Do you think that using the word Easter in the KJV Bible was a good idea considering...?

Do you think that using the word Easter in the KJV Bible was a good idea considering the time that it was written?

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

What I mean is, the actual word translated into English as "Easter" is the Greek word for the Jewish passover. So do you think that using Easter conveyed the sense of the meaning in that it was just giving a time of year that people would be familiar with or do you think they should have chosen a different word?


"Are you suggesting that the word was chosen to temper, or misrepresent, what was actually said?"

No. Not in any way. I think the men who translated the KJV Bible did a great job and were honest men trying to do their best to convey to people in England a couple hundred years ago what the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts were. They had an awesome and holy task to attempt to perform to the best of their abilities.

I'm just wondering if there might have been more meaning to the text if the word Passover had been used instead of Easter.

Update 2:

"this particular Passover was Easter - THE Easter"

What do you mean by that? It was some time after the Lord Jesus had ascended back to Heaven that this occurred since it comes further along in the historical record of the book of Acts.

8 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Best Answer

    It appears that the KJV and the 21st Century KJV are the only two translations that use the term Easter rather than Passover. That's why I prefer the NKJV it has corrected all the quirks from the KJV.

    I think they should have stuck with the original Greek ... and used Passover. I agree with you the translators had a heavy burden upon them translating the Hebrew and Greek into Latin and into the English of the Day. The English of King James was vastly different from what we know today with many words meaning just the opposite of what we would think they mean today.

    I think it would have more meaning because it was the Jewish festival of the exodus of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage ... it was celebrated or kept every year as a reminder of how God had freed them from their slavery. If we read further in Acts 12, an angel also freed Peter that night from his bondage between two Roman soldiers.

    Source(s): The New Open Bible Study Edition, NKJV
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    1) So do you think that using Easter conveyed the sense of the meaning in that it was just giving a time of year that people would be familiar with

    Not at all. The purpose was quite different - the purpose was to indicate that this particular Passover was Easter - THE Easter - and not just another Biblical Passover of the sort that is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible. The translators - clearly - felt it necessary to clarify for the reader something that would not be obvious if the word "Passover" was used; that this particular Passover was THE Easter Passover.

    That being said: from a translator's point of view, it is a poor and imprecise translation. They should have used "Passover". In defense of the King James Version translators, they did not retain most of the other references to "Easter" that had been present in earlier English Bibles.

    - Jim,

  • 9 years ago

    The KJV is the only translation that gets this right.

    I just spent 2 years in Italy. Do you know what Happy Easter is? It's "buona pasqua."

    Are they mistranslating something. Pasqua is the italian equivalent for the Greek word "Pascha" which is mostly translated "passover" in scripture.

    it's instructive to notice that the end of Acts 12:3 says "(Then were the days of unleavened bread).

    Have you ever read Leviticus 23:5-6?

    Leviticus 23:5-6

    5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.

    6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

    Passover is on the 14th day of the Month, and the days of unleavened bread are 7 days that start on the 15th of the month.

    Therefore, in Acts 12:3-4, the Passover was at least 1 day in the past. Only an illiterate, ignorant Bible ignoramus would be stupid enough to translate the word as "Passover" unless they were dumb enough to think that Herod was planning to wait an entire year until Passover came back around.

    Easter is a pagan holiday that Roman loyalists celebrated. It occured usually approximately a week after Passover. Just as this current year on our calendar, passover was Tuesday (Monday night as we Gentiles call it) and Easter is the following Sunday. During that time, and in that culture, the term "Pascha" could be used for the Passover or for Easter interchangeably - just as is still the case in Europe today. Do you know what "Passover" is in Italian? It's "Pasqua." "Pasqua ebraica" to be specific. There are two "Pasquas." One is Passover, and one is Easter. They are a week apart.

    The same was true in Acts 12 as is true now in that part of the world. Herod was waiting for Easter, not Passover. Passover had already happened that year.

    The King James translators got this right, because unlike modern translators, they actually had an elementary understanding of the Bible and of the culture during that time.

    The modern translators, are pretty ignorant and pompous to say that this should be translated "Passover." They only show their own ignorance of the Bible by making such a statement. Do they really think that all the KJ translators were asleep at the wheel and didn't think of the uniformity-in-translation principle before letting this one slip through the cracks?

    Do a quick study on homonyms just in the English language and you'll quickly see how futile the uniformity-in-translation principle is. Imagine translating "pupil" the same way every time regardless of context, even though sometimes it refers to a student, and other times it refers to part of an eye ball. Context is everything. The only people who demand uniformity-in-translation are either uninformed novices, or they are deliberately deceptive and hypocritical. They use the argument to attack the one translation that gives them heartburn (KJV seems to do this to most of the Laodicean professional Christians) all the while not disclosing that their "preferred" version violates the same so-called principle just as many times. Then uninformed novices (like most on this page) repeat the nonsense without having a clue what they are talking about.

    An Elementary knowledge of the Jewish holiday structure vs. the Roman Easter celebration and the times they occur on the calendar plus simple knowledge of the nomenclature makes it crystal clear that "Easter" is the only choice for Acts 12:4, and you can only find it in one translation (KJ21/NAV is not a new translation but an attempt to update the KJV).

    Source(s): AV 1611
  • colker
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    changing the unique phrases interior the unique records? possibly. Updating a forty 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous English translation? No. One English translation (out of hundreds) has been as much as date because of the fact no longer in basic terms do all of us understand extra now than we did forty years in the past whilst it became new however the English language is distinctive in the present day than it became forty years in the past. There are hundreds of English translations (no longer variations) of the Bible. a number of the excuses that there are maximum of translations of the Bible are: • The English language is very complicated. It ameliorations each and all the time. English translations written even twenty years in the past (much less those translated 4 hundred years in the past) will lose a number of their intending to people in the present day. • Biblical scholarship improves every day. this would exchange the way a verse is translated. • Archeology learns further and further approximately biblical situations each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. this would additionally exchange the way a verse is translated. the unique language records have not replaced. The ineffective Sea Scrolls helped tutor this. The scrolls are significant because of the fact they testify to the accuracy of the folk who copied and recopied the Scriptures over the centuries. in spite of minor errors, they tutor us that the previous testomony has no longer replaced because of the fact it became compiled. With love in Christ.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    The word IS actually Pesach or Passover. The KJV has never been a good example of Bible translations. There was no such thing as "Easter" at the time of the crucifixion. It was named that nearly 300 years later in Rome.


    Source(s): ><>
  • 9 years ago

    I choose the latter meaning or time of year it was written. I am a firm believer in the sacredness and truthfulness of the scriptures. For me so many doctrines and denominations arise from an interpretation of scripture that they miss the entire message for why certain passages were written.

    Take care.

  • Are you suggesting that the word was chosen to temper, or misrepresent, what was actually said?

    Oh my!

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Like the rest of the bible it is misleading on so many levels.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.