Easter in Tyndale's Bible Before KJV

99% of English users, especially those who've learned it as a 2nd language, don't understand archaic English very well.
Here's a little example: I had a dr. from Korea move in not far from me. He had learned schoolbook English, & had mastered written English pretty well. He was a new Christian & he asked me if I could lend him a Bible til his Korean edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV.
A coupla days later, he called me, a little upset. He'd come across "Suffer little children" in Matt. 19:14 & thought 'suffer' meant to be in pain or under duress. I explained the archaic meaning of 'suffer' as 'allow or permit' for 'suffer' & brought him an NASV to use. (Another thing he wondered about was 'target', which then meant a small shield.)
There's simply no more good reason to teach from the KJV than there is to drive a Model T daily.

 

With the scorn you regularly heap upon the KJV here on the BB, I am shocked beyond belief that you would ever hand anyone a KJV Bible, with or without thinking.

 

I picked this book up years ago. I find it very interesting. Sometimes it is frustrating too. For example, on this topic, I looked for the annotations on John 11:55 (where Easter is used twice in the Bishops' Bible) -- only to find that the annotations for the Gospel of John are only for chapters 17-21.

 

I DO study the KJV; I just don't teach nor witness from it. My actual scorn is for the KJVO MYTH. However, it's necessary to expose the faults of the KJV to help debunk the myth.

 

That's because your thralldom to the false KJVO myth has clouded your thinking & warped your judgment. Many of the changes between old & new versions are based upon better, more-precise translation. nYou've devoted a lot of posts trying to rebel against one; the rendering of passover instead of Easter in Acts 12:4 when passover is clearly the CORRECT translation.

OK, sir, please be so kind as to point out any false teaching(at least in your mind) that I have set forth from a modern Bible version.

And He has made His word available in OUR language, just as He did for the British in 1560 & earlier.

 

There are NO changes for doctrines and practices in the Nas/Esv/Nkjv etc!

 

The common KJVO response is that if one holds to ANY mistakes in the Kjv, they must hate the Kjv!

 

His same reasoning was what they were stating among those who held to the Vulgate /Geneva as being better then the new upstart Kjv !

 

From what evidence I have of your interaction with the KJV here on the Baptist Board, my first thought is that you study it to find fault with it. (And what I see here is all the evidence I have of your position.) Further, your rhetoric and declamation suggest that you exhibit hate toward the KJV (even if you do not mean to) as well as KJVO. If not, why not speak in respectful terms towards translational decisions with which you disagree, rather than ranting about boo-boos and goofs?

 

But not any more. It shouldn't be read that way now.

The NKJV, NASV, NIV, & ESV all say He utters groans in that verse. Not too concerned with other versions.

I have explained why that supposition is bunk. Not all of Paul's readership was saved at the same time. As time passed, more & more were being saved each day. You need a new excuse.

That's because you're in thrall to the KJVO myth, whose current edition is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two DISHONEST authors, one of whom legally plagiarized the cult official's book, & the other who copied a good bit from the cult official, & the following author, while making sure not to mention the first author's cult affiliation. God does NOT poerate that way!

If you wish to use the KJV, fine, but you're in serious error if you say the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. Satan came up with that notion to cause strife & dissension within & between congregations. If you believe the KJVO myth, you're believing an invention of Satan's!

 

No, sir. This is a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of gnat-straining argument. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit CAN speak. You are getting your panties in a bunch over whether any of the words of the Holy Spirit originate from the Holy Spirit, or if all of the words originate from another member of the Godhead. I am a trinitarian who looses ZERO sleep concerning myself over the internal one Godness of the three "persons" in the Triune Godhead. I accept the Athanatian Creed as a fair explanation of the explainable and leave the details to God.

With respect to "tongue speakers", I would prefer to refute what is unbiblical based on all of the biblical teaching on "tongues" rather than some obscure hypothesis drawn from an archaic English translation. It is enough that even modern "glossolalia" is not "wordless groaning", so this verse does not apply to what they are doing. I don't need the KJV to refute eisegesis ... either theirs or yours.

The bible clearly says the Holy Spirit CAN speak, so you cannot claim that the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak.

 

We have been saved, and are still in the process of being made into image of Christ!

 

The KJVO see the mistakes, but cannot accept that, or e;se their doctrine of perfection goes up in smoke!

 

Supreme irony is that the1611 Kjv Translators would NOT be among the KJVO crowd!

 

The Holy Spirit has a Mind and is God Himself, you really need to quit nearly blasphemy Him by making out to be just a lackey or flunky!