KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Who said It was wrong....we are just saying that it is not INSPIRED, not the only VALID source of truth, is a TRANSLATION/TRANSLITERATION and does contain translationial errors.....
Here's the problem dcon. Dino claims the KJV is wrong because it list's different ages for two different Ahaziah's... that's not a contradiction, that comes from someone Googling KJV errors and not doing the research to find out if it's true or not.

Dino gave us James White's opinion and offered no biblical eveidence that the statement he made is true because there is no evidence that they are the same person... I HAVE done the research.

You do the same. You say the KJV is wrong because they used Wycliffe and Luthers word for passover. Your disdain for the word Easter dosesn't make it wrong. I think Luther and Wycliffe new a bit more about the word Easter than you do.



The age of Ahaziah when he became king is listed in two places in the KJV, and they aren't the same number. You refused to accept it as a contradiction and instead and posted a convoluted excuse.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Here's the problem dcon. Dino claims the KJV is wrong because it list's different ages for two different Ahaziah's... that's not a contradiction, that comes from someone Googling KJV errors and not doing the research to find out if it's true or not.

Dino gave us James White's opinion and offered no biblical eveidence that the statement he made is true because there is no evidence that they are the same person... I HAVE done the research.

You do the same. You say the KJV is wrong because they used Wycliffe and Luthers word for passover. Your disdain for the word Easter dosesn't make it wrong. I think Luther and Wycliffe new a bit more about the word Easter than you do.
Same name, same father, same mother, same event, but different persons? Oh, come on...
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,273
5,635
113
Your disdain for the word Easter dosesn't make it wrong. I think Luther and Wycliffe new a bit more about the word Easter than you do.
No, That it honours a Babylonian fertility goddess is what makes it a poor choice for the name of a Christian/Jewish celebration. I studied this before we had the internet. There was a time when a room full of books, and museum visits was the way to learn a subject.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Same name, same father, same mother, same event, but different persons? Oh, come on...
Yeah you might be right Trof and Dino I'm going to study it more. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I am. :)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
No, That it honours a Babylonian fertility goddess is what makes it a poor choice for the name of a Christian/Jewish celebration. I studied this before we had the internet. There was a time when a room full of books, and museum visits was the way to learn a subject.
Can you show the tie of Easter to Ishtar?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Yeah you might be right Trof and Dino I'm going to study it more. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong if I am. :)
Yeah, but I am afraid that your term "study" means "to look for any explanation that will make the KJV look good".

Study should be neutral.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Yeah, but I am afraid that your term "study" means "to look for any explanation that will make the KJV look good".

Study should be neutral.
No I'm not going to twist anything, if it's wrong it's wrong. I really don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I don't have a problem admitting the KJV is wrong it's just that I have never seen the KJV be wrong before.

This could be a typo that never was corrected and if that's what it is then that's what it is.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
No I'm not going to twist anything, if it's wrong it's wrong. I really don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I don't have a problem admitting the KJV is wrong it's just that I have never seen the KJV be wrong before.

This could be a typo that never was corrected and if that's what it is then that's what it is.
I think such contradictions between Samuel/Kings and Paralipomenon (Chronicles in English, I think) are in Jewish texts.

Some theologians think that these are two independent records and because ancient people did not know which one is correct, they included both, to be sure.

Its not a "typo" in the KJV, the KJV just translated imperfect sources, IMHO.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I think such contradictions between Samuel/Kings and Paralipomenon (Chronicles in English, I think) are in Jewish texts.

Some theologians think that these are two independent records and because ancient people did not know which one is correct, they included both, to be sure.

Its not a "typo" in the KJV, the KJV just translated imperfect sources, IMHO.
Do you believe those original writings were inspired?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Do you believe those original writings were inspired?
I do not think that the masoretic Jewish text is authentic.

I think we do not have a perfect OT text in our days. Septuagint is more authentic than masoretic line, IMHO, but also not perfect.

So I do not know what you mean by original writings.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I think such contradictions between Samuel/Kings and Paralipomenon (Chronicles in English, I think) are in Jewish texts.

Some theologians think that these are two independent records and because ancient people did not know which one is correct, they included both, to be sure.

Its not a "typo" in the KJV, the KJV just translated imperfect sources, IMHO.
Surprisingly to me, the KJV translators didn't add any margin notes to 2 Kings 8:26 nor 2 Chronicles 22:2.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
Here's the problem dcon. Dino claims the KJV is wrong because it list's different ages for two different Ahaziah's... that's not a contradiction, that comes from someone Googling KJV errors and not doing the research to find out if it's true or not.

Dino gave us James White's opinion and offered no biblical eveidence that the statement he made is true because there is no evidence that they are the same person... I HAVE done the research.

You do the same. You say the KJV is wrong because they used Wycliffe and Luthers word for passover. Your disdain for the word Easter dosesn't make it wrong. I think Luther and Wycliffe new a bit more about the word Easter than you do.
Go back and show me where I used the verbiage that it is WRONG because.....and I stand by my post that you reference....I use a Cambridge King JAMES WIDE MARGIN, BLACK LETTER EDITION with BERKSHIRE LEATHER.....and at THE SAME TIME I have no allusions to the absolute truth of my statement below......we have NO lateral RIGHT to change words and or embellish words based upon our religious affiliation so as to twist what was ORIGINALLY inspired by GOD in the HEBREW and or GREEK. It blows my mind that you will sit here and dogmatically defend a translation/transliteration made by 54 Episcopalian priests who taught and believed a lemon twist Catholic dogma practically, one that places the KING or Queen of England as the head of the LORD's CHURCH, claiming they were inspired by GOD, which contradicts God inspiring HOLY MEN while KNOWING full well they TRANSLITERATED words that WOULD contradict the biblical mode of baptism so as not to OFFEND the KING of ENGLAND and lose their heads.....their very PREFACE states clearly that they HAVE COMPARED it to other WORKS and a valid, honest study and acceptance of facts will reveal that much of the OT has been copied verbatim from a previous ENGLISH source and will also reveal your dogmatic stance as incorrect.............


Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who said It was wrong....we are just saying that it is not INSPIRED, not the only VALID source of truth, is a TRANSLATION/TRANSLITERATION and does contain translationial errors.....
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Go back and show me where I used the verbiage that it is WRONG because.....and I stand by my post that you reference....I use a Cambridge King JAMES WIDE MARGIN, BLACK LETTER EDITION with BERKSHIRE LEATHER.....and at THE SAME TIME I have no allusions to the absolute truth of my statement below......we have NO lateral RIGHT to change words and or embellish words based upon our religious affiliation so as to twist what was ORIGINALLY inspired by GOD in the HEBREW and or GREEK. It blows my mind that you will sit here and dogmatically defend a translation/transliteration made by 54 Episcopalian priests who taught and believed a lemon twist Catholic dogma practically, one that places the KING or Queen of England as the head of the LORD's CHURCH, claiming they were inspired by GOD, which contradicts God inspiring HOLY MEN while KNOWING full well they TRANSLITERATED words that WOULD contradict the biblical mode of baptism so as not to OFFEND the KING of ENGLAND and lose their heads.....their very PREFACE states clearly that they HAVE COMPARED it to other WORKS and a valid, honest study and acceptance of facts will reveal that much of the OT has been copied verbatim from a previous ENGLISH source and will also reveal your dogmatic stance as incorrect.............


Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who said It was wrong....we are just saying that it is not INSPIRED, not the only VALID source of truth, is a TRANSLATION/TRANSLITERATION and does contain translationial errors.....
I"m sorry I thought you said the KJV was wrong using the word Easter... my bad, I appologize.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
I am 100% certain that was your reasoning the last time this issue came up. I don't accept it as true because it's not supported by the text.

2 Kings 8: [SUP]25 [/SUP]In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22: 1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

It's the same person. The details make it irrefutable. Kings says he was 22, Chronicles says 42.

It's a contradiction, clear and plain, with no room for weaseling, wiggling, or convolutions.
I've answered this so called contradiction of yours before. The answer to this is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God has appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. The information is all there in the texts, you just have to put it together. But it is not an error in the Hebrew texts. A fried of mine did this study and showed me some time ago. The one seeking answers is willing to study and find the truth instead. On the other hand, the Lord will lead the skeptic to an apparent contradiction that will be believed without study.

Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram who "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6.

Likewise in 2 Kings 8:16-18 we read of Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, that "he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB: FOR THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB WAS HIS WIFE: and he did evil in the sight of the LORD."

And of his son Ahaziah, just a few verses later in 2 Kings 8:26-27 we read: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER OF OMRI (father of Ahab) king of Israel. And HE WALKED IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB; FOR HE WAS SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Here we clearly see that Ahaziah is considered by God to be related to the house of Ahab and he walked in the way of the house of Ahab.

In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB."

To repeat, Ahaziah was son-in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And HE WALKED IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son-in-law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old biologically, because his father was only 40 years old when Ahaziah became king (See 2 Chron. 21:20 - 2 Chron. 22:2 ). "Jehoram (the father of Ahaziah) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired...and the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead...Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign". For a man to become a father at the age of 18 is very likely, but for a son to be born two years earlier than his father is not.

The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side.

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father. Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, LIKE AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6.

22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a the youngest and most recent member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab over both Israel and Judah.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram, does not come into consideration because his two year reign was overlapped on both sides by that of his father and of his brother. So the actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is not affected or changed by his two year reign - his first year as co-regent to his father Ahab, and the second by his brother Jehoram, kings of Israel. The actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is 42 years when we finally get to Ahaziah king of Judah, who himself was son in law of the house of Ahab and walked in the evil ways of the house of Ahab.
The two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother.

1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made co-regent and remains in Samaria while his father goes to battle. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel."

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle. So Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign in Samaria. However this same Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.(See 2 Kings 1:2)

2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Ahaziah (Ahab's son) began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

We see that Ahaziah was co-regent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was co-regent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and of his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahaziah.

The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" (including son in law) of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

The central issue in all this is simply - How long was the combined reign of "the house of Ahab" over the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah? The answer is 42 years when Ahaziah began to reign. There is no error in either the Hebrew texts nor in all the Reformation bibles and many others even in modern times that tell us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Can you show the tie of Easter to Ishtar?

Oestern is literally 'goddess of the East'

Astarte was the Goddess of the east referred to.

German has the same relationship to Greek that Spanish has to Latin.

The Teutonic pantheon were also borrowed from the Greek.

Astarte is the same goddess as Artemis of Ephesis or Diana of Rome; all of whom are borrowed from Ishtar of Babylon.

So, while there is no direct etymological tie between Oestern and Ishtar; there is certainly an indirect link.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Do you believe those original writings were inspired?
I certainly do. I believe that God's inspiration does NOT prevent human error; but does prevent human error from compromising His message. The truth of God's Word is NOT dependent on minor clerical errors. They exist without compromising the message.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
There are many contradictions between Samuel and Chronicles.

https://www.scribd.com/document/551...gs-Conflicts-Contradictions-and-Inconsistency

For example: How many years famine is David threatened with?

2 Sam 24 - SEVEN
1 Chr 21 - THREE
2 Samuel 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?

1 Chronicles 21:11-12 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either THREE years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, in the land...

Again, this is really a very simple "contradiction" to solve if one just believes God's word as found in the King James Bible and takes the time to read it carefully.

Only in the book of 2 Samuel are we told in chapter 21:1 "Then there was a famine in the days of David THREE years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

David then, as requested by the Gibeonites, had seven men of the sons of Saul put to death by hanging in "the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of the barley harvest." This couldn't have been much of a harvest because the famine was still in the land. They would then have to wait till next year for a good crop.

Next we read of king David telling Joab to go and number the people of Israel. This census taking seems to have been a vain attempt by David to boast in the power of the flesh. See how strong I am and how many people I command. This was the sin that brought about the threatened judgment of more famine by God.

It is important to see that this numbering of the people took a period of 9 months and 20 days as is noted in 2 Samuel 24:8. "So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days."

So, what we have here is four years of famine that had already preceded the time when Gad comes to David and says in 2 Samuel 24:13 "Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in the land?"

But when we look at 1 Chronicles, there is no mention of the famine that had already been going on before David numbered the people. There in 1 Chronicles we read: "Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee either THREE years' famine: or three months to be destroyed before thy foes...or else three days the sword of LORD, even the pestilence..."

The account in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 gives the verbatim quote of what GOD spoke. It says, “So Gad came to David, and said unto him, THUS SAITH THE LORD, Choose thee either THREE years' famine...”

Thus, it is God who says “three years” in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12. On the other hand, the number, “seven years,” in 2 Samuel 24:13 are the personal words of GAD, and NOT of GOD. It says, “So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come…." If we read 2 Samuel 24:13 carefully, we see that Gad first “told him” (the verbatim words of God as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12) and then “said unto him, Shall seven years….”
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
2 Samuel 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?

1 Chronicles 21:11-12 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either THREE years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, in the land...

Again, this is really a very simple "contradiction" to solve if one just believes God's word as found in the King James Bible and takes the time to read it carefully.

Only in the book of 2 Samuel are we told in chapter 21:1 "Then there was a famine in the days of David THREE years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

David then, as requested by the Gibeonites, had seven men of the sons of Saul put to death by hanging in "the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of the barley harvest." This couldn't have been much of a harvest because the famine was still in the land. They would then have to wait till next year for a good crop.

Next we read of king David telling Joab to go and number the people of Israel. This census taking seems to have been a vain attempt by David to boast in the power of the flesh. See how strong I am and how many people I command. This was the sin that brought about the threatened judgment of more famine by God.

It is important to see that this numbering of the people took a period of 9 months and 20 days as is noted in 2 Samuel 24:8. "So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days."

So, what we have here is four years of famine that had already preceded the time when Gad comes to David and says in 2 Samuel 24:13 "Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in the land?"

But when we look at 1 Chronicles, there is no mention of the famine that had already been going on before David numbered the people. There in 1 Chronicles we read: "Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee either THREE years' famine: or three months to be destroyed before thy foes...or else three days the sword of LORD, even the pestilence..."

The account in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 gives the verbatim quote of what GOD spoke. It says, “So Gad came to David, and said unto him, THUS SAITH THE LORD, Choose thee either THREE years' famine...”

Thus, it is God who says “three years” in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12. On the other hand, the number, “seven years,” in 2 Samuel 24:13 are the personal words of GAD, and NOT of GOD. It says, “So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come…." If we read 2 Samuel 24:13 carefully, we see that Gad first “told him” (the verbatim words of God as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12) and then “said unto him, Shall seven years….”
I am lost in your long elaboration. Can you summarize it to some simple answer?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Oestern is literally 'goddess of the East'

Astarte was the Goddess of the east referred to.

German has the same relationship to Greek that Spanish has to Latin.

The Teutonic pantheon were also borrowed from the Greek.

Astarte is the same goddess as Artemis of Ephesis or Diana of Rome; all of whom are borrowed from Ishtar of Babylon.

So, while there is no direct etymological tie between Oestern and Ishtar; there is certainly an indirect link.
Because the English Anglo/Saxon language originally derived from the Germanic, there are many similarities between German and English. Many English writers have referred to the German language as the "Mother Tongue!" The English word Easter is of German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely claimed. The German equivalent is Oster. Oster (Ostern being the modern day equivalent) is related to Ost which means the rising of the sun, or simply in English, east. Oster comes from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, which means resurrection, which in the older Teutonic form comes from two words, Ester meaning first, and stehen meaning to stand. These two words combine to form erstehen which is an old German form of auferstehen, the modern day German word for resurrection.7(Italics in original)