KJV Versions.

Of course one of the absolutely best editions of the New Testament is The English Hexapla.
The King James Translators drew heavily on these pre existing English Bibles for their translation.

1841 English Hexapla Parallel New Testament - Facsimile Reproduction | eBay

Wycliffe
Tyndale 1534
Great Bible
Geneva
Rheims
King James Version

1841 English Hexapla Parallel New Testament - Facsimile Reproduction | eBay

 

I have a copy of that 1769 Oxford reprint. I had earlier examined an original copy of a 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV at the Library of Congress, and I have a computer file with a 1769 Oxford edition.

Today's varying editions of the KJV are not identical to the 1769 Oxford.

 

And yet still used by the 1611 King James Translators.

 

There is a scan of The English Hexapla at Archive.org.

 

Right. it's one you can't "win". While I readily admit Easter and pascha/pask USED to be interchangeable, That status was over by the time the AV 1611 was made & passover became the standard English word for the p'sach observance.

Clearly, the AV makers knew the difference, as they included an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611 as they believed & stated that Christmas & Easter were the 2 holiest days of the year.

 

AHA! I now see the source of most, if not all, of your KJVO garbage-WILL KINNEY, Master of Misinformation ! I have had many a discussion with him, and, as I've proven him wrong over & over, he took to barring me from any site where he's a moderator or admin. He can't face the TRUTH. Nor can he provide one quark of Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. (Just read his article where he CLAIMS such support & see if you can find any such support in it ! !)

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

In his article you cited, he tries using word play to try to get by the FACT that there are a great many evils NOT done for lova $ such as the ISIS suicide bombings, not to mention adultery, fornication, false worship, etc. Now, I'll be the first to admit there's likely not one form of evil that hasn't been done for lova $ some time or other, but there are innumerable individual evil acts not done for such. (Hitler, the most-evil man who ever lived, was not too-interested in money!)

And, without going into boring detail, the Greek necessitates the insertion of an article in English between philargyria(love of silver, money) and rhizo.(root) as it has none. The AV men incorrectly chose to insert the, for which Greek does have an article, insteada a, for which the Greek has no article.

And again, the reminder that common sense shows the modern rendering is correct, as many evils are done for reasons other than lova $.

 

While I readily admit that easter & pask USED to be interchangeable, the adaptation of the word 'passover' into English ended that. And by 1611, passover was the standard Englishword for the p'sach. The AV men knew that, as they inserted an "Easter-Finder" into their work.

So ISIS member Muhamed Babble blew himself up in a market square full of women & children outta lova $$ ? YYEEAAHH, RRIIGGHHTT !

 

I have a Hendrickson Edition repro AV 1611, complete in every detail to an original, except it's in Roman font insteada Gothic, and is a smaller physical size. It has the title pages with all their illustrations, all the extratextual material including the Apocrypha, Easter-Finder, & most-impotantly, the preface "To The Reader". I paid $30 for it in Wal-Mart some 10 years ago.

I was privileged to look thru an original AV 1611, & my hour-long scan didn't reveal any differences between it & the repro except those I noted.

 

In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the original 1611 KJV edition has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. John Eadie noted that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). H. W. Hoare noted that the figure “of Neptune with his trident and horses was borrowed from the Bishops’ Bible” (Evolution, pp. 274-275). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6). At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne.

These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, in the 2010 reprint of the 1611 by Oxford University Press, and in the 2011 reprint by Zondervan, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them.

David Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he asserted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The initials portraying Daphne and Neptune had been used in the Bishops’ Bible, and had attracted censure from some quarters, so their reuse must have been deliberate. In any case, there was no reason for the translators to disapprove” (Bible, p. 101). Donald Brake wrote: “While readers today might consider depictions of mythological images contrary to the biblical message, the translators likely did not view them as a threat to Christian belief” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 180). Brake noted that the 1611’s initial letter at Hebrews 1 is a “demonic face with bat wings” (p. 178). Brake also pointed out that the 1611’s initial letter at 2 Corinthians 1, Galatians 1, Philippians 1, 2 Thessalonians 1, Philemon 1, and 1 Peter 1 is “two demons depicted with horns and pitchforks” (p. 179).

 

The Hendrickson Publishers roman-type 1611 reprint and the Thomas Nelson roman-type 1611 reprint were likely a reprint of the 1833 printing of the 1611 “He” edition in roman type by Oxford University Press.

Donald Brake noted that “Oxford published an exact reprint of the 1611 King James Version in 1833” and that Oxford’s intention was to publish the 1611 “letter for letter, retaining throughout the ancient mode of spelling and punctuation, and even the most manifest errors of the Press” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 214). David Norton referred to “an exact reprint of the first edition, published by Oxford in 1833, a truly remarkable piece of work that reproduces all the quirks of the first edition, even inverted letters, with scarcely an error” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 119).

It may have been assumed by many that none of the printer’s errors in the 1611 edition had been corrected in the 1833 roman-type reproduction. Is it possible that a few times the 1833 roman-type reprints of the 1611 edition did not faithfully and accurately present and preserve every letter and detail in the original black-letter or Gothic-type 1611 edition as has been assumed and claimed?

One seeming difference between the original Gothic-type 1611 edition of the KJV and the later roman-type reprint 1611 edition by Thomas Nelson and by Hendrickson is at Nehemiah 4:10 [“beaters” in the original Gothic type while “bearers” is found in the Roman-type reprint]. A few other type-setting errors in the Gothic-type in the original 1611 edition at Exodus 11:2 [“silner”], at Leviticus 17:1 [“unco”], at Deuteronomy 4:34 [“stretehed”], at Judges 14:14 [“aud out”], at 1 Kings 1:5 [“horesemen”], at 1 Kings 1:53 [“king Solomou”], at 1 Kings 9:19 [“disired”], at 1 Chronicles 7:14 [“concn-bine”], at 1 Chronicles 28:15 [“silner”], at Psalm 31:24 [“strenghten”], at Psalm 55:23 [“line”], at Psalm 59:3 [“ate”], at Psalm 74:7 [“nawe”], at Psalm 79:5 [“for ener”], at Psalm 79:10 [“sernants”] at Proverbs 4:7 [“understranding”], at Proverbs 11:22 [“smines”], at Proverbs 27:5 [“lone”], at Isaiah 14:9 [“mooned”], at Isaiah 37:22 [“shakeu”], at Jeremiah 44:4 [“servantg], at Ezekiel 24:22 [“hane”], at Ezekiel 33:24 [“thoso”], at Ezekiel 42:16 [“weasured”], at Zechariah 4:1 [“wakeued”], at Mark 8:33 [“sanourest”], at Luke 7:20 [“thon”], at Luke 16:31 [“frdm”], at Luke 20:2 [“gane”], at Luke 20:10 [“theh us bandmen beat”], at John 7:18 “unrighteonsness”], at John 19:12 [“thencefore”], at Acts 2:27 [“corrnption”], at Acts 7:14 [“fifteeene”], at Romans 3:5 [“unrighteons”], at Galatians 1:13 [“couversation”], at 1 Thessalonians 2:9 [“labourng”], at Revelation 17:15 [“thon”], at Revelation 21:27 [“whatsoener”], and at Revelation 22:3 [“out the throne”] may not be preserved in the 1833 roman-type reprint of the 1611.

 

Easter continued to used in the sense of paska long after Tyndale coined the word passover. As far as an "Easter-finder" you keep repeating that, but do not explain what you mean. When I search for that word, I come up with other forums where you use it. Looks like something you've made up, since I have not found others using it.

Obviously you did not read or comprehend what I wrote, since your "muhamed babble" does not correspond to it.

 

A scan of the 1611 Robert Barker imprint is HERE.

 

Look inside an AV1611. In my Hendrickson repro, it's after the calendar of morning & evening prayers for each month, on one page, called "To Finde Eafter for euer".( All that extratextual material is in the original Gothic font.)

Just a reminder for you of the TRUTH- that not all evils are done for lova $$.

And I see NO comments on "Thou shalt not KILL".

 

And that has what to do with the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4? HERE is the page for anyone who wants to look at it. That page is about figuring out what day Easter will fall on in any given year, though it looks too complicated for me to worry with. You read too much into the connection of the two. For example, Project Canterbury has the Easter Sunday sermons (1606-1624) of KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes on their site. He never bothers to mention Acts 12:4 as a proof text of Easter. Strange, if they left it in the text just for that reason.

A reminder obviously not needed, if you had read and understood what I wrote. We in our church and community have known that all along while using the King James translation for years. It is a matter of reading and interpreting in context rather than pulling out a sentence to use for polemic purposes.

Why are any needed? Based on your picture, you look old enough to have used the KJV before you had access to any modern translation. Bet you knew what it meant back then before you needed to use it for the sake of arguing. Same as above; we in our church and community have understood the meaning of "thou shalt not kill" all along while using the King James translation for years. It is a matter of reading and interpreting in context rather than pulling out a sentence to use for polemic purposes. For example, Bishop Ellicott's commentary explained it this way. You do not have to agree with various understandings, but it is not a goof.

Maybe only after the 1960s we became so stupid we could not understand it. If not mistaken, I think practically every English Bible had so translated Exodus 20:13 et al (i.e. kill) even up through the Revised Standard Version.

 

As has been said several times-if the AV had used Easter several times, or every time, it could be chalked up as an archaism. However, just that ONE TIME, with no valid reason to do so was someone's goof, be it having been a translator or a prelate.

There have been umpteen anti-death-penalty protests & military "conchies" fueled by that one little KJV passage. "Kill" means to end the life of anything, while "murder" the intent of that verse, means to wrongly end the life of another person. Jesus later corrected it by saying "murder" in the NT.

Evidently, many DIDN'T understand it, given the number of 'conchies' in WW1 & the many anti-DP proteses in modern times. (The famed Sgt. York was on his way to being a conchie til a pastor talked with him. He was a devout member of the Church of Christ in Christian Union.) Same for today. However, as KJVO is waning, so are the number & vociferousness of the protests. (Not counting those against faulty or wrongful conviction) But there's almost always at least one "Thou shalt not Kill" sign at such protests.

Kinda silly to understand something not correct as actually meaning something else that IS correct.

 

So far as I know, none of the King James translators (or any prelate who supposedly changed it) left a record of why they chose to use the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Until we find such a record, all our blather on this particular issue of why they did it will remain what everybody has -- an opinion.

Yea, right. I suspect plenty of pacifists, conscientious objectors, and anti-war protestors use modern versions of the Bible. Here is one, for example, when the Church of the Brethren reaffirmed their opposition to war and conscription for military training in 1982. From what Bible did they quote? The KJV? No. The RSV. Did they refer to the law? No, to the teachings of Jesus.

Maybe we can retranslate all verses to suit all objectors. Maybe start with Matthew 7:1.

 

somebody attempted to use selective citation to tie KJB phrases to Rhemes, was refuted in this thread:

Baptist Board 2009

 

First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV.

Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (Translating for King James, p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).