A COMMON SENSE INVESTIGATION
PREFACE
The King James version of the Bible is an excellent translation. It is based on thousands of manuscripts that agree with each other, rather than on the corrupt manuscripts, which are the basis of most modern versions of the Bible.
In my opinion, it is the best, widely available, English version of the scriptures. It is the English translation that I use and that I recommend to others.
However, IT IS NOT PERFECT.
Few people know that the translators of the King James version of the Bible were working under constraints.
The translators had to agree to certain rules. One of which was that the names used in earlier English versions of the Bible were not to be changed. The translation, or transliteration of many proper names used in the King James version are easily proven to be far from the actual names of Biblical Characters.
In addition, King James translators were required not to change many disputed words. One example is the fact that the word “church,” based on the Old English word “cirice” (the house of a god) could not be changed to the word “congregation” (an assembly of believers). Because of that, many people today, when the scriptures are speaking of “the body of Christ” think that it is referring to a place that one goes.
There are many well meaning people, knowing of the corruptions in the modern versions of the Bible, who insist that the King James version of the Bible is perfect.
Not having had the opportunity to examine all of the details regarding the translation, they add fuel to the fire of those attempting to discredit the King James version of the Bible. Through the selection of isolated instances, easily proven to have minor imperfections, those who would like to set aside the King James attempt to make King James only advocates, who say that it is perfect, look foolish. In many instances they have successfully done so; persuading many that adherence to the time tested King version is totally unfounded. THIS IS TRAGIC !
The King James version must be defended only to the extent that it can be defended; not allowing others to make it’s advocates look foolish, for it is the best widely available English version of the scriptures that we have.
SHOULD THE USE OF THE WORD EASTER
AS WRITTEN IN ACTS 12: 4
BE DEFENDED?
In the year 325 A.D. the Council of Nicaea attempted to change the date for the observance of PASSOVER! Although the Biblically prescribed times for Passover can never be changed, a festival observed on the date set by the council of Nicaea is now observed under the name of a pagan fertility goddess, EASTER.
The word Easter, nor any other pagan title, was used by the council of Nicaea. The Hebrew word for passover, as written in the transcripts of the Nicaean council, was not translated. The word for passover was transliterated: The Hebrew letters were written using the corresponding Latin or Greek alphabet characters, so the the word would be pronounced in a similar way.
A LETTER OF CONSTANTINE
…It is fit, therefore, that rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order… Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.
PAGANIZED PASSOVER
Many modern day “Christians” suppose that Easter as observed on the dates set you the council of Nicaea was a “Christain” feast, separate from the “Jewish” feast of Passover. Many think that the Jews observed Passover and that the Christians observed Easter.
That is not true. In 325 A.D. the Council of Nicaea invented their own “Paganized Passover” which is now known as Easter.
The inclusion of the name of the pagan sun goddess Easter in the King James Version of the Bible has caused millions of unsuspecting believers to disregard the Biblical feast of Passover, and, instead follow the inventions of men.
CAN THERE BE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF THE WORD “EASTER” IN THE BIBLE?
USE THE ARROW BELOW TO CONTINUE
TO THE NEXT PAGE OF THE ARTICLE WHAT DOES HISTORY PROVE?
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
The translation of the Greek word for Passover
as the name of a pagan fertility goddess
did not originate with the King James translators.
Martin Luther was the first translator to substitute
the name of a pagan goddess for the Greek
word for Passover.
Ostern was the Germanic
equivalent of the Celtic goddess Eostra or Easter.
THE ROMAN CALENDAR
WAS NOT USED
IN ALL PARTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
The Calendar of Rome was not used in Judaea
until at least the year A.D. 70
Even after A.D. 70 there is no evidence that the Roman Calendar was used in Palestine
Greek cities did not use the Roman Calendar as late as 200 A.D.
WHAT ABOUT HEROD?
WOULD HE HAVE BEEN OBSERVING A PAGAN CELEBRATION
IN JERUSALEM ?
Herod the Great was the son of Antipater, an Edomite, and his mother was Nabataean.
Although Herod was of Arab origin, on both sides, history records that he was a practicing Jew.
He is known for the temple known as Herod’s Temple, the temple in Jerusalem at the time of Christ.
Herod divorced his first wife and married Mariame, a Hasmonean princess.
MIRIAME
SECOND WIFE OF HEROD THE GREAT
was a Hasmonean Princess from a priestly family of Jewish leaders known as
“The Hasmoneans”
Hasmoneans derived their name from “Hasidim” – “faithful” and were the forerunners of the Pharisees.
After recovering, Agrippa made an appeal
In all men, O emperor! a love of their country is innate, and an eger for their national customs and laws…
Additional Info: ……Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18,8
Would Agrippa, “A PRACTICING JEW” zealous to prevent idolatry from being associated with the true worship of “the most high God,” have had any interest in observing a pagan celebration, before bringing Peter before the people of Jerusalem?
TRANSLATION
The King James version of the Bible is an excellent translation. It is based on thousands of manuscripts that agree with each other, rather than on the corrupt manuscripts, which are the basis of most of the modern versions of the Bible.
In my opinion, it is the best, widely available, English version of the scriptures. It is the English translation that I use and that I recommend to others. However, it is not perfect.
Few people know that the translators of the King James version of the Bible were working under constraints. The translators had to agree to certain rules. One of which was that the names used in earlier English versions of the Bible were not to be changed. The translation or transliteration of many proper names used in the King James version are easily proven to be far from the actual names of Biblical characters.In addition, King James translators were required not to change many disputed words. One example is the fact that the word “church,” based on the Old English word “cirice” (the house of a god) could not be changed to the word “congregation” (an assembly of believers). Because of that, many people today, when the scriptures are speaking of “the body of Christ” think that it is referring to a place that one goes.
There are many well meaning people, knowing of the corruption in the modern versions of the Bible, who insist that the King James version of the Bible is perfect. Not having had the opportunity to examine the all of the details regarding the translation, they add fuel to the fire of those attempting to discredit the King James version of the Bible. Through the selection of isolated instances, easily proven to have minor imperfections, those who would like to set aside the King James attempt to make King James advocates, who say that it is perfect, look foolish. In many instances they have successfully done so; persuading many that adherence to the time tested King James version is totally unfounded.
This is tragic.The King James version must be defended only to the extent that it can be defended, not allowing others to make it’s advocates look foolish; for it is the best widely available English version of the scriptures that we have.
One thought on “Easter – Acts Chapter 12 King James Version, a common sense investigation”