KJV Versions.

In the early modern english, "the" was abreviated Y(thorn letter "th" sound) with a tiny "e" written above it. But later on when the Thorn letter went out of use people forgot it was a "th" sound and confused it for "ye", like in "ye old house" . It really was The old house.

 

See "Characters and Contractions Used in Early Printed Books" 3/4's of the way down this page.

Changes in the English Language

 

Indeed. Is what I was referring to and agreeing with from my original post on page one.

 

Makes up for that though due to rendering it into understandably English verbiage!

 

I’d much rather get used to having to use a dictionary and other references if it meant having the accurate text to read from rather than inaccurate texts that I could understand without.

 

The Nkjv uses same textual sources as Kjv though!

 

The KJV isn't quite-as-accurate as several newer versions are.
Acts 12:4-"Easter" insteada the correct "passover".
1 Tim. 6:10-"the love of money is THE root of ALL EVIL', insteada the correct "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil."
Ex. 20:13-"Thou shalt not KILL" insteada the correct "Thou shalt not MURDER".
And that's just a very-short list!

 

Well, Easter IS Easter, not passover. And passover is passover, not Easter.

 

Hello Robycop3,

Please read this article on “Easter or Passover?”
And please don’t say it’s another biased article because the site is defending the KJB.
“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today

 

Sir, I've seen that article before, and it does NOT cover the fact that in Luke's time, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST, & pascha meant only 'passover' being a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word GOD used for passover-p'sach. And Acts 12:3 makes it clear that passover was then ongoing.

And again-passover was ordained by God for Israel FOR EVER, while Easter is man-made & came much-later. Passover commemorates God's destroyer 'passing over' the homes of the Israelis the night all the firstborn of Egypt died, while Easter commemorates the resurrection of Jesus-two separate events that happened about 1700 years apart.

Easter in the KJV (NOT "KJB") is a goof, plain-n-simple.

 

Jerome on another thread about Easter and Passover terminology had covered this already in response to you, stating:

“The "goof" false charge is just ridiculous.

We've already seen a 1610 Geneva Bible where Easter and Passover were used as synonyms.

William Fulke's 1589 critique of the Roman Catholic Rhemes NT, in arguing against their using Latin "Pasca" (untranslated) throughout, he says there are two words used in English for that: "Easter", or "Passover".
Fulke explains that Easter is "usual English term for that feast", while Passover is a way to express the meaning of the Hebrew word.”

 

Again, you forget that by 1611 the word 'passover' was in general use. And the Geneva was made in 1560.

The KJV translated pascha as passover 28 times, with the one goof in Acts 12:4. Now, had the KJV CONSISTENTLY translated pascha as Easter, we could chalk it up as an archaism. But that ONE TIME, especially with no valid reason to have done so, was simply a goof by someone, most likely a prelate, as has been discussed before.

Why I agree it was likely a prelate is because the AV 1611 includes an "Easter-Finder" in its extratextual material. The AV makers considered Christmas & Easter to be the holiest days of the year. THEY knew Easter & passover are not the same observance.

Now, this has all been discussed before, and Easter still stands as incorrect in Acts 12:4. And it's only ONE of many goofs & booboos in the outdated KJV.

 

Contra robycop3, Daniel Wallace – who is no partisan for the KJV – says of 1 Timothy 6:10, “This is a difficult text to translate…” In his discussion of “Indefinite Predicate Nominatives,” Wallace uses 1 Timothy 6:10 as an illustration. He says it is a difficult passage, after which he lists six different ways he thinks it could be translated. He states his reasoning as “it is difficult to tell whether ῥίζα is indefinite, definite, or qualitative, and secondly πάντων may mean ‘all without exclusion’ or ‘all without distinction’.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996, p. 265)

 

Common sense should make the correct rendering plain. There are MANY evils NOT done for lova $, such as the ISIS suicide bombings. So, while lova $ is A root of ALL SORTS of evils, it's NOT THE sole root of them.

 

Hello robycop3,

I’ve read other posts where the information has been provided to you that the term “Easter” and “Passover” are interchangeable. Since you stand firmly that it’s not regardless of any information showing that it is, it wouldn’t make much sense to continue to beat a dead horse on this topic in my opinion.

 

I would disagree with you here too.
Take a look:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

You obviously have no intention of learning about the English language, as this has been pointed out to you numerous times. However, others may be paying attention. Luke did not write either Easter or Passover. He wrote πασχα (paska). Nevertheless, both Easter and Passover are English words that mean paska, and just because you think Easter only means resurrection Sunday or some such does not change that fact. Easter was in the English language (i.e. Old English/Saxon) by circa AD 900 with the meaning pesach or paska, and Passover came along in the 1500's meaning the same. If it is a goof to translate a word by a word that holds the same meaning in the target language, then it is a goof to translate the Bible into any target language. Furthermore, your continuous use of the "goofs" and "boo-boos" language highlight that fact that you intend to spread more heat that light.

So you have that common sense, but neither Dan Wallace nor the KJV translators do? Got it.

I don't know where you come from, but where I come from, interpreted in context, no one I know has ever been confused that 1 Timothy 6:10 means that the love of money is the sole root of every evil that exists, ever existed, or will ever exist. It seems only you are the one who keeps saying that.

 

Speaking of King James Editions, how about the original 1611. I can remember when you had to pay 250.00 for one. Now they are 109.00 .
1611 King James Bible, 1st Edition | eBay
Also at 1611 King James First Edition Facsimile Reproductions

You can aslo get a facsimile of the 1769 edition.
1769 "Revised Standard Oxford Edition" of the 1611 King James Bible Facsimile | eBay

Internet Archives
The Holy Bible : a facsimile in a reduced size of the Authorized version published in the year 1611 : Pollard, Alfred W. (Alfred William), 1859-1944 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive