Easter in Tyndale's Bible Before KJV

He was greater then any of the Kjv 1611 team?

 

Have to decide between greatest as in actual work published, or as most influential?

 

Others would be likes of Jerome, Luther, and the Kjv team!

 

They made some mistakes, as were not inspired by God to make a perfect translation!

 

So God ONLY inspired the Kjv to be His translation, correct?

 

Either or both.

 

Because you may declare it and believe it is not proof that your assertion is true.

Based on my study, I think that you sometimes jump to incorrect conclusions and that you have not demonstrated that you apply the exact same measures/standard to translation decisions in the KJV that you attempt to apply inconsistently to other English Bible translations.

 

How about Luther and Jerome?

 

In my opinion, that “14 changes” charge falls short of being well established fact.

Anyway, I thought you might find the following interesting. It is one man’s opinion as to why the King James translators kept “Easter” in Acts 12:4. I find it interesting because the author, Joseph Rawson Lumby, was definitely not KJVO and was a translator on the Revised Version of the Old Testament (the Westcott-Hort one).

Joseph Rawson Lumby was co-editor of the Cambridge Bible for Schools, and he edited, with commentary, The Acts of The Apostles, Chapters I–XIV in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (J. J. S. Perowne, Gen. Ed., Cambridge: University Press, 1879, p. 147). The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges is a biblical commentary set published in parts by Cambridge University Press. Lumby he gives the following reason why he thinks the King James translators chose to keep the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4 – 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.

intending after Easter (the Passover)] The rendering “Easter” is an attempt to give by an English word the notion of the whole feast. That this meaning and not the single day of the Paschal feast is intended by the Greek seems clear from the elaborate preparation made, as for a longer imprisonment than was the rule among the Jews. Peter was arrested at the commencement of the Passover feast (14th of Nisan), and the king’s intention was to proceed to sentence and punish him when the feast was at an end on the 21st of Nisan.​

 

If that was the attempt, why not be consistent and also use Easter at Luke 22:1?

Luke 22:1
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

 

Still would be the wrong word to use there!

 

You again are assuming that the Kjv had it translated correctly!

 

Well, I guess it is too late to ask Joseph Rawson Lumby what he thought.

 

I've learned to be very skeptical of what some post here.

 

Especially those in support of the KJVO!

 

Both impressive and influential.

 

It is as well-established as most things accepted to be historical facts from that period of time.

The assertion was made by reliable, trustworthy, respected believers/preachers (Thomas Hill and Henry Jessey), and they indicated that one original first-hand source for their assertion of changes being made was KJV translator Miles Smith who had told someone else about the changes. The assertion had been repeated second hand to one of them, but Thomas Hill and Henry Jessey would also have had access to first-hand evidence in that day to check out the assertion, and all that evidence may not be available today. There is the first-hand report of witnesses who claimed that they had seen the text of the KJV translators prepared for the printers and that they saw evidence of changes having been made. That text is now lost or destroyed (perhaps in the 1660 London fire), but it was available in the 1640's and 1650's so that the account in the state records could have been checked out by others.

It is also in agreement with other facts from first-hand sources such as the first-hand account of the Hampton Court conference that presents the plan for the making of the KJV. The stated plan for its making noted that bishops and the privy council would be permitted to review.

At least one of the KJV translators [Andrew Bing (1574-1652)] was still alive when Thomas Hill had the public assertion in his 1648 sermon, which was also printed. Many others who had worked with and for individual KJV translators would also have been alive. I have found no evidence that any one in 1648 and the years following disputed or questioned his assertion as not being true. In that day, when there was more first-hand evidence available, no one seems to have disputed the assertion in Thomas Hill's sermon.