Your Bible translation

  • 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.

Which Bible translation do you use as your main translation?

  • NIV

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • NLT

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • ESV

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • CSB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • KJV

    Votes: 25 47.2%
  • NKJV

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • NRSV

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NASB

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Other (please comment)

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • Total voters
    53

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
literally the only translation that puts "Ishtar" in Acts 12:4 is KJV
my bad here, too -- actually Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great Bible have 'ester' in this verse.
these all predate the KJV by many years, and the KJV translating body evidently just followed what they had done already here.
although, the Geneva Bible had been around since 1560 and it has "Passover" -- so there was evidently already controversy over what was correct.


Luther's Bible, 1522, in German, has "Ostern" ((Ishtar)) here, also.
there are many German Bibles predating Luther's translation, tho many of them are only preserved in fragments now. the Gothic or Wilfila Bible ((5th century)), for example, doesn't have any known copies that include Acts. the Gutenberg, Mentelin and a few others are accessible online as scanned copies of the pages, but they don't have chapter/verse annotation and it's difficult to parse through looking for this verse.


the history is interesting; i would like to know where the idea of changing Pascha to Ishtar in translation originated: obviously not with the Greek copies, as they all faithfully have "Pascha" and don't use some other word. Luke himself obviously meant to use exactly the same word that means Passover -- there is no doubt. but somewhere along the line, someone decided they'd put Ishtar/Easter here instead. it did not originate with KJV as Tyndale & the earliest Catholic Bibles have it, and KJV seems to have followed suit, but it was not ubiquitous as the Geneva Bible has Passover. but it didn't even originate in English translations, as Luther's Bible, almost 100 years before king James, has the German equivalent of Ishtar instead of Pascha.

did it originate with Luther? we'd need to look at the Germanic Bibles that predate it. which i will have a stab at. :)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
vulgate has "pascha" = "passover":

Quem cum apprehendisset, misit in carcerem, tradens quatuor quaternionibus militum custodiendum, volens post Pascha producere eum populo.
it seems obvious to me that this was a purposeful choice of interpretation rather than a translation.
but who first thought to change it?

 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
6,664
668
113
this is not true.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened:
for Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.
(1 Corinthians 5:7)
per your logic, the KJV ((tho i've quoted GNV here)) is in error in this verse.
it should be ((per your supposed justification)) "
Christ our Easter" or more accurately, "Christ our Ishtar"
This passage is the very reason the word for Easter, for the Passover is changed from OT to NT. Christ is our Passover.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
1,750
782
113
my bad here, too -- actually Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great Bible have 'ester' in this verse.
these all predate the KJV by many years, and the KJV translating body evidently just followed what they had done already here.
although, the Geneva Bible had been around since 1560 and it has "Passover" -- so there was evidently already controversy over what was correct.


Luther's Bible, 1522, in German, has "Ostern" ((Ishtar)) here, also.
there are many German Bibles predating Luther's translation, tho many of them are only preserved in fragments now. the Gothic or Wilfila Bible ((5th century)), for example, doesn't have any known copies that include Acts. the Gutenberg, Mentelin and a few others are accessible online as scanned copies of the pages, but they don't have chapter/verse annotation and it's difficult to parse through looking for this verse.


the history is interesting; i would like to know where the idea of changing Pascha to Ishtar in translation originated: obviously not with the Greek copies, as they all faithfully have "Pascha" and don't use some other word. Luke himself obviously meant to use exactly the same word that means Passover -- there is no doubt. but somewhere along the line, someone decided they'd put Ishtar/Easter here instead. it did not originate with KJV as Tyndale & the earliest Catholic Bibles have it, and KJV seems to have followed suit, but it was not ubiquitous as the Geneva Bible has Passover. but it didn't even originate in English translations, as Luther's Bible, almost 100 years before king James, has the German equivalent of Ishtar instead of Pascha.

did it originate with Luther? we'd need to look at the Germanic Bibles that predate it. which i will have a stab at. :)
Well done the board thanks you.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
1,750
782
113
This passage is the very reason the word for Easter, for the Passover is changed from OT to NT. Christ is our Passover.
As posthuman has indicated, the reasons and origin for the term Easter rather than Passover is now shrouded by the fog of time. Thankfully the Greek text remains accurate.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,928
5,394
113
They don't have to actually recommend officially. The fact that the catholics are involved, there is something going on. I would rather chose a version translated by people not friends with vatican. The text they used as basis is a suspicious text.
Better toss your KJV then, given that it was built from Greek texts translated by a Catholic. No end of corruption there!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,928
5,394
113
...
did it originate with Luther? we'd need to look at the Germanic Bibles that predate it. which i will have a stab at. :)
Luther used Erasmus' second edition; that's where I would start my search.

Incidentally, because Luther used the second edition rather than the third, German Christians don't have a big issue with 1 John 5:7... because the German Bibles based on Luther's don't include the disputed text.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
6,664
668
113
That makes no sense at all.
It’s signifying that there is a dispensational change in the reference of the Passover. It’s no longer a Jewish Passover but a Christian Passover. The English word Easter was chosen to signify the changed event.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,928
5,394
113
It’s signifying that there is a dispensational change in the reference of the Passover. It’s no longer a Jewish Passover but a Christian Passover. The English word Easter was chosen to signify the changed event.
Because of your a priori belief that the KJV has every word accurate, your argument comes across as a backward justification. If Christ is our Passover, then Passover is the celebration that happened in Acts 12. Herod would not have cared what the Christians called it; they were immersed in a Jewish culture. It's exactly the same principle in Daniel 3; you have to consider the speaker's point of view instead of imposing your own... which is the essence of eisegesis.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
6,664
668
113
Because of your a priori belief that the KJV has every word accurate, your argument comes across as a backward justification. If Christ is our Passover, then Passover is the celebration that happened in Acts 12. Herod would not have cared what the Christians called it; they were immersed in a Jewish culture. It's exactly the same principle in Daniel 3; you have to consider the speaker's point of view instead of imposing your own... which is the essence of eisegesis.
Yes, Luke was a Christian speaking from a Christian point of view as led by the Spirit.

Herod had executed James and because it pleased the Jews, he arrested Peter also intending to execute him. It is important to remember that both the Jewish and Christian Pascha celebrations were going on in Jerusalem at the time Peter was arrested. Herod would have had no reason to wait until the Passover ended to bring Peter forth as some suggest. Jesus was brought forth to the people during the Passover and the Jews eagerly demanded Him to be crucified. Furthermore, there is no link between the word “pascha” and any pagan God form any era. Herod may or may not have worshipped Ishtar but there is no legitimate justification for translating “pascha” as the name of any pagan God, the link simply does not exist.

Herod planned to bring Peter forth to the people after Easter (The Christian Pascha). Herod decided to wait until after the Christian Pascha (Easter) because of the tradition of releasing one Jewish prisoner during the Passover week. According to Mark 15:6 the tradition was that the Roman governor always released one Jewish prisoner during the Passover week. Furthermore, the prisoner to be released would be chosen by the people. This tradition is recorded in Matthew 27:17 where it says, “Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?”

Pilate honored the request of the Jews and sent Jesus to be crucified. Likewise, Herod was obliged to release one condemned man from among those being brought forth to be executed. Herod could not take the chance of bringing Peter out to be executed because of the increased number of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem celebrating Christian Pascha. Until the Christian Pascha ended Jerusalem would be populated by an exaggerated number of Christian pilgrims who had come to town to celebrate. Herod planned to wait until the Christian pilgrims had left Jerusalem and returned home so there would be no chance that the crowd would demand Peters release. Thus it was the Christian pascha (Easter) which Herod was waiting to pass, not the Passover. It is my belief that the translators of the KJV rightly discerned this context and properly chose Easter, the only English word they could have used to distinguish between the Jewish and Christian Pascha’s.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
This passage is the very reason the word for Easter, for the Passover is changed from OT to NT. Christ is our Passover.
then why did Paul say "Pascha" instead of Ishtar?

why did Luke say Pascha instead of saying Ishtar?

you're telling me the reason for using the word Eostare is that Paul did not use it.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
Luther used Erasmus' second edition; that's where I would start my search.

Incidentally, because Luther used the second edition rather than the third, German Christians don't have a big issue with 1 John 5:7... because the German Bibles based on Luther's don't include the disputed text.

thanks Dino :)


this is a screenshot from the second edition 1519 -

erasmus.JPG

it clearly has Pascha (("
Passover"))


i am wondering if maybe this is actually all Luther's doing??

i'd really like to look into earlier German / Dutch translations, of which there are about a dozen.
this isn't easy, as the ones i've been able to find online are scans of manuscripts, without chapter/verse etc, and i can't read German so it's a chore to try and figure out where i am in the scripture when i leaf through the images.
Thankfully Erasmus had chapter designations in the margin :)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
of interest:

Acts 20:16 describes that Paul was eager to be in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost -- which is literally, 'fiftieth' -- fiftieth in relation to what? 50th day from Pascha, which is 14 Nissan.

since the Nicene council in 325, Easter has been set to be on a sunday after the vernal equinox. this is not Pascha and has no relationship to the date of Pascha, which is set, per Leviticus 23, by the appearing of the new moon which marks the beginning of the month ((not calculated by vernal equinox)).

the pagan feast of Eostare / Ishtar / Astarte / Ashereh ((wife of Ba'al)) has always been calculated in relation to the vernal equinox.

now, was Paul counting 50th according to the Passover & God's calendar of feast days as laid out in Leviticus? per the lunar cycles?
or was Paul counting 50th in some way per the equinox?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
btw,

i am not judging anyone who celebrates Easter as a Christian on the day that it has become tradition to celebrate Easter.

i am just trying to establish facts, and consider it well for us all to know the truth.

in my belief, based on scripture, no one is condemned for observing a day or not observing a day. if you observe a day, you do it for the Lord, and if you do not, you do not for the Lord.

it seems abundantly clear to me, beyond dispute, that the KJV is erroneous in its translation in Acts 12:4.
it also seems abundantly clear - and i think obvious to all of us - that those who are of the 'KJV only' persuasion will go to any length to backwards-justify this interpretive translation in this verse, owing to their a priori belief that if it is in the KJV it must be the absolute truth.
i am not trying to challenge anyone's faith here, and i'm not wishing to put a stumbling block in anyone's path -- howbeit if ones faith is in a translation, rather than in God, i would rather such faith be brought into the light of truth than pass by darkness without illuminating it. i find the whole discussion instructive.

this isn't about challenging God's word. it's about finding the truth. i am sorry if i bring offense, but as John & i have interacted many times in the past, i hope he understands that my goal isn't to denigrate him in any way, or to harm his faith, or cause him to stumble, but to find out the truth, and to share it.
i would hope that anyone here would do the same for me -- and y'all ought to know, i won't make it easy for you to change my mind about something, but that doesn't mean i'm not open to it. it just means i will not be easily swayed from what i believe is true, and i in fact admire John's own similar strength of conviction even when i happen to disagree with him
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
Luther used Erasmus' second edition; that's where I would start my search.

Incidentally, because Luther used the second edition rather than the third, German Christians don't have a big issue with 1 John 5:7... because the German Bibles based on Luther's don't include the disputed text.

the Bible Historiale was the predominant French translation of the Bible in the middle ages, written in the late 13th century.

it has "pascha" in Acts 12:4 --

quem cum adprehendisset misit in carcerem tradens quattuor quaternionibus militum custodire eum volens post pascha producere eum populo

in modern French, what English-speakers call Easter is called "Pâques" -- derived from the Hebrew Pascha, not from a word-form of Astarte.

is God's word preserved in French?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
6,664
668
113
then why did Paul say "Pascha" instead of Ishtar?

why did Luke say Pascha instead of saying Ishtar?

you're telling me the reason for using the word Eostare is that Paul did not use it.
Same word new meaning for the Church, the body of Christ. Read post 151.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,616
6,319
113
this is not true.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened:
for Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.
(1 Corinthians 5:7)
per your logic, the KJV ((tho i've quoted GNV here)) is in error in this verse.
it should be ((per your supposed justification)) "
Christ our Easter" or more accurately, "Christ our Ishtar"
for the record,

Luther also puts "ostern" ((Eostare)) here -- though in Leviticus 23 and elsewhere, he uses "passah" ((Pascha))