Too Long in the Sun - Richard Rives - Christmas - Easter - Sunday Rest

Easter - Acts Chapter 12
King James Version

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 that 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.

It is extremely important to consider the fact that Constantine the Great and the Council of Nicaea intentionally changed the Biblically prescribed time for the observance of Passover.

There is no doubt that the date they chose was influenced by the Roman celebrations in honor of the sun gods and goddesses near the time of the vernal equinox.

Nevertheless, the discussion at the time of the council of Nicaea was about setting a new method for calculating the observance of PASSOVER and not some pagan feast day.

A LETTER OF CONSTANTINE

….Constantine, August, to the Churches.

...When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter (Pascha as written in Latin or Greek) it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place...

...And truly, in the first place, it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches, having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds...

...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.

...For what can they rightly understand, who , after the tragical death of our Lord, being deluded and darkened in their minds, are carried away by an unrestrained impulsewherever their inborn madness may impel them...

...it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord;

...it should be considered that any dissension in a business of such importance, and in a religious institution of so great solemnity, would be highly criminal...

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?

Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certainof 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.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

It has been said by some, attempting to defend the King James translators, that the day of passover was over and that the 7 day feast of unleavened bread, which was being celebrated at that time, was not actually passover.

They say that Herod was waiting until after a Roman festival day in honor of a pagan goddess before bringing Peter forth to the people.

Some say that the King James translators were justified to use the name of a pagan goddess from their own time period (EASTER).

USE THE ARROW BELOW TO CONTINUE
TO THE NEXT PAGE OF THE ARTICLE

WHAT DOES HISTORY PROVE?
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

WHAT DOES

THE BIBLE TEACH ?

Luke 22:1

...the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,

which is called the Passover.

THERE IS

NO BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

TO SEPARATE THE DAY OF PASSOVER

FROM THE FEASTOF UNLEAVENED BREAD

IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE WORD PASSOVER

Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certainof 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.)

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter (SEE THE INFORMATION BELOW) to bring him forth to the people.

THE FIRST ENGLISH

BIBLES DID NOT USE THE WORD EASTER

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.

Up until that time, those reading the Bible in Greek, Latin, German and other lanquages read the words that conveyed the meaning “Passover”

Was the Bible wrong

for over 1000 years ?

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.

GAIUS CALIGULA

the grandson of Caesar Augustus wanted to place a statue of himself in the character of Jupiter in the temple in Jerusalem.

Agrippa, who had become a friend of Caligula, passed out when he heard what Caligula wanted to do. He had to be carried to his palace, where it was thought that he would die.

Gaius Caligula when hearing of Agrippa’s reaction made the following statement:

“If Agrippa, who is my most intimate and dearest friend, and one bound to me by so many benefits, is so completely under the influence of his national customs that he cannot bear even to hear a word against them, but faints away to such a degree as to be near dying, what must one expect

will be the feelings of others…”

After recovering, Agrippa made an appeal

for Caligula not to defile the temple:

In all men, O emperor! a love of their country is innate, and an eger for their national customs and laws...

And I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which is erected the holy temple of the most high God. And I have kings for my grandfathers and for my ancestors, the greater part of whom have been called high priests… Accordingly I, being one of this nation, and being attached to this country and to such a temple, address to you this petition...

......Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, (263-279...)
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?

There is no justification for the use of the word Easter in the Bible

COMMON SENSE MUST NOT BE ABANDONED

IN DEFENSE OF

THE KING JAMES
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.