.

The feast main course, a lamb, is referred to in verse 12 as Passover lamb, and Easter lamb.

This gives us all of the insight that we need into the percieved meaning of the Word :Easter, prior to 1611.

Any further discussion, involving calling this a translators mistake, involves ignorance on the part of the discussor.

Pascha is Easter is Passover is Pascall, Passynge, Ester, at least  400 years ago.

Now Easter may mean something else today, but then it was the Anglo Word for Passover.

Duh!

Anishinaabe
 
prophet said:
I realize that this is an open letter to Mitex, not prophet...

But I wonder if one could not gather from the text of Mark 14, in the Tyndale, that pascall (Passover, pascha) and Ester(Easter), are used to describe the same exact thing, in the same verse?
Mar 14:1-12
1 After two dayes folowed ester and the dayes of swete breed. And the hye prestes and the Scrybes sought meanes how they myght take hym by crafte and put him to deeth. 2 But they sayde:not in the feast daye leest eny busynes aryse amonge the people. 3 When he was in Bethania in the housse of Simon the leper even as he sate at meate ther came a woma hauynge an alablaster boxe of oyntment called narde that was pure and costly:and she brake the boxe and powred it on is heed. 4 And ther were some that were not content in them selves and sayde:what neded this waste of oyntment? 5 For it myght have bene soolde for more then thre hundred pens and bene geve vnto the poore. And they grudged agaynste hir. 6 And Iesus sayde:let hir be in reest why trouble ye hir? She hath done a good worke on me. 7 For ye shall have poore with you all wayes:and when soever ye will ye maye do them good:but me ye shall not have alwayes. 8 She hath done that she coulde:she came a fore honde to anoynt my boddy to his buryinge warde. 9 Verely I saye vnto you:wheresoever this gospell shalbe preached thorowout the whole worlde:thys also that she hath done shalbe rehearsed in remembraunce of her. 10 And Iudas Iscarioth one of the twelve went awaye vnto the hye prestes to betraye hym vnto them. 11 When they herde that they were gladde and promised yt they wolde geve him money. And he sought howe he myght conveniently betraye him.

12 And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer ye pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him:where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?
(TyndaleBible)

It is the same entree, on the same table, eaten by the same mouths...etc.

The feast main course, a lamb, is referred to in verse 12 as Passover lamb, and Easter lamb.

This gives us all of the insight that we need into the percieved meaning of the Word :Easter, prior to 1611.

Any further discussion, involving calling this a translators mistake, involves ignorance on the part of the discussor.

Pascha is Easter is Passover is Pascall, Passynge, Ester, at least  400 years ago.

Now Easter may mean something else today, but then it was the Anglo Word for Passover.

Duh!

Anishinaabe
O happy day! Finally, somebody with a little common sense!

P.S. The attempt of the wild-eyed-ones on this board to force a modern meaning of Easter into earlier English versions is an example of semantic anachronism. Semantic anachronism is when a late or modern use of a word is read back into earlier literature. Semantic anachronism would be interpreting the meaning of a 17th English word by an appeal to the meaning of the twenty-first century English word.  Interpreting the meaning and use of Easter by the opinions of those congregating down at Walmarts, I mean Walgreens, and forcing that meaning into the English Scriptures, i.e. into earlier literature.
 
admin said:
prophet said:
Any further discussion, involving calling this a translators mistake, involves ignorance on the part of the discussor.

Pascha is Easter is Passover is Pascall, Passynge, Ester, at least  400 years ago.

Now Easter may mean something else today, but then it was the Anglo Word for Passover.

Nah... "Easter" always meant a one day Christian festival. It never mean a seven-day Jewish celebration. Next!
This is a clear example of the arrogance that I was talking about. I gave evidence from the premier dictionary in the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary, quotes from the early Saxon Gospels, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Bishops and foreign language Bibles as well. All of this is ignored by Barry's papal fiat - "It's wrong because I say so!"
 
[quote author=Mitex]This is a clear example of the arrogance that I was talking about...[/quote]

Dude...you won't even acknowledge that "the root of all evil" and "the root of all kinds of evil" are different because you'd have to admit that you made a mistake! You won't even acknowledge that "murder" and "kill" are different for the same reason!
 
admin said:
Mitex... You are all for tradition.

I think that's the central theme to nearly all of Brent's arguments on KJVO-related threads.

He profoundly respects "English Biblical tradition".

Nothing wrong with that, so do we all, or at least many of us do (or should).

The problems occur in his apparently adjudging others' respect for "English Bible tradition" to be less than it should be, certainly less than his own.

Is that a sort of "English Bible Tradition Chip" I see there on his shoulder?  :P
(Just kidding ya there, Mitex. Don't take offense.)

I think his concept is along the lines that, if you had proper respect for the English Bible, in its traditional form (the form under which he was converted, the KJV), you would not dare or presume to criticize it or to sit in judgement upon its readings.

I understand this viewpoint. We should respect the Scriptures, obviously.

Just as I would respect an honored elder professor, who, even if he were wrong or caught in an unwitting error, wouldn't deserve to be criticized or to even have attention drawn (by a respectful student) to his inadvertent error, so Mitex feels we should reverence the Scriptures in the form of the KJV, and should do our best to understand and accept its readings. (And note that he typically extends this courtesy to other versions, too.)

However, just as a student may sometimes surpass his teacher without disrespecting him, so too may Bible scholars (and even mere humble students)  sometimes learn something beyond the ken of their elder instructors or mentors, and in those cases, it is no shame to cautiously and carefully update the curriculum!

A haughty self-important upstart student who pokes fun at his teacher has obviously missed the boat in terms of respect, even if he happens to learn something his elder did not know.
Brent understandably finds fault with this sort of attitude, or what he perceives to be this sort of attitude.

I understand, but I cannot disagree with attempting to have the most accurate possible rendition of the Scriptures, based on the best understanding of the manuscript traditions, the best quality textual criticism, and best comprehension of the ancient languages in which the Scriptures were written.
We may yet be wrong in our judgments and understandings, of course, but our attitudes shouldn't be wrong.

There's nothing magic about the KJV, nor, I trust, anything necessarily more divine about the KJV than about certain other more modern translations.

KJVOism, however, as usually expounded, is quite obviously just silly superstitious nonsense.

Mitex has repeatedly disavowed KJVOism.

The distinction between profound respect for the KJV, and KJVOism per se may seem to some to be minimal, but I think it's an important difference.

I believe I understand Mitex' position on the KJV.







 
Commentary on Acts - Volume 1 by John Calvin
Acts 12:4
"He showeth the cause why he was not forthwith put to death, because it had been an heinous offense to put him to death in the Easter holidays; therefore, Herod doth not delay the time as doubtful what to do, but doth only wait for opportunity; yea, he maketh choice of a time, when as his gift may be more plausible, because there came a great multitude together from all parts unto the holy day753."

753 “Ad diem festum,” to the feast, or festival.

 
Mitex said:
Darkwing Duck said:
Mitex said:
1) All translators were accused of purposely making a mistake in the translation of Song. 7:2. That is all translations, not just a particular much-loved and respected version (KJV)revered by a particular individual believer here, were accused of a mistake in Song. 7:2. Do you agree? Please explain. I call it arrogance on the part of the accuser.

Can someone explain this or provide a link?
Every English version I looked up has the same basic translation for this verse.
Post #25
"And if your English, Spanish, or Polish Bibles don't adequately relay the author's meaning because the final languages are "flatter" than the original or because the translator(s) missed the intended meaning?
(Or, because the translators are trying to more in line with the reader's sensitivities and intentionally mis-translate as is the case in at least one passage?)"

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/25/

Post #32
"I know of at least one clear place where every English translation I have ever seen mistranslates for the sake of the reader's sensibilities."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #39
"They didn't 'get it wrong'. They intentionally 'mistranslate[d] for the sake of the reader's sensibilities.'"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #42
"One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine 'brass'."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/42/

Post #58
"Maybe you would explain why the author of SoS is being completely illogical at this point?"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/58/

Online Dictionary - www.dictionary.com
purposely
1. intentionally; deliberately

That should be enough.
Right. I got that. I was just wondering what people think the original meant.
 
admin said:
Mitex said:
As to point #3, there was much discussion amongst the committee members...

You and one other person?

In the end we went with "pascha" because "Wielka Noc" would have been too awkward, "wielkanoc" with the intended meaning of passover was obsolete, and "pasha" was the consensus word of all the other Polish versions.

And like the KJV, you retained pascha in Luke 22:1. Did you discuss using Wielkanoc there? I
ZBLIŻAŁO się święto Prza śnikówo, zwane Paschą.

Many people, every qualified grammarian or believing Pole that will lend themselves to the effort.

We discussed "wielkanoc" in all places in the extant Polish Scriptures. "Wielkanoc" in modern Polish means "Easter" as in Christian celebration of the resurrection and now today, chocolate Easter bunnies. It no longer (obsolete) has the common meaning of passover - even though the literal meaning to the words "wielka" and "noc" mean "Great" and "Night". So, we used Paschą with the hopes that the Polish reader would understand the transliteration in the context. Tried as we might we could not find an adequate Polish word and had to settle for the transliteration as we weren't as bold as Mr. Tyndale who chose to INVENT a word such as "passover".
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Mitex said:
Darkwing Duck said:
Mitex said:
1) All translators were accused of purposely making a mistake in the translation of Song. 7:2. That is all translations, not just a particular much-loved and respected version (KJV)revered by a particular individual believer here, were accused of a mistake in Song. 7:2. Do you agree? Please explain. I call it arrogance on the part of the accuser.

Can someone explain this or provide a link?
Every English version I looked up has the same basic translation for this verse.
Post #25
"And if your English, Spanish, or Polish Bibles don't adequately relay the author's meaning because the final languages are "flatter" than the original or because the translator(s) missed the intended meaning?
(Or, because the translators are trying to more in line with the reader's sensitivities and intentionally mis-translate as is the case in at least one passage?)"

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/25/

Post #32
"I know of at least one clear place where every English translation I have ever seen mistranslates for the sake of the reader's sensibilities."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #39
"They didn't 'get it wrong'. They intentionally 'mistranslate[d] for the sake of the reader's sensibilities.'"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/30/

Post #42
"One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine 'brass'."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/42/

Post #58
"Maybe you would explain why the author of SoS is being completely illogical at this point?"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/58/

Online Dictionary - www.dictionary.com
purposely
1. intentionally; deliberately

That should be enough.
Right. I got that. I was just wondering what people think the original meant.

"navel" is correct. It comes from the Old Greek translation of the OT. The Hebrew source is rather obscure. Its only found once in the entire Hebrew OT. The Old Greek source is rather clear.
 
Back
Top