Inspired Translations

[Mitex]

3. You believe all translations have additions and have been diminished by translators. And according to a consistent application of your statements you also believe all translators are liars (Pr 30:6), will suffer the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19).

Your incorrect claim is not a consistent application of my own statements.

To use your manner of speech:

Are you saying that no translation has additions nor have they been diminished? Or are you saying that some translations have not added to or diminished from the word of God? Are you saying that translators can add and diminish? Are you saying that translators are not liars and are not in danger of judgment for adding and diminishing words? Or, are you in fact saying that translators can use multiple words for one source language word and NOT be guilty of adding or diminishing from the Scriptures? Are you in fact saying that translators do NOT have to translate every word in the source text and having done so will not be guilty of diminishing from the Scriptures? Are you saying that translators, printers, etc. can indeed make mistakes intentional or unintentional and not be labeled as liars and be in danger of the plagues found in Revelation?

I stated:  "Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures."

You stated and I quote: "A logical and sound deduction from verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies of Scripture would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words in context was not diminished.  These verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies can be and should be corrected.  Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11)."

Please explain how "the meaning of words in context" could be diminished in a copy? "Whatever adds to" would include translations would it not? "a translation made from them" would include translations would it not? Don't give us any of this rubbish about not referring to translations! You've been exposed again. Now let's look at your verses used by you as proof-texts for your argument:

Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Proverbs 16:11 A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Deut. 16:20  That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

It does make me wonder what is ticking behind that thick skull of yours. What would be the "unclean" and "clean thing" in your thinking? The corrupted source text and uncorrupted receptor text? Are you saying that it is impossible to make a clean copy or translation from an unclean source text? That would mean that all copies and translations not copied or translated directly from the "clean autographs" cannot be clean. Or, in your scatter brained thinking are you saying that only God could make a clean copy/translation from an unclean source text? Now that's a thought! The receptor being clean and the source unclean, wow, synergy in action.

Deut 25:13-15 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Lev 19:35-36 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Ez 45:10 Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

But again, what is your thinking here? The good tree is the source text and the receptor text must therefore be good? The source text is evil and therefore the receptor text will be evil? All sides of this debate and everyone in between agree that the autographs were good, but they are no longer extant. No extant copy or translation had the "good autographs" as their source text. So, what is the "good tree" source text? Why an unknown number of manuscripts where each manuscript has been diminished and added unto. What is the source text if not an unknown number of manuscripts with mistakes, boo-boos, typos, additions, subtractions, ink spots, smudges, poor penmanship, crossed out words, edited comments, conjecture, corrections, etc. Why that is the very thing that you condemn and by using just weights to evaluate your interpretation of Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19 the very thing that is deserving of the label liars, plagues and having their part taken from the book of life. Go figure! Me thinks that you have been reading so much wild-eyed KJVO literature that you can't think straight.

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Micah 6:11  Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

I stated:  "Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?  These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language.  Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages.  Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense."

My statements clearly show that I consider those verses to be instructions and warning concerning the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.  I do not claim that those verses were commands or instructions given directly concerning the making of translations.

I understood you to be including both: copies and translations. I'll take your clarified response and respond. You condemn ALL copyists, each and every one them, as liars, deserving of plagues and having their parts taken out of the book of life! ALL extant copies in the original languages, which is your source text have additions, boo-boos, printing errors, typos, misspelled words, and have been diminished in one way or another either intentionally or unintentionally. That my dear brother is the brunt of my post which you conveniently ignored. Now, pray tell dear Sir, how can a perfect copy be made from imperfect copies? By a just measurement of your argument you have insisted repeatedly that the final version cannot be an improvement or have more authority than the source. You have been hoisted upon your own petard once again. 

Therefore, it is clearly a improper distortion and even a bogus, false accusation for you to assert that I supposedly "also believe all translators are liars (Pr 30:6), will suffer the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19)."    Mitex, you are wrong to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say and do not believe.

I would be indeed wrong to put words in your mouth and if I truly did, then my apologies. But once again, by a consistent application of your argument (to quote your gibberish) you are calling all copyists of the extant manuscripts liars (Pr 30:6), worthy of the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19) for they all have some type of error in them, whether intentional or unintentional.

Deal with the argument and not the gnats, you'll make more sense and won't waste my time.

 

[bgwilkinson]

3. You believe all translations have additions and have been diminished by translators. And according to a consistent application of your statements you also believe all translators are liars (Pr 30:6), will suffer the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19).

Your incorrect claim is not a consistent application of my own statements.

To use your manner of speech:

Are you saying that no translations have additions nor have they been diminished? Or are you saying that some translations have not added to or diminished from the word of God? Are you saying that translators can add and diminish? Are you saying that translators are not liars and are not in danger of judgment for adding and diminishing words? Or, are you in fact saying that translators can use multiple words for one source language word and NOT be guilty of adding or diminishing from the Scriptures? Are you in fact saying that translators do NOT have to translate every word in the source text and having done so will not be guilty of diminishing from the Scriptures? Are you saying that translators, printers, etc. can indeed make mistakes intentional or unintentional and not be labeled as liars and be in danger of the plagues found in Revelation?

I stated:  "Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures."

You stated and I quote: "A logical and sound deduction from verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies of Scripture would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words in context was not diminished.  These verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies can be and should be corrected.  Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11)."

Please explain how "the meaning of words in context" could be diminished in a copy? Don't give us any of this rubbish about not referring to translations! You've been exposed again. Now let's look at your verses:

Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Proverbs 16:11 A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Deut. 16:20  That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

It does make me wonder what is ticking behind that thick skull of yours. What would be the "unclean" and "clean thing" in your thinking? The corrupted source text and uncorrupted receptor text? Are you saying that it is impossible to make a clean copy or translation from an unclean source text? That would mean that all copies and translations not copied or translated directly from the "clean autographs" cannot be clean. Or, in your scatter brained thinking are you saying that only God could make a clean copy/translation from an unclean source text? Now that's a thought! The receptor being clean and the source unclean, wow, synergy in action.

Deut 25:13-15 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Lev 19:35-36 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Ez 45:10 Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

But again, what is your thinking here? The good tree is the source text and the receptor text must therefore be good? The source text is evil and therefore the receptor text will be evil? All sides of this debate and everyone in between agree that the autographs were good, but they are no longer extant. No extant copy or translation had the "good autographs" as their source text. So, what is the "good tree" source text? Why an unknown number of manuscripts where each manuscript has been diminished and added unto. What is the source text if not an unknown number of manuscripts with mistakes, boo-boos, typos, additions, subtractions, ink spots, smudges, poor penmanship, crossed out words, edited comments, conjecture, corrections, etc. Why that is the very thing that you condemn and by using just weights to evaluate your interpretation of Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19 the very thing that is deserving of the label liars, plagues and having their part taken from the book of life. Go figure! Me thinks that you have been reading so much wild-eyed KJVO literature that you can't think straight.

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

Micah 6:11  Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?

Taken out of context, nothing to do with translating or copying the Scriptures.

I stated:  "Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?  These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language.  Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages.  Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense."

My statements clearly show that I consider those verses to be instructions and warning concerning the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.  I do not claim that those verses were commands or instructions given directly concerning the making of translations.

I understood you to be including both: copies and translations. I'll take your clarified response and respond. You condemn ALL copyists, each and every one them, as liars, deserving of plagues and having their parts taken out of the book of life! ALL extant copies in the original languages, which is your source text have additions, boo-boos, printing errors, typos, misspelled words, and have been diminished in one way or another either intentionally or unintentionally. That my dear brother is the brunt of my post which you conveniently ignored. Now, pray tell dear Sir, how can a perfect copy be made from imperfect copies? By a just measurement of your argumen you have insisted repeatedly that the final version cannot be an improvement or have more authority than the source. You have been hoisted upon your own petard once again. 

Therefore, it is clearly a improper distortion and even a bogus, false accusation for you to assert that I supposedly "also believe all translators are liars (Pr 30:6), will suffer the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19)."    Mitex, you are wrong to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say and do not believe.

I would be indeed wrong to put words in your mouth and if I truly did, then my apologies. But once again, by a consistent application of your argument (to quote your gibberish) you are calling all copyists of the extant manuscripts liars (Pr 30:6), worthy of the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19) for they all have some type of error in them.

Deal with the argument and not the gnats, you'll make more sense and won't waste my time.

Mitex said,

"Deal with the argument and not the gnats, you'll make more sense and won't waste my time."

Dear Mitex, your posts are buried in gnats under an army of straw men.

Your arguments can not be easily found, thus wasting everyones time.

You clearly only think about yourself.


No one is so blind as one who refuses to see.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Back to chasing your tail.

God bless you Mitex.

 

[Mitex]

:'(

...
Mitex said,

"Deal with the argument and not the gnats, you'll make more sense and won't waste my time."

Dear Mitex, your posts are buried in gnats under an army of straw men.

Your arguments can not be easily found, thus wasting everyones time.

You clearly only think about yourself.


No one is so blind as one who refuses to see.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Back to chasing your tail.

God bless you Mitex.

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα.

Don't you just love the modern use of the word Easter in the original languages? Would you be so kind as to translate the above sentence for the Reader?

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Or in other words the Scriptures are a reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.

The Scriptures that Timothy had from a child (2Tim 3:15-17) were NOT the autographs, but they were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statement that "only the autographs are given by inspiration of God".

The Scriptures that Jesus read from (Luke 4) do not match jot and tittle with any extant manuscript, yet those Scriptures were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statements and innuendo that "only that which matches the originals can be considered given by inspiration of God".

All men are commanded to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). This is only possible if the Scriptures are available (extant) today. Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original. The King's speech is still the King's speech even in translation.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

When your hot-air balloon lands and you get back to reality, please deal with the issue.

 

[logos1560]

:'(

...
Mitex said,

"Deal with the argument and not the gnats, you'll make more sense and won't waste my time."

Dear Mitex, your posts are buried in gnats under an army of straw men.

Your arguments can not be easily found, thus wasting everyones time.

You clearly only think about yourself.


No one is so blind as one who refuses to see.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Back to chasing your tail.

God bless you Mitex.

When your hot-air balloon lands and you get back to reality, please deal with the issue.

Mitex, you are the one who will not face reality and will not deal with the issue and the truth that the Scriptures do not state or teach that copies of the original language Scriptures were made by inspiration of God or given by inspiration of God.  If copies were given by inspiration of God, they would all be in agreement and they would all have no errors in them introduced by fallible men.

Mitex, you are the one who will not face reality and will not deal with the issue and the truth that the Scriptures do not state or teach that translations of the original language Scriptures are made by inspiration of God or are given by inspiration of God.  You merely reveal your own subjective, personal, private misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually state.  If your claim about 2 Timothy 3:16 was correct, it would be saying that ALL translations are given by inspiration of God and that all translations are perfect and without error.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex,

You're such a comedian.

Why do you insist on writing such foolishness?

You are obviously not being serious and genuine in your posting.

Are you using this forum to help write your blog for you?

Go back to chasing your tail while I go back to work.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex came up with this silly little ditty.

This has nothing to do with the Bible except in his own silly twisted view of Bible translations.

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα

I suppose you are going to say that rabbits are Biblical symbols of the resurrection of Christ.

Would you tell us where you placed this in your new modern Polish Bible, the one you and your fellows are writing?

Maybe in the add section where you sell subscriptions to your local Pharmacies. (Walgreens, Dwayne Reed or Rite Aid)

You would be very foolish to put that in your modern version Bible.

You are making a mockery out of God's Word. Do your fellow translators know of your antics?

Do they approve? Do you teach and practice rabbit sacrifices at your Ekklasia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S48d1ERUyvU

Πάσχα is still Passover, not Easter, anywhere in the World, even Greece.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex came up with this silly little ditty.

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα
...
Πάσχα is still Passover, not Easter, anywhere in the World, even Greece.

Gentle Reader,

Καλό Πάσχα!

Did you ever notice how these birds claim to know Greek, but when it comes time to translate from Greek to English they just flap their wings?
Did you also notice how these birds fly around making a lot of racket, but never answering the questions presented to them?
If you haven't, I have.

I never did like birds for pets, they always left a mess and weren't good for anything, but constant chirping.

 

[FSSL]

Isn't it absurd that Mitex, who does not know Greek, produced a Polish Bible where he uses the Polish word for "passover" and NOT "Easter?"

... and we are supposed to live with "Easter" in our Bibles because we are the skeptics!!!

 

[Mitex]

Isn't it absurd that Mitex, who does not know Greek, produced a Polish Bible where he uses the Polish word for "passover" and NOT "Easter?"

... and we are supposed to live with "Easter" in our Bibles because we are the skeptics!!!

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα. Καλό Πάσχα!

Since you claim to know Greek and make it a point to remind the world that I don't, would you be so kind as to translate the above sentence for the Reader?

Strawman: Living with "Easter" in our Bibles was never the issue. The English word "Easter" as found in our English Bibles means, Passover. Easter is an obsolete form of Passover as noted by the OED.

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Or in other words the Scriptures are a reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.

The Scriptures that Timothy had from a child (2Tim 3:15-17) were NOT the autographs, but they were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statement that "only the autographs are given by inspiration of God".

The Scriptures that Jesus read from (Luke 4) do not match jot and tittle with any extant manuscript, yet those Scriptures were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statements and innuendo that "only that which matches the originals can be considered given by inspiration of God".

All men are commanded to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). This is only possible if the Scriptures are available (extant) today. Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original. The King's speech is still the King's speech even in translation.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

 

[FSSL]

Strawman: Living with "Easter" in our Bibles was never the issue. The English word "Easter" as found in our English Bibles means, Passover. Easter is an obsolete form of Passover as noted by the OED.

The OED does show it is an obsolete usage. Do you know why it is obsolete? Because wrong usages, when corrected, become obsolete. "Easter" is not a part of the definition in OED, just an example of a usage, a bad one at that. Just because the word can be found in some literature DOES NOT mean that it was a common or even proper usage. If it was commonly used, OED would have said "archaic."

PASCHA never meant "Easter"

Now tell us, again, why you did not use it for your translation and when we question it, we are the skeptic. That's funny stuff!

 

[Mitex]

The OED does show it is an obsolete usage. Do you know why it is obsolete? Because wrong usages, when corrected, become obsolete. "Easter" is not a part of the definition in OED, just an example of a usage, a bad one at that. Just because the word can be found in some literature DOES NOT mean that it was a common or even proper usage. If it was commonly used, OED would have said "archaic."

You still didn't translate the phrase: Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα. Καλό Πάσχα!

Give it a whirl and show the world that you really do know Greek. If you need help try Google translate, they have a Greek button.

Now, it gets wearisome when having to correct a seminarian grad on the meaning of common English words:

Archaic
a. Marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; old-fashioned, primitive, antiquated. spec. in Archæol., designating an early or formative period of artistic style or culture.
 
b. esp. of language: Belonging to an earlier period, no longer in common use, though still retained either by individuals, or generally, for special purposes, poetical, liturgical, etc. Thus the pronunciation obleege is archaic in the first case; the pronoun thou in the second.

Obsolete
1. That is no longer practised or used; fallen into disuse; of a discarded type or fashion; disused, out of date.
    Such olde and obsolete wordes are most used of country folke.
2. Worn out; effaced through wearing down, atrophy, or degeneration.
3. Biol. Indistinct; not clearly or sharply marked; very imperfectly developed, hardly perceptible. Usually implying the absence or rudimentary development of a character which is distinct in other individuals, or in allied species.
 
B. absol. or n. One who or that which is out of date or has fallen into disuse.

Easter
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). According to the modern rule it is observed on the first Sunday after the calendar full moon—i.e. ‘not the actual full moon, but the 14th day of the calendar moon’ (Bp. Butcher)—which happens on or next after 21 March. In ordinary language Easter is often applied to the entire week commencing with Easter Sunday.
  c890 K. Ælfred Bæda v. xxi. Ic ðas tide Eastrena ecelice healdan wille.  c1050 Ags. Gloss. in Wr.-Wülcker 471 Phase, eastran.  a1123 O.E. Chron. an. 1101 Heold se cyng Heanrig his hired+to Eastran on Winceastre.  c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 101 Þe þre dage biforen estre [ben] cleped swidages.  c1250 Gen. & Ex. 3288 Ðor-of in esterne be we wunen Seuene siðes to funt cumen.  c1300 St. Brandan 148 Ther Å e shulle this Ester beo.  1389 in Eng. Gilds (1870) 35 Þe soneday fourtnythe after esterne.  c1420 Chron. Vilod. 785 Þis miracle was þus+y do, In þe Astere nexste after hurre body dyenge.  c1440 Promp. Parv. 143 Eesterne, Pascha.  1450–1530 Myrr. Our Ladye 278 From passyon Sonday tyl Esterne.  1480 Caxton Chron. Eng. ccxxxiii. 254 The clergye+wold not graunte vnto Estre next comyng.  1593 Hooker Eccl. Pol. iv. xi, Keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Jews kept theirs.  1655 Fuller Ch. Hist. ii. 55 The Springtime, wherein the Feast of Easter+was celebrated.  1782 Priestley Corrupt. Chr. II. viii. 129 The first+festival+that was observed+was Easter.  1837 Howitt Rur. Life vi. iv. (1862) 432 Easter was the great festival of the Church. 

  b. R.C. Ch. to make (†do) one's Easter (see make v. 57e): to perform one's Easter duties (see below). Hence Easter is used for an individual performance of these.
 
†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. 


Don't fret yourself over my weariness, it's ok, I don't mind stamping out ignorance.

PASCHA never meant "Easter"

Now tell us, again, why you did not use it for your translation and when we question it, we are the skeptic. That's funny stuff!

Pascha
pascha

noun
1. the Jewish feast of the Passover [syn: Pasch]
2. the Christian festival of Easter [syn: Pasch]

See also: Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα. Καλό Πάσχα!

 

[FSSL]

Now, it gets wearisome when having to correct a seminarian grad on the meaning of common English words.

You were so weary are you that you were unable to read my post. I already explained what Archaic and Obsolete mean when they are used in a dictionary.

Amusing. This is modern Greek. Your expectations that a POST seminary student would easily read this sentence shows that your dabbling in Greek using the Google translation tool is foolish. We learn KOINE, not MODERN Greek. Nevertheless, here is my breakdown of the passage, NOT a Google translation.

Pascha rabbits (had to look this up since it is modern Greek, not koine) are selling (new modern irregular verb. I had to guess at the tense and voice from context) sthn?? (this must be some kind of evolution of eimi used in modern Greek. Possibly translated "in" or just untranslatable) Greece. Good (modern term "Happy" is used) Pascha.

PLEASE explain to the forum why this is an issue to you since your own translation rejected "Easter."

If you think Acts 12:4 ever meant a pagan holiday, you cannot be more mistaken.

 

[FSSL]

Your expectations that a POST seminary student would easily read this sentence shows that your dabbling in Greek using the Google translation tool is foolish. We learn KOINE, not MODERN Greek.

THIS alone makes me curious as to why you are not publishing the team of translators you have. What do you think BGWilkinson? Will Google Translate Tool be listed among your committee members?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Your expectations that a POST seminary student would easily read this sentence shows that your dabbling in Greek using the Google translation tool is foolish. We learn KOINE, not MODERN Greek.

THIS alone makes me curious as to why you are not publishing the team of translators you have. What do you think BGWilkinson? Will Google Translate Tool be listed among your committee members?

When he first posted his little ditty about pascah rabbits being for sale in Greece I suspected he was thinking one could just use Google Translate to do Bible Translation. Mitex is so sneaky and devious as he plots to find another gotcha to hang his hat on.

I have never heard of anyone or read of anyone using Google Translate for ancient language work.

It would seem to be virtually impossible to use their tool to do any kind of credible translation work.

Easter rabbits are for sale in Greece. Happy Easter! is what I got when I tried it.

One of my pet peeves of English translations is the God Forbid rendering to translate "me ginomai", theos is nowhere to be found, Google renders Latin absit as God forbid even though Deus is not there.

Rom 3:5 si autem iniquitas nostra iustitiam Dei commendat quid dicemus numquid iniquus Deus qui infert iram secundum hominem dico
Rom 3:6  absit alioquin quomodo iudicabit Deus mundum

If you put the above two verses from the Vulgate into Google Translate, absit will turn into God forbid

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God according to man, I say unto what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?
Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world

When Google renders this it simply looked up a previously made translation that was in its data base. It did not do a new translation.
Google translate has its place, but not for unqualified people like Mitex to play translator. Its place in Bible translation is dubious at best. Mitex is a  self proclaimed non Koine Greek reader. How odd a self proclaimed Bible translator that claims to be unable to read the language of the "Golden Pipes".

Mitex you should be ashamed of yourself if you used Google Translate to write your new modern version Polish Bible.

I wonder if Mitex knows this, maybe he has been using Google translate for his modern version Polish Bible.

Surly he would not do that, would he?

If he did use it, do I think he would admit it, not!

 

[Mitex]

Now, it gets wearisome when having to correct a seminarian grad on the meaning of common English words.

You were so weary are you that you were unable to read my post. I already explained what Archaic and Obsolete mean when they are used in a dictionary.

Amusing. This is modern Greek. Your expectations that a POST seminary student would easily read this sentence shows that your dabbling in Greek using the Google translation tool is foolish. We learn KOINE, not MODERN Greek. Nevertheless, here is my breakdown of the passage, NOT a Google translation.

Pascha rabbits (had to look this up since it is modern Greek, not koine) are selling (new modern irregular verb. I had to guess at the tense and voice from context) sthn?? (this must be some kind of evolution of eimi used in modern Greek. Possibly translated "in" or just untranslatable) Greece. Good (modern term "Happy" is used) Pascha.

PLEASE explain to the forum why this is an issue to you since your own translation rejected "Easter."

If you think Acts 12:4 ever meant a pagan holiday, you cannot be more mistaken.

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα.
Easter rabbits are for sale in Greece.

Καλό Πάσχα!
Happy Easter!

Did you notice that the terms were finally translated only after the Google translate button was mentioned. Makes me wonder if these birds would have been able to translate this text without the help of their Google translate button.

Notice our hero refused to translate Πάσχα because it exposed his flawed position: Πάσχα never means Easter.

Barry's definition of obsolete is absurd. I'll repeat it for the amusement of the Reader:

"Because wrong usages, when corrected, become obsolete. "Do you know why it is obsolete? Because wrong usages, when corrected, become obsolete. "Easter" is not a part of the definition in OED, just an example of a usage, a bad one at that. Just because the word can be found in some literature DOES NOT mean that it was a common or even proper usage. If it was commonly used, OED would have said 'archaic.'"

I'd say, "too funny", if it wasn't so sad. As I said from the beginning, the term Easter as found in Acts 12:4 in our English Scriptures is an obsolete word meaning passover. I gave the OED citation. Obsolete words such as Easter, meaning passover, have fallen into DISUSE and are no longer used with the obsolete meaning. It does NOT mean as you erroneously suggest that it was a "bad usage", "erroneous usage", or incorrect usage. Country folk still use obsolete words in their vocabulary. The wonders of languages will never cease.

I strongly disagree with the wild-eyed-KJVO trying to force the modern meaning of Easter into Acts 12:4 just as much as I strongly disagree with you for doing the same and claiming that our English Scriptures are in error because of the presence of an archaic or obsolete word.

Once again with clarity: The word Easter as found in our English Scriptures once meant passover, it no longer has that meaning in modern English. Languages change over time as do meanings of words. Obsolete words, like obsolete machine parts, don't just disappear completely, they hang around and pop up now and then. Your false accusation that the Scriptures are in error because they contain obsolete or archaic words is itself an error.

Your statement that Πάσχα never means Easter has been exposed as a childish mistake. Πάσχα most certainly had the meaning of passover in ancient (archaic or obsolete Greek), but in modern Greek it includes the meaning of Easter as the primary meaning and passover only as a qualified meaning. As in Καλό Πάσχα! - Happy Easter!  And Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα. - Easter rabbits are on sale in Greece. The best I could figure out is that in order for Πάσχα to mean passover in modern Greek it has to be qualified with εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew/Jewish passover) and the context. But since, our professed experts in Greek are so lethargic in responding and have a biased axe to grind I may never know for sure.

The Polish Scriptures, like the Scriptures in the original languages and English languages, contains archaic and obsolete words such as Easter. Our updated Polish Bible of course uses the MODERN Polish word for passover and does not retain the archaic word for passover (wielkanoc) even though the archaic word wielkanoc when broken into two words and then translated literally means: Great Night.

This should be clear to everyone, but hucksters, word thieves, criminals and such like.

Now, would you boys like to get back to the subject at hand?

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Or in other words the Scriptures are a reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.

The Scriptures that Timothy had from a child (2Tim 3:15-17) were NOT the autographs, but they were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statement that "only the autographs are given by inspiration of God".

The Scriptures that Jesus read from (Luke 4) do not match jot and tittle with any extant manuscript, yet those Scriptures were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statements and innuendo that "only that which matches the originals can be considered given by inspiration of God".

All men are commanded to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). This is only possible if the Scriptures are available (extant) today. Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original. The King's speech is still the King's speech even in translation.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex,

Why don't you write a Translators to the Reader wherein you describe your methods of translating your new modern version Polish Bible?

I would like to learn from you how an expert modern version Bible translator views the translation process.

I hereby appoint Mitex as the official Preface writer for the New Modern Version Polish Bible.

Will he accept the appointment?

 

[Mitex]

Mitex... I do not consider the Google translate tool to provide accurate translations. Silly rabbit, Greek is not for kids who use Google translate.

Now you see there, I knew that you were smarter than you pretended! Google translate, along with any other computerized translator, do NOT provide accurate translations at a rate that they can be counted upon. Many times they come up with HILARIOUS translations! So, we are once again in agreement on something.

It is my understanding that the Greeks do not use the word as "Easter." So I am not inclined to trust a Google translation when they reject it. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/fasts_feasts/harper_pascha_easter.htm

I just used the Greek word to stand as the Greeks desire.

JUST LIKE YOU DID in your own translation, I used PASCHA.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article. Sounds to me like that particular group has a hangup over the word Pascha. Personally I haven't been persuaded by arguments from the venerable Bede and his comments about pagan festivals. The passage in Acts 12:4 is clearly passover. "Easter" in English has had a dual meaning, passover and Easter (an annual Christian festival in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ) as noted by early English translators and the OED.

The meaning of “Πάσχα” in modern Greek is undisputed. The primary meaning of “Πάσχα” is “Easter” and the secondary or qualified meaning is “Passover”. The following equivalencies can be confirmed through Greek/English dictionaries or free online translators such as Google Translate:

■Easter = Πάσχα (Pascha)

■Passover = εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha), Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)

In modern Greek, “Pascha” does not automatically mean the Jewish Passover unless the term is qualified as the εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha) or the Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews). Many other languages follow the modern Greek meaning of “Pascha”...
http://www.omhksea.org/2012/04/christian-pascha-and-jewish-pascha-in-the-new-testament/

When speaking to modern Greeks, I've been told that they say, Καλό Πάσχα! - Happy EASTER! I've noticed the same phrase on vacation pamphlets to Greece. Hence, I'm convinced that modern Greeks use the word to mean Easter. And what I gather from the link I posted they modify it with "Hebrew/Jewish" to make it passover. Now perhaps I'm wrong on this point. Maybe someday I'll meet an expert Greek grammarian who doesn't have an axe to grind and find out for sure.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Well... you claim to have a Greek expert giving you consultations on your Polish Bible.

Oh yeah... you were outvoted and they used PASCHA instead.

Too funny.

 

[FSSL]

Sadly, real life is funny.

Mitex should not be involved in a translation committee. ANYONE who would argue in favor of the Polish equivalent of "Easter" is off his rocker! He is convinced that a word he calls "obsolete" should be used in Scripture.

He really wanted "Easter" and showed reluctance in using the clear word "passover" and wanted a word that includes the pagan understanding. Here is his post below.

He said: "You asked, "Gdanska has wielkanocy  How could he change it?" I'm not sure that I didn't answer the idea of this question in other posts, but for charity's sake, here goes; "Wielkanoc" is a Polish word. It literally means, "Great Night". Like the English word "Easter" it has had at least two different meanings in its history of usage - passover and now Easter as in Christian holy day remembering the resurrection of Christ. It could now also include connotations of chocolate Easter bunnies, etc. Personally, I was very reluctant to use another word in its place, but relented to the wishes of other committee members."

 

[Mitex]

...blah, blah, blah, blah and more blah, blah...

You sir, profess to know both Greek and Latin and have steadfastly refused to translate the phrases:

Πάσχα κουνέλια είναι προς πώληση στην Ελλάδα. and Καλό Πάσχα!

Instead you give us the results of your Google button. Since you claim to have been brought up on Greek and Latin why don't you translate the above phrases? Any John, Dick and Harry can plug it into Google translator. While you are at it, why don't you translate these English phrases into Greek and Latin for us, as a demonstration of your honesty and genuine sincerity.

Easter bunnies are sold in Greece.
Happy Easter.

Take a stab at it! If you do, it will be the first time that you would actually contributed to the conversation instead of giving the reader more hot air to fill birthday balloons on Easter.