Acts 12:4 and Critical Text master scholars

It used to be that scholars knew something of language and literature. Not today of course. Ebonics and comic books are more the fare in modern day institutions of higher learning.

Whenever a Critical Text scholar would triumphantly bring up the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4 as 'proof' that God does not preserve his Words and further that we must all resort to the authority and word of man (scholars, Pope, whatever) rather than God I would direct them to a page such as this, but in the back of my mind I knew I was conceding some ground to the devil's waterboys (sorry if that is strong phrase, but we are talking about the Word of God itself) by doing that (which is difficult to not do at times, their onslaught against God's people is never-ending and attrition sneaks in until God's own, at intervals, have to step back to re-survey the environment and get things back on keel, and this will happen until the return of the King).

Here is a much better page to instruct the 'scholars' and Jesuits and anybody else out there (not that the brandplucked page linked above is not good, it is excellent as usual). And here is an article that apparantly the others drew from that hits all the necessary points.

You see that Easter, or ester, is an old Anglo-Saxon word which actually means passover (to use Tyndale's coinage), and the one place it is used in the New Testament is the one place (of 29) where the passover reference is not to the Old Testament but to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Surprise, surprise, in the refining process the AV 1611 got it exactly right.

Leaving the 'scholars' to mock and rage... They've, though, always got their comic books that their professors have told them are the equal of the Homeric epics and the 19th century novel, and they've, of course, still got their liberal reference sources for their language studies... Not to mention See It and Say It in Biblical Greek! which earns them, once through, a Ph.D. nowadays, and gives them standing to mock the translators of the Authorized Version who...were actual scholars...and believers...

ps- To make it simple: there are two English words for 'pascha', 1) Easter, and 2) passover. The former was adopted from the Anglo-Saxon (and was used for 'pascha' in the earliest English translations of the Word of God; the latter was a coinage by William Tyndale. Modern scholars don't understand that both English words mean 'pascha'. Easter doesn't mean anything other than 'pascha'. It doesn't mean "fertile love goddess with bunny attendants and fertility egg paraphanalia who appears in the spring all naked and shameless." Easter is an English word borrowed from the old Anglo-Saxon to mean 'pascha.' Just as passover is in its case a coined English word (by Tyndale) to mean the same thing. The translators of the AV 1611 had two English words with which to render 'pascha' in the New Testament. They chose Easter in Acts 12:4 solely because Jesus had already died and resurrected in Acts 12:4, unlike in all the other 28 references to 'pascha' in the New Testament. (It's OK, modern scholars, you can trust the received traditional text Word of God and the great Reformation era translations made from it. It's OK. Unless you are being consciously mischievous in which case have fun...while your so-called fun lasts...)