Why is it called Easter then?

lexhamfox on December 2, 2008 at 11:23 PM

“Easter” is used in the old King James version of scripture. The newer versions, like New King James and NASB, etc use the more correct Passover. The 1611 King James translators chose “Easter” because much of Europe was still practicing paganism. The festival of Oester and Passover occur at approximately the same time. Therefore, the 1611 translators used Easter so the people would understand.
For the same reason the 1611 King James translators used the word “whale” in Jonah when the Hebrew is “dag” or fish. They took the biggest thing they could think of that swims and used the name of that creature. When Jesus talked about Jonah and the fish, he used the Greek word “ketos” translated as “whale” but in the Greek actually means “sea monster. Again, the KJV translators used the word “whale” for clarification. Btw – the newer KJV’s dont have whale but fish and neither do they have “easter” but “passover.” Also remember, the 1611 KJ translators did not have access to the older and more accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that translators have access to today.

abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Contrary to your presumption that Easter must be the wrong translation, please read the context of the passage. Israel of the time was occupied by the Romans who celebrated Easter, even though the Jews celebrated Passover. They typically occur fairly close together.

It’s not immediately apparent from the context whether Herod was waiting until after Easter or after the passover. In fact, he could very well have been waiting for both to pass. The presumption that Easter must be a bad translation is questionable.

As for the whole dispute about “whale” and “fish,” you’re presuming a semantic precision that the ancient world did not share. In the ancient world, a whale was considered a fish. And why not? Both swim, both live in the ocean, both are superficially the same.

The distinction between whale and fish because the whale is actually a mammal would not have existed prior to the development of modern biology. It’s a mistake to think the earlier usage was wrong simply because the modern usage has changed.

BTW, “older” manuscripts are not necessarily “more accurate” manuscripts. There are no original manuscripts left. The oldest ones available are still copies of even older ones. Just because one manuscript is older than another manuscript does not necessarily mean it is a better copy. It may well be that the older manuscript is different because those who were making new manuscripts didn’t consider it to be an accurate copy.

It’s not part of the DSS, it’s a section of St. John. If this is what I was thinking of, it’s not as old as I thought.

Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Yeah, that’s the fragment right2bright pointed out for me. It’s around 130 AD, and it’s definitely New Testament. It’s plenty old enough; as right2 pointed out, for a written document like that composed in Palestine to make it to a library in Egypt by 130 AD suggests that it must have been written at the latest by around 90 AD, which shoots down all the really late dates for John’s gospel.

Some Christian apologists I know seem to think that a set of Greek-character fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls may be fragments from Mark’s gospel, which would put a written copy of one of the gospels in the mid-50s. Now, that would be a major coup, indeed. Problem is, all the fragments in the set fit neatly onto a single page of a scroll from 2nd Esdras, so they’re probably not from Mark’s gospel after all. Darn.

The late dates are bunk, anyhow. The main reason critics like to put the gospels so late is that the fall of Jerusalem is predicted by Jesus in the Synoptics. I understand the impulse to say “That means they had to have been written after the fall of Jerusalem,” but that presupposes there’s no such thing as prophecy. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption if you’re reading Suetonius or Pliny the Younger, but to assume that about Jesus of Nazareth is circular; after all, part of what we’re trying to determine by scholarship is whether he really was a prophet, or not.

But you called them “pathetic,” blames them for “destroying the country” and asserted that they’ve “taken away your rights,” which seems to me simply like you’re agitated that they don’t accept your system of beliefs. Yes?

apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 5:26 PM

No. I’m not agitated that atheists don’t accept my system of beliefs. They can believe whatever they want. Believe whatever you want! Just don’t infringe on my rights. Don’t lie to get your way. Atheists refuse to accept America’s Christian heritage. They are an embarrassment to the Founders of this great nation. Atheist slogan: “Atheism and Christianity don’t mix, so Christianity has to go.” Yeah, that is pathetic. Yeah, they are taking away Christian rights. Yeah, that is destroying what Christians built. Yeah, that is ruining the nation.

Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM

I responded to your post LT. It hasn’t gone through yet though. Let’s see if it does.

That assumes that the drowning person believes in water. ;-p

And the thing is, no matter how sincerely they believe the water does not exist they will still drown!

IF you are drowning and someone throws you a lifesaver and shouts, “take it or you will die!” – surely you would not reply with “are you threatening me?’”

That assumes that the drowning person believes in water. ;-p

We were ALL headed for death. It is more accurate to say BELIEVE and LIVE.

IF you are drowning and someone throws you a lifesaver and shouts, “take it or you will die!” – surely you would not reply with “are you threatening me?’”

Second, you left out the first part of that Romans verse, which likens homosexuality to behaviors “deserving of death:”

What is your point? I left this out because they are no worse then the rest of us. We are all in the same boat.

Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I agree. The prophets who were given glimpses of Eternity simply used the language available to them to describe the indescribable. Gehenna, literally the Hinnom Valley, which was Jerusalm city dump. Not a nice place to be.

Remember Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man? “Can’t you send me back to warn my brother?” the rich man in Hell said to Lazarus, in Heaven. Lazarus replied, “If he doesn’t believe Moses and the prophets, he won’t believe even if a man comes back from the grave.”

How sadly true that is, even today.

First of all, being insolent, arrogant and boastul do not warrant DEATH. Neither does envy, gossip, or hating God. Murder?

No, they do not warrant death, they cause it – spiritual death.

Literal definition of sin = missed the mark

One cannot fully align with the Divine Uncreated Energies of God if one is pursuing selfishnesss, pride and other sins.

Sin is the misuse of one’s energies.

It leads to death.

skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Honestly, the way I see it is this:

Humans gravitate towards sin as a part of their nature and because of this, they don’t want to be in God’s presence, as doing so and sinning become uncomfortable.

So, on Earth we have a choice. We can either continue living without God, or we can decide to live with God.

Those who decide to live without God, are granted that wish and are sent to the only place where God is not. The pain felt in hell is simply what people feel when they are completely separated from God. It’s not punishment. It just is.

The pleasure in heaven is likewise derived entirely from God.

It is a choice, and it’s the only real choice people have ever been given.

ALL OF US are deserving of eternal separation from God. “Like sheep, we ALL have gone astray, each to hsi own path.” NONE of us deserve to be in God’s presence, because NONE of us is perfectly holy.

It’s not that God is mean or vengeful, it’s just that He is holy. We unholy, rebellious sinners – that’s ALL of us – can no more be in God’s presence than an ice cube can get anywhere close to the sun. God’s very nature obliterates unholiness, and that means us.

But since God is also perfectly merciful, he provided a way out – Jesus. As he hung on the cross, “He who knew no sin became sin for our sake” – Jesus took on himself the separation from God that we could not endure. The perfectly obedient Son who “was with God in the beginning,” who called the Creator of the Universe “Abba” (which is like “Papa” or “Daddy”), saw His Father turn away in disgust. Jesus then cried out in a quotation from Ps 22 (a powerful preview of the Suffering Servant): “My God, why have you forsaken me?”

And then he said, “It is finished,” and died. At that moment, the debt that we owed was marked “paid in full.”

“He was pierced for our transgressions, On him was laid the iniquity of us all; by his wounds we are healed.”

Why does an unbeliever deserve death and eternal torment? How is that “moral?”

it’s not that they “deserve death” because of their actions..

it’s that christ is LIFE and without Him there is no life, only death.

It is the sin and pride that separates one from Him.

“I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE!”

Jesus Christ

Why does an unbeliever deserve death and eternal torment?

That’s not possible. One cannot be dead and receive ETERNAL torment.

For the believer in God the eternal consequences to the unbeliever are far greater to the unbeliever then vice versa.

Why does an unbeliever deserve death and eternal torment? How is that “moral?”

Sounds like a threat rather than a blessing. Compulsory love, as it were.

You’re given the choice of BELIEVE OR ELSE. That’s a threat, not a choice.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:29-32)

See yourself in there? I do. People go to hell for who they are, not because they don’t “accept our beliefs”

.First of all, being insolent, arrogant and boastul do not warrant DEATH. Neither does envy, gossip, or hating God. Murder? Sure, but Hammurabi and others had that one figured out long before it was written in Romans.

Second, you left out the first part of that Romans verse, which likens homosexuality to behaviors “deserving of death:”

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Nice, huh?

jman – that’s Pascal’s Wager you quoted.

If God is not real, but you live as though He is, You gain nothing.
If God is not real, and you live as though He is not real, You lose nothing.
If God is real, and you live as though He is, You gain everything.
If God is real, but you live as though He is not real, You lose everything.

Or as a buddy of mine put it years ago, “Sure they’re crazy. But what if they’re right?” :-)

See, folks, the issue is NOT that “we think you’re gonna burn in Hell for not believing what we believe.” It’s that WE ALL are in the same Hell-bound handbasket. The only difference between us is that we know where the exit sign is, and we’re trying to tell the rest of you.

True the atheists that spend their time trying to convince you that “god” does exist are much more profitable.

LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM

For the believer in God the eternal consequences to the unbeliever are far greater to the unbeliever then vice versa.

Not believing in anything bears no eternal consequences if there really is nothing is there. Conversely, if the Christian God is real, then so is his message.

I’ll never understand why an atheist would waste one second of his life trying to convince people that God doesn’t exist. If I was convinced that there was no such person as God I’m pretty sure I could find better things to do with my time.

dave264 on December 2, 2008 at 11:54 PM

True the atheists that spend their time trying to convince you that “god” does exist are much more profitable.

They will burn forever if they don’t accept your beliefs? That kind of rhetoric appears as ridiculous to atheists as their challenges to the veracity of Biblical history appears to you.

I do not believe Christians are any better than anyone else. As a whole, Christians are honest about our spiritual condition and recognize our need for a savior.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:29-32)

See yourself in there? I do. People go to hell for who they are, not because they don’t “accept our beliefs”

RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Why just focus on Jesus? The menorah is there as well.

Honestly, I don’t see why not. We shouldn’t be picking out any one belief, but that doesn’t we can’t pick them all. I really don’t understand the problem with inclusion.

What’s baby Jesus doing at city hall? This whole thing is like the Gulf of Tonkin for the War on Christmas. My heart’s not really into defending the Olympia Atheist Association and Bridge Club (or whoever), so I’m just going to leave it at that.