Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation

[VictoryinJesus]

I agree that there are references to doctrine in the Bible.
Even then, are they not open to interpretation? Which makes them a man-made doctrine.
Especially when doctrinal interpretations may differ. Who can see with any certainty what the intent was?

I get the sense that we are talking about two different things.
This topic is about the Doctrine of Preservation not the doctrine of perseverance. (whatever that is)
But perhaps you typed perseverance when you meant Preservation. Not sure.

Here's the definition from the article again.

"... the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”)."

/

Opps I confused those two words. I thought you said “perseverance” but isn’t preservation the same as to persevere? I mean to Preserve”?

Yep I confused those two words. Lol. Forget what I wrote then, as it’s another topic.

 

[St. SteVen]

Opps I confused those two words. I thought you said “perseverance” but isn’t preservation the same as to persevere? I mean to Preserve”?

Yep I confused those two words. Lol. Forget what I wrote then, as it’s another topic.

No worries.
I'm not too concerned about staying on topic at this point.
If you want to continue to discuss whether doctrine is man-made or God-made, we can do that.
Or which ever direction you want to go at this point.

If you want to talk about the Doctrine of Preservation,
I would ask that you read the opening posts first. Thanks.

/

 

[Ghada]

Do you understand what Textual Criticism is?

Yes. ALl books of men are subject to textual error and correction. Not the Book of God.

I have learned that any objects to God's words, always end of avoiding God's commandments.

The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.

It's trying to appear not to correct the Bible to fit one's own doctrine of life, by playing original language and manuscript games.

If someone has to be a linguist and manuscript 'scholar', in order to know the truth of Jesus' salvation and sanctification in this life, or we must rely on such brainy gurus, then let's through out all translated books, and just hear with the real brighties in the room have to
declare.

My faith in God and Jesus Christ is founded on the Bible and every word in it agreeing wholly and perfectly together. And my faith is not confined to all the prophetic and apostolic words being preserved blameless, but also in being translated accurately, so that any child can read the Bible in their own language to be convinced to repent and believe on the Lord unto salvation and everlasting resurrection from the dead.

One of the neatest little tricks of diversion with God's words, is to dive into the Greek and surface with something entirely different to the simple English, Spanish, Russian, German, etc...

Ex: The created christ believers dive underneath the Word was God, to surface with Greeky smarts to say the Word was not God. or the word was a god.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote.

Of course not. Nor are the oracles of God preserved in the original ink and paper of any prophet of old.

God's words are still preserved perfectly in tact on new paper, as they were on old. God's power is not about preserving pen and paper, but keeping His all words the same as first given.

Well, you get the idea.

Yes, God's omnipotence and omnipresence has certainly ensured we're not needing to trust in pen and paper, but in His power to keep His words whole and complete and sanctified from the books, philosophies, religions, and fables of men.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes who did the copying occasionally made some mistakes.

Very convenient for anyone wanting to determine what parts of the Bible are mistaken, and are more than glad to provide their own personally great corrections for it.

My faith in the Bible being perfectly sound and true from God, is based upon my faith in the God of the Bible, being the true God and Lord of heaven and earth. Your lack of faith is not mine.

This is why I don't bother arguing with people about Bible doctrine, when they run to original languages and manuscript arguments. It's based on the unbelief in all the Bible, that you express here.

God has already proved to me, that His Book is perfectly whole and unified without contradiction nor error. Such a perfect work is impossible for so many men to do over thousands of years, by their own skill and intelligence alone.

It is the Bible itself that proved to me there is a God in heaven. The One inspiring all those men perfectly the same.

When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is (unsurprisingly) called a “Textual Variant”.

My Bible in English does not disagree with itself on any page nor in any words. As I've said, my faith is to trust in God's power to hand me one Book in my own language, that proves God is in heaven, and all His words are true.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Clever, right?

Too clever by far.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Faith in God and use of His reason is sufficient to perfectly know His doctrine and gospel of salvation and resurrection unto life, in our own native language.

The Bible I have is finished. It needs no tinkering with, nor do I allow anyone to tinker with it to me. If someone cannot prove their teaching and prophecy in my own English, then I'm not interested. That is why I only use the English of my Bible to teach anything from God.

 

[Ghada]

Do you understand what Textual Criticism is?

Textual Criticism is:



The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…

Well, you get the idea.

So what we have are copies of copies of the original (sometimes many generations of copying deep). Before Gutenberg invented the printing press in the early-mid 1400s, everything was copied by hand. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes who did the copying occasionally made some mistakes.

When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is (unsurprisingly) called a “Textual Variant”.

Clever, right?

Source:

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot


/

The one glaring thing missing in all this 'debunking', is any proof that my Bible has any error or constraidction in it. Without that, the whole 'debunking' argument debunks there is any need to go to the Greek or play with manuscripts, in order to know for certain which are god's words and which are mistakes.

I'm more than glad to accept any such challenge to my Bible's perfect integrity between any verse with another.

Until then, you're just another person that doesn't like all that the Bible says, and wants to change it to your own personal liking.

 

[St. SteVen]

The one glaring thing missing in all this 'debunking', is any proof that my Bible has any error or constraidction in it. Without that, the whole 'debunking' argument debunks there is any need to go to the Greek or play with manuscripts, in order to know for certain which are god's words and which are mistakes.

Isn't that a contradictory statement?
What does "... in order to know for certain which are god's words and which are mistakes." mean?
I thought you were claiming no mistakes.

The word "Easter" is in the KJV of the Bible. Is that God's word or humankind's mistake?
It should say Passover.

Acts 12:4 KJV
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.

/

 

[Ghada]

Isn't that a contradictory statement?

What? to demand to see any challenges to the Bible, that some people would say contradicts itself?

If you don't know of any self-contradictions and errors within the Bible itself, then why question the integrity of the words, as though not all coming from God Himself?

Or are you suggesting something else in doubting the 'preservation' of all God's words today in His Book?

 

[Ghada]

What does "... in order to know for certain which are god's words and which are mistakes." mean?

I'll try again. We can perfect our learning the true doctrine of the Bible, by correcting errors made with the Bible. By exercising discipline with the Bible to make an accurate correction of errors, we learn more exactly what God is in fact saying.

The Spirit guiding believers into all truth, is guiding us into all the truth of the Bible. Part of that guidance is by the necessity of perfectly correcting errors by the Bible's exact words.

It helps us to be less sloppy with what God's words, by compelling us to make an honest correction of errors.

Ex: I once believed that God now makes man with lust and sin in us from the womb (which at face value is an obvious lie and accusation against Christ our Maker), by passing lust and sin into our bodies through a so-called sinful seed of 'Adam'. I also believed the Scripture for it was that "sin passed upon us, and by sin, death".

So When I saw a fair challenge to the whole Christian tradition and lie of 'man born with sin nature to sin", I went to look at the verse myself, and lo and behold, I realized that's not what it's saying at all. Instead, Rom 5:12 says that sin enters into the world by man sinning, not that sin passes upon man by being born with it. And it's the death to God that actually passes upon a man by sinning and dying to God. And only because all men have sinned, have all men died to God in this life, save one.

And so I was greatly corrected in the exact teaching of the Bible, by having my own error challenged and rightly rejected. I have since also learned that some Christians don't really believe all the words of the Bible as written, if any words disrupt their most favorite pet teachings and traditions. They prefer to believe a lie to convince themselves that the Bible is saying what they want to think the Bible says. This is how some readers want God to agree with them, lest we must change to agree with God.

This is especially true when any comfort blanket for continued sinning would be yanked away from their eyes, and they would know the commandment of God is true, that we must first repent of sinning, in order to receive the promised NT saving faith, pure heart, and life lived with Jesus Christ.

And yet some of the unrepented Christian sinners trust entirely in their doctrinal tradition and lie, that man is born with lust and sin, so that all men must sin, and shall do so from cradle to grave. They therefore declare it is impossible for any man (like themselves) to repent of all sinning and walk in all holiness as Jesus walked. And, no matter how many times I quote the Scripture to them, they still keep their justifying veil over their eyes, and seal to their own consciences, that lust and sin passes upon all men from 'sinful' seed of man.

I thought you were claiming no mistakes.

Just like Bible discipline, if you'd like to quote any of my words making you think that, then we can look at it together. This is why sound correction is good. It exercises us in being more perfectly clear about what we say as well as what the Bible really says.

The word "Easter" is in the KJV of the Bible. Is that God's word or humankind's mistake?
It should say Passover.

It's a Christian tradition translated into the Bible.

When I say the Bible is God's unerring Book of His own words, I'm certainly not talking about translations made from those unerring words.

However, we ought understand the difference between harmless translations, that are not exactly correct, and wicked translations meant solely to corrupt the words and doctrine of God.

That's why some false teachers go to the Greek and Hebrew for that very purpose. It's especially true with some going to 'manuscript arguments', in order to throw our whole verses of the Bible, that disagrees with their personal traditions and lies. It's all just the mechanical means and games with words, that fulfill the rebuke of Jesus to blind guides:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The unbelieving Jews did it to Jesus Himself.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And the unbelieving Christians do it to the doctrine of Christ Himself. They do it on purpose in order to change the commandment and doctrine of God into something more acceptable to their sinful living, so as to soothe their defiled consciences with commandments from their christ to keep sinning.

That's the case when someone wants to believe their christ made them sinners from the womb, and cannot cease sinning unto the grave. By nature, they preach a christ that makes all men sinners at the start, so that they must continue sinning unto the end.

That of course is not Jesus Christ nor His doctrine and commandment in the Bible to repent and go sin no more. The only christ making men sinful from the womb, is another christ called the god of this world. Now he just loves it if men were sinners from the womb and especially if all men would sin more and more unto the grave.

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls:

Acts 12:4 KJV
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.

/

Ok, you can translate the true words of God more accurately and say, "intending after the Passover to bring him..."

Since it doesn't change the doctrine of God, then it's no biggy to me.

Once again, I argue for the preserved exact words God has given to all His prophets and apostles, not any specific trasnlation. However, God has ensured His exact doctrine of repentance unto salvation, justification, righteous living, and resurrection from the dead unto everlasting life, has indeed been properly translated into all languages of men, so that any child can read, understand, believe, and do the words of God in Christ Jesus.

The very idea of needing to 'wait', until we are linguists and manuscript scholars to hear, repent, and do the word of the Lord, is of course absurd.

Theirs a longtime ongoing argument among Muslims that say all Muslims must learn to read Mohamet in the 'original' Arab, in order to understand his words and become a 'real' Muslim. They may be true and matters not, since all such religions are doomed with failure in the end. Such an argument ought not be made in Christianity with God's Bible.

 

[The Learner]

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled,
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Source link provided at the bottom of this post.

I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation​

Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, let’s take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).

Psalm 12:6-7​

The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.



Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.

Notice: it’s singular:



Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.



God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.

Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.

So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.

Psalms 100:5​

I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:



So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.

Psalm 117:1-2​

Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.



The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:



Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translate it as “faithfulness” or something similar.

Psalms 119:160​

You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.



Clearly, it’s the judgements that are enduring, not “the word”.

CONTINUED IN POST#2



Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

what is Preservation?

 

[St. SteVen]

what is Preservation?

Did God Preserve the Scriptures Perfectly in All Ages?​

This is the issue for the Confessional Position. Like most Christians, they affirm that the original text of scripture in the original language – as penned by the original authors – is completely without error. However, the Confessional Position argues that it doesn’t matter if God inspired the Scriptures if He didn’t preserve them too.

They argue that “any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”.

There’s a certain sense where this is true, but in practice it simply doesn’t matter.

For example. I’m writing this paragraph very early in the morning. My wife didn’t sleep very well last night so she’s still in bed… or is she? There’s a closed door between us (so I don’t’ disturb her sleep) so I can’t actually see her in bed. There’s a window in our bedroom she could’ve climbed out of. I haven’t heard a sound from the bedroom, but perhaps she suddenly learned how to be ninja-quiet? So who’s to say that my wife isn’t running around town in her Pajamas? (Even though it snowed last night and she wouldn’t be caught dead outside our apartment in her pajamas) I mean, it’s possible… Right?

“Any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”… Right?

Regardless, that is the Confessional Position. Again, it takes its name from a “confession of faith”. The most commonly cited confession of faith from Confessional Position Christians is the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith & The Doctrine of Preservation​

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

This is the basic view held by the Confessional Position. This is the essence of what’s called the “Doctrine of Preservation”. The idea that God – through His power and wisdom – perfectly preserved the scriptures for faithful Christians to use in all ages.

I have yet to hear of a person who holds the Confessional Position who doesn’t chose the “Textus Receptus” as the text that was “kept pure in all ages”. As this is the text chosen by the Confessional Position, it obviously bears some looking at.

Source

/

 

[doctrox]

Regarding the Easter/Passover issue:

When we come to the Authorized Version, there remained but one instance of the word "Easter" -- Acts 12:4.

It is precisely in this one passage that "Easter" must be used, and the translation "Passover" would have conflicted with the immediate context. In their rush to accuse the Authorized Version of error, many have not taken the time to consider what the passage actually says:

....(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

To begin with, the Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread, not after!

And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. (Number 28:16-17). See also Mark 14:12, I Cor. 5:7-8, etc.

Herod put Peter in prison during the days of unleavened bread , and therefore after the Passover. The argument that the translation "Passover" should have been used as it is intended to refer to the entire period, is ruled out by the inclusion of "these were the days of unleavened bread." Scripture does not use the word "Passover" to refer to the entire period.

 

[The Learner]

Did God Preserve the Scriptures Perfectly in All Ages?​

This is the issue for the Confessional Position. Like most Christians, they affirm that the original text of scripture in the original language – as penned by the original authors – is completely without error. However, the Confessional Position argues that it doesn’t matter if God inspired the Scriptures if He didn’t preserve them too.

They argue that “any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”.

There’s a certain sense where this is true, but in practice it simply doesn’t matter.

For example. I’m writing this paragraph very early in the morning. My wife didn’t sleep very well last night so she’s still in bed… or is she? There’s a closed door between us (so I don’t’ disturb her sleep) so I can’t actually see her in bed. There’s a window in our bedroom she could’ve climbed out of. I haven’t heard a sound from the bedroom, but perhaps she suddenly learned how to be ninja-quiet? So who’s to say that my wife isn’t running around town in her Pajamas? (Even though it snowed last night and she wouldn’t be caught dead outside our apartment in her pajamas) I mean, it’s possible… Right?

“Any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty”… Right?

Regardless, that is the Confessional Position. Again, it takes its name from a “confession of faith”. The most commonly cited confession of faith from Confessional Position Christians is the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith & The Doctrine of Preservation​

This is the basic view held by the Confessional Position. This is the essence of what’s called the “Doctrine of Preservation”. The idea that God – through His power and wisdom – perfectly preserved the scriptures for faithful Christians to use in all ages.

I have yet to hear of a person who holds the Confessional Position who doesn’t chose the “Textus Receptus” as the text that was “kept pure in all ages”. As this is the text chosen by the Confessional Position, it obviously bears some looking at.

Source

/

thank you friend

 

[quietthinker]

Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation​

I knew it! ....those mushrooms I had in the fridge for a month didn't believe in it.

 

[St. SteVen]

Regarding the Easter/Passover issue:

When we come to the Authorized Version, there remained but one instance of the word "Easter" -- Acts 12:4.

It is precisely in this one passage that "Easter" must be used, and the translation "Passover" would have conflicted with the immediate context. In their rush to accuse the Authorized Version of error, many have not taken the time to consider what the passage actually says:

....(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

To begin with, the Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread, not after!

And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. (Number 28:16-17). See also Mark 14:12, I Cor. 5:7-8, etc.

Herod put Peter in prison during the days of unleavened bread , and therefore after the Passover. The argument that the translation "Passover" should have been used as it is intended to refer to the entire period, is ruled out by the inclusion of "these were the days of unleavened bread." Scripture does not use the word "Passover" to refer to the entire period.​

Thanks for your post.
I don't think the NT Greek supports your conclusions.


The Greek reads "pascha".

​

◄ 3957. pascha ►​

​

Strong's Concordance pascha: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb Original Word: πάσχα, τό Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable) Transliteration: pascha Phonetic Spelling: (pas'-khah) Definition: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb Usage: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb.​

/ cc: @The Learner

 

[St. SteVen]

Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation​

I knew it! ....those mushrooms I had in the fridge for a month didn't believe in it.

Must have been some good mushrooms. Welcome back. - LOL

/

 

[doctrox]

Thanks for your post.
I don't think the NT Greek supports your conclusions.

Allow me to clarify any misunderstanding.

You may be surprised to know that the word "passover" did not even exist before William Tyndale coined it for his version of 1526-31. His was also the first English Bible to use "Easter." Previously the Hebrew and Greek were left untranslated. For example, in Wycliffe's Bible, which was based on the Latin, we find pask or paske.

An article which appeared in the Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record states:

When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the season for the passover was known generally to English people as "Easter"...Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, ester-lambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall lambe three times.

When he began his translation of the Pentateuch, he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12:11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism, he coined a new word, passover and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word (date of article unknown).

The English versions after Tyndale followed his example in the Old Testament and increasingly replaced "Easter" with "Passover" in the New Testament.

Peloubet's Bible Dictionary says:

Strictly speaking the Passover only applied to the paschal supper and the feast of unleavened bread followed (p. 486).

Therefore, as the Passover had already been observed, and the days of unleavened bread were in progress, and yet Herod was still waiting for "after pascha;" we can only conclude that the word must be taken in a broader sense. History in fact does indicate a pagan and Christian interchange with the word through the translation "Easter."

A. W. Watts writes:

The Latin and Greek word for Easter is pascha, which is simply a form of the Hebrew word for passover -- pesach (Easter - Its Story and Meaning, p. 36).

Thus, the word came to be associated with both Christian and pagan observance. And it was to this latter that Herod was referring.

In an excellent study, from which some of the above has been drawn, Raymond Blanton explains (in quotations from Alexander Hislop) that Easter is Ishtar, the queen of heaven and goddess of spring:

The "pascha" that Herod was waiting for was evidently the celebration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, the Sun god. The sunrise services today are a continuation of that pagan worship.

"...the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity - to shake hands." (Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons," p. 105).

Continuing his quotation from Hislop, Blanton shows:

The term Easter is of pagan origin -

"It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven" (p. 103).

The connection between the word Easter and Tammuz is thus -

The wife of Tammuz was Ishtar (Astarte), who is called Mother Nature, who being refreshed by spring rains brings life. When Tammuz died she followed him into the underworld or realm of Eresh-Kigal, queen of the dead. In her deep grief Astarte persuaded Eresh-Kigal to allow her messenger to sprinkle Astarte and Tammuz with the water of life. By this sprinkling they had power to return into the light of the sun for six months. After which the same cycle must be repeated.

Thus, the goddess of spring or the dawn goddess is responsible for the resurrection of Tammuz. Easter is a joint worship of the two. This Satanic myth is interwoven with the sun's cycle of vernal equinox (dawn) and autumn equinox (sunset). (From "The Flaming Torch" Jan. Feb. Mar. 1987).

Dake's Bible adds:

Easter...is derived from Ishtar, one of the Babylonian titles of an idol goddess, the Queen of Heaven. The Saxon goddess Eastre is the same as the Astarte, the Syrian Venus, called Ashtoreth in the O. T. It was the worship of this woman by Israel that was such an abomination to God. (I Sam 7:3)

 

[The Learner]

here for now, come soon Lord

 

[The Learner]

Allow me to clarify any misunderstanding.

You may be surprised to know that the word "passover" did not even exist before William Tyndale coined it for his version of 1526-31. His was also the first English Bible to use "Easter." Previously the Hebrew and Greek were left untranslated. For example, in Wycliffe's Bible, which was based on the Latin, we find pask or paske.

An article which appeared in the Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record states:

When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the season for the passover was known generally to English people as "Easter"...Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, ester-lambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall lambe three times.

When he began his translation of the Pentateuch, he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12:11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism, he coined a new word, passover and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word (date of article unknown).

The English versions after Tyndale followed his example in the Old Testament and increasingly replaced "Easter" with "Passover" in the New Testament.

Peloubet's Bible Dictionary says:

Strictly speaking the Passover only applied to the paschal supper and the feast of unleavened bread followed (p. 486).

Therefore, as the Passover had already been observed, and the days of unleavened bread were in progress, and yet Herod was still waiting for "after pascha;" we can only conclude that the word must be taken in a broader sense. History in fact does indicate a pagan and Christian interchange with the word through the translation "Easter."

A. W. Watts writes:

The Latin and Greek word for Easter is pascha, which is simply a form of the Hebrew word for passover -- pesach (Easter - Its Story and Meaning, p. 36).

Thus, the word came to be associated with both Christian and pagan observance. And it was to this latter that Herod was referring.

In an excellent study, from which some of the above has been drawn, Raymond Blanton explains (in quotations from Alexander Hislop) that Easter is Ishtar, the queen of heaven and goddess of spring:

The "pascha" that Herod was waiting for was evidently the celebration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, the Sun god. The sunrise services today are a continuation of that pagan worship.

"...the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity - to shake hands." (Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons," p. 105).

Continuing his quotation from Hislop, Blanton shows:

The term Easter is of pagan origin -

"It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven" (p. 103).

The connection between the word Easter and Tammuz is thus -

The wife of Tammuz was Ishtar (Astarte), who is called Mother Nature, who being refreshed by spring rains brings life. When Tammuz died she followed him into the underworld or realm of Eresh-Kigal, queen of the dead. In her deep grief Astarte persuaded Eresh-Kigal to allow her messenger to sprinkle Astarte and Tammuz with the water of life. By this sprinkling they had power to return into the light of the sun for six months. After which the same cycle must be repeated.

Thus, the goddess of spring or the dawn goddess is responsible for the resurrection of Tammuz. Easter is a joint worship of the two. This Satanic myth is interwoven with the sun's cycle of vernal equinox (dawn) and autumn equinox (sunset). (From "The Flaming Torch" Jan. Feb. Mar. 1987).

Dake's Bible adds:

Easter...is derived from Ishtar, one of the Babylonian titles of an idol goddess, the Queen of Heaven. The Saxon goddess Eastre is the same as the Astarte, the Syrian Venus, called Ashtoreth in the O. T. It was the worship of this woman by Israel that was such an abomination to God. (I Sam 7:3)

I think passover is likely he correct translation.