Bible Translation Discussion Place

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,763
113
#41
Do you have any examples of when the italicized words should be ignored... never ran across that myself, just wondering what you've seen.
I believe *unknown* before tongue(s) in 1 Corinthians 14 is a good example. It has led to a lot of confusion, apart from the fact that *tongues* was prevalent in the 17th century as one of the meanings of "languages". But today "language(s)" without *unknown* would be more appropriate.

1 Corinthians 14:13
διόπερ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ

English Standard Version
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue [archaic] should [instead of *let him*] pray that he may interpret.

King James Bible [*unknown* added, otherwise closest to Greek]
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown ] tongue [archaic] pray that he may interpret.

Holman Christian Standard Bible [*another* added]
Therefore the person who speaks in [another] language should [instead of *let him*] pray that he can interpret.

International Standard Version [*foreign* added]
Therefore, the person who speaks in a [foreign] language should [ instead of *let him*] pray for the ability to interpret it.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#42
That's funny lol.
I got that from the bible.

Deu_32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

I'm assuming you think that's a literal grape vine. ;)
Okay, I stand corrected on that point. However, I still think you're stretching the application far beyond the breaking point.
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,022
1,506
113
#43
i still say kjv is best. i like it. its so good.

when its manuscripts i like the antioch line more. alexandrian line has less verses. but i dont really care you get gospel from both.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#44
If you understood the parable of the sower and the soil, you wouldn't have said that. In my opinion you're disqualified to make any judgements on any bible.

Being conformed to the image of the Word of God by reading the word of God.

No you need not go on, you're using an age old argument where people who can't refute something from the pages of the bible chose to find something OUTSIDE the bible to prove their point.

Do this, go to the scripture and find at least one witness that says that the Word of God or the word of God will ever see corruption. If you can find that, I might agree with you.
The issue is that this equation is assumed by you:

Word of God = KJV

My position is:

Word of God = Autographs (original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic writings penned by the original authors)

You have an unprovable assertion that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God.

We know that the KJV has errors..for example, the translation of pascha as "Easter" in Acts, whereas it is translated Passover everywhere else.


Textus Receptus has issues. For instance, Erasmus back-translated portions of Revelation..he did not have manuscripts for this portion so he back-translated from a commentary or the Vulgate..I don't remember which. After manuscripts were obtained, it was discovered that his back-translation was totally unique and not found in any manuscripts.

However, it doesn't make that big of a difference. My view is that KJVers simply have a puzzle with extra pieces added to it. These extra pieces largely relate to marginal notes that were included as scribes copied existing manuscripts. Other errors are mostly trivial and affect no major doctrine.

If someone wants to read an archaic version of English, more power to them. If that floats their boat, and makes them feel special, who am I to deny them their self-righteousness? :)
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,022
1,506
113
#45
My position is:

Word of God = Autographs (original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic writings penned by the original authors)
problem with your position is this means nobody has word of God. the originals arent here anymore.

and the bible itself calls copies of copies of copies and even translations like septuagint still word of God.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#46
I believe *unknown* before tongue(s) in 1 Corinthians 14 is a good example. It has led to a lot of confusion, apart from the fact that *tongues* was prevalent in the 17th century as one of the meanings of "languages". But today "language(s)" without *unknown* would be more appropriate.

1 Corinthians 14:13
διόπερ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ

English Standard Version
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue [archaic] should [instead of *let him*] pray that he may interpret.

King James Bible [*unknown* added, otherwise closest to Greek]
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown ] tongue [archaic] pray that he may interpret.

Holman Christian Standard Bible [*another* added]
Therefore the person who speaks in [another] language should [instead of *let him*] pray that he can interpret.

International Standard Version [*foreign* added]
Therefore, the person who speaks in a [foreign] language should [ instead of *let him*] pray for the ability to interpret it.
So what language does a man speak to God in, in which NO MAN understands?

1Co_14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Well I'm sure that's a mistranslation to lol. You guys kill me!
You have no idea what an unknown tongue EVEN IS and yet your QUALIFIED to say the word shouldn't have been added.

Do you see what I'm saying?

There is a TONGUE that is UNKNOWN to the ENTIRE HUMAN RACDE... and you're trying to buffalo people into believing that UNKNOWN shouldn't be there. And no, Pentecostal tongues babbling is not what that verse is talking about. But you'll never know what it means because you EDITING the bible to fit what your current knowledge level.

Is that INSANE or what? Why do you even use a bible?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#47
problem with your position is this means nobody has word of God. the originals arent here anymore.

and the bible itself calls copies of copies of copies and even translations like septuagint still word of God.
Thank you! Finally a little common sense.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#48
Okay, I stand corrected on that point. However, I still think you're stretching the application far beyond the breaking point.
If it's a stretch, then please tell us what it means Dino. If it's not representing the word of God then what is it? What does the wine represent?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#49
The issue is that this equation is assumed by you:

Word of God = KJV

My position is:

Word of God = Autographs (original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic writings penned by the original authors)

You have an unprovable assertion that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God.

We know that the KJV has errors..for example, the translation of pascha as "Easter" in Acts, whereas it is translated Passover everywhere else.


Textus Receptus has issues. For instance, Erasmus back-translated portions of Revelation..he did not have manuscripts for this portion so he back-translated from a commentary or the Vulgate..I don't remember which. After manuscripts were obtained, it was discovered that his back-translation was totally unique and not found in any manuscripts.

However, it doesn't make that big of a difference. My view is that KJVers simply have a puzzle with extra pieces added to it. These extra pieces largely relate to marginal notes that were included as scribes copied existing manuscripts. Other errors are mostly trivial and affect no major doctrine.

If someone wants to read an archaic version of English, more power to them. If that floats their boat, and makes them feel special, who am I to deny them their self-righteousness? :)
I could show you evidence from the KJV all day long and you would reject it. You should have enough GUMPTION to tell me why the word Easter SHOULD be in the bible. You have no clue! Nor do you care and I won't waste my time explaining it because you just like all others who promote that the bible is corrupt will deny any evidence shown to you.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#50
I could show you evidence from the KJV all day long and you would reject it. You should have enough GUMPTION to tell me why the word Easter SHOULD be in the bible. You have no clue! Nor do you care and I won't waste my time explaining it because you just like all others who promote that the bible is corrupt will deny any evidence shown to you.
My my, you're in a snarky mood this evening.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#51
My my, you're in a snarky mood this evening.
Not at all, I’m just calling it like it is. This is elementary stuff if you people would just believe what’s written. Why do you encourage people to not believe rheir bibles?

Look at Nehemiah, he actually IGNORES “unknown” because the KJV translators “added” a word that made the meaning CLEARER.

Now Nehemiah has NO CHANCE to understand what an unknown tongue is. That’s the kind of stuff that you promote. You cause people to stumble at the word and stay in ignorance.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#52
Not at all, I’m just calling it like it is. This is elementary stuff if you people would just believe what’s written. Why do you encourage people to not believe rheir bibles?

Look at Nehemiah, he actually IGNORES “unknown” because the KJV translators “added” a word that made the meaning CLEARER.

Now Nehemiah has NO CHANCE to understand what an unknown tongue is. That’s the kind of stuff that you promote. You cause people to stumble at the word and stay in ignorance.
If the KJV translators are innocent of wrongdoing for adding a word, then you have no reason to criticize modern translations for their differences in wording.

You don't care for being lumped in with other people, and neither do I. Don't do it.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#54
If the KJV translators are innocent of wrongdoing for adding a word, then you have no reason to criticize modern translations for their differences in wording.

You don't care for being lumped in with other people, and neither do I. Don't do it.
Adding a word or changing words to add more clarity IS NOT the same as adding or changing words to take away clarity or change the meaning.

The fiery flying serpents in the book of Numbers injected poison into the Israelites. After they were bitten, they looked at the fiery serpent on the pole and LIVED. That story is a foreshadow of the word of God.

I’m promoting the serpent on the pole and in ignorance you’re promoting the fiery flying serpents.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#55
problem with your position is this means nobody has word of God. the originals arent here anymore.

and the bible itself calls copies of copies of copies and even translations like septuagint still word of God.
I wouldn't disagree with that, however, these copies contradict each other in some cases in minor ways. Claiming that the KJV or Textus Receptus is the standard is an article of faith that is misplaced.

So, ultimately, the absolute undisputed inerrant word of God is in the autographs. We can get back to those, fairly accurately, but there is still a slight margin of error. Materially, though, either the Textus Receptus or NA 28 is still the Word of God.

By the way, my view of inerrancy relating to the originals, and not an eclectic text, is the exact same as those stated by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so it is not an oddball view.

The oddball view amongst evangelical scholars is Textus Receptus Only or KJV Only.

Knowledgeable individuals understand that the TR is not perfect, neither is the Masoretic Text. Neither is the Septuagint or the Nestle-Aland 28. Therefore, they are forced to fall back on the position that the originals are the inerrant Word of God, and the eclectic texts are a close, but not exact, reflection of the originals. To claim anything else would be intellectual suicide, and easily refuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

Once someone crawls through the biblical text with sets of notes such as the NET Bible provides, they can have an educated view on the problems with the underlying texts. They are all minor, and don't cause any material problems with significant doctrines, but to ignore them is simply to stick one's head in the sand.

You have to get pretty creative to explain some of these errors away. My explanation of the "unexplainable" ones simply realizes that the original writings were inspired, and sometimes scribes made minor errors.
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,022
1,506
113
#56
I wouldn't disagree with that, however, these copies contradict each other in some cases in minor ways. Claiming that the KJV or Textus Receptus is the standard is an article of faith that is misplaced.

So, ultimately, the absolute undisputed inerrant word of God is in the autographs. We can get back to those, fairly accurately, but there is still a slight margin of error. Materially, though, either the Textus Receptus or NA 28 is still the Word of God.

By the way, my view of inerrancy relating to the originals, and not an eclectic text, is the exact same as those stated by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so it is not an oddball view.

The oddball view amongst evangelical scholars is Textus Receptus Only or KJV Only.

Knowledgeable individuals understand that the TR is not perfect, neither is the Masoretic Text. Neither is the Septuagint or the Nestle-Aland 28. Therefore, they are forced to fall back on the position that the originals are the inerrant Word of God, and the eclectic texts are a close, but not exact, reflection of the originals. To claim anything else would be intellectual suicide, and easily refuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

Once someone crawls through the biblical text with sets of notes such as the NET Bible provides, they can have an educated view on the problems with the underlying texts. They are all minor, and don't cause any material problems with significant doctrines, but to ignore them is simply to stick one's head in the sand.

You have to get pretty creative to explain some of these errors away. My explanation of the "unexplainable" ones simply realizes that the original writings were inspired, and sometimes scribes made minor errors.
i understand all you are saying. but how can you say that we dont have the original word of God. then you turn around and call textus receptus or na28 still word of God? its not if its just "fairly accurate". maybe i know better than bible? maybe this part is mistake? i dont like this doctrine it sounds like yea hath God said?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
785
157
43
#57
So what language does a man speak to God in, in which NO MAN understands?

1Co_14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Well I'm sure that's a mistranslation to lol. You guys kill me!
You have no idea what an unknown tongue EVEN IS and yet your QUALIFIED to say the word shouldn't have been added.

Do you see what I'm saying?

There is a TONGUE that is UNKNOWN to the ENTIRE HUMAN RACDE... and you're trying to buffalo people into believing that UNKNOWN shouldn't be there. And no, Pentecostal tongues babbling is not what that verse is talking about. But you'll never know what it means because you EDITING the bible to fit what your current knowledge level.

Is that INSANE or what? Why do you even use a bible?
(Part 1)
This is going to probably take a few posts due to text limitations, and some of you have heard this before, but……

1 Cor. 14:2 – “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” One of the quintessential quotes in favor of T-speech, but it simply describes, real, rational language.

Let’s do a few things to this verse – namely, put it into a more modern ‘translation’, get rid of the added word ‘unknown’, get rid of the more archaic ‘tongue’ and replace it with the more modern ‘language’, and more accurately translate the word ‘understandeth’. A better rendering of the Greek word usually given as “understandeth” is “to hear with understanding”.

We now have “For he that speaks in a language, speaks not to people, but to God; for no one hears with understanding, thus in the spirit he speaks mysteries”.

One of the issues is the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of “praying in the Spirit” again, – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of T-speech.

Now let’s take an analogy –

If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian, nor does it imply that I myself do not understand what I’m saying; just no one (other than me) at that particular service .. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m ‘praying in the Spirit’ (as defined above), to them, I’m speaking “mysteries”. An idiomatic way of saying “we have no idea what he’s saying”.

In this analogy, as well as the original passage, there just isn’t anything there that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. If there is, it’s because it’s being completely read into the text.

There is nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); perhaps unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. The latter option was chosen.

One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at the ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can the issue be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals? The answer is rather surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’ and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue; most aren’t even aware that it ever existed.

In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.

As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications

The Pentecostal solution was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.

Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, prayer language the next.

The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was perceived to be.

It's amazing how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
785
157
43
#58
Part 2 -

The plain fact however, is that the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon . It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing sounds (phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. The most immediately recognizable result of these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever.

If a person/being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual level, to be 'language', it must contain at a minimal two features - these two features are universal, regardless of where or by whom the speech is being produced; modern 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither are modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.

People believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed.

There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in natural and/or linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be radically different from what you believe/were taught.

With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition mentioned above, two of the best examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself.

Praying in the Spirit does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to _how_ one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit – “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”.

The most damning result of this re-definition of scripture is the reading into texts of things that are just not there.

Modern tongues is a tool , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it's a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in some Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release in that all stress can be gone after the experience.

People can describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it.

Mind you, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia. The glossolalia they are producing is in no way different from the glossolalia today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing.

Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia”, is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.

By the way, I’m a Linguist, not a theologian and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. Cessationist vs, non-cessationist is a bit of a false dichotomy; gifts ceasing is mentioned only once in one short sentence and the remainder of the Bible is totally silent on the matter. The one place it is mentioned is rarely taken into context of the entire passage. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#59
I could show you evidence from the KJV all day long and you would reject it. You should have enough GUMPTION to tell me why the word Easter SHOULD be in the bible. You have no clue! Nor do you care and I won't waste my time explaining it because you just like all others who promote that the bible is corrupt will deny any evidence shown to you.
I don't claim the original writings are corrupt. The original writings are "the Bible" not the Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, or KJV.

Regarding Easter, the underlying Greek word is translated Passover everywhere else. It should be translated Passover there, too..additionally the NJKV guys have corrected that error :)