Not just KJVOs, but many others, have tried to find those words in that verse, unsuccessfully. And I doubt if there are any known mss. that haven't at least been perfunctorily scanned for them.There are over thousands Greek manuscripts to be collated and so you do not know.
And you've been told that reason is the AV men used Beza's TR revision to make their New Testament.There has to be a reason why over 52 KJV translators went with that translation in departing from how the 1599 Geneva Bible had it.
I believe God has presented His word as HE wants us to have it, and that HE preserved it, so one MUST be right.That will never be determined by you or me, and so it is best to ask Jesus for that discernment.
...Which is why I said "until PROVEN otherwise".Can you be sure? I do not see how you can say that.
It's like evolutionists saying the coelacanth are extinct. Until somebody found one still alive.
it's even like archeologists mocking places in the Bibles as if it does not exists, until they found the ruins.
Until somebody actually go through all the thousands Greek manuscripts available rather than just going on the hundreds, we cannot really say one way or another.
But it's correct til proven wrong.That is correct, but you cannot prove yourself right either to any body else. It is an opinion made out of lack of earlier manuscripts.
Even if it's not recorded?There is always Jesus to consult with. Being how it is Revelation and the angel showing the future to John, I can see it as scripture.
This isn't really the thread to prove in-depth that the KJV's not perfect, but it only takes one goof, which I pointed out.Perfect? It can be translated better in some places in my opinion, but those few places I wish was translated better, the modern Bibles do not address like Luke 17:37 about how they are received/taken with hospitality & Revelation 3:5 as a double negative for how no name can never be removed from the Book of Life, & Romans 8:27 when that "he" is Jesus Christ..
No, BEFORE Tyndale, the British used to use easter & pask/pascha interchangeably. But Tyndale, knowing they were different observances, couned 'passover' for the paschal observance.Tyndale was the first to translate pascha in O.T. to Passover and pascha as Easter in the N.T. as meaning the same thing.
But no matter how easter got in the KJV, it's incorrect.I can believe that the KJV translators had it as Passover originally in Acts 12:4 before that claim of yours which is unsubstantiated that a priest had changed it back to Easter, because all other reference to Tyndale's Easter in the N.T. was changed to Passover.
It does NOT mean the same thing as passover. The AV men knew that. They placed an "Easter-Finder" in their work, not a "passover-finder".So not a goof when Easter means the same thing as the Passover and not how anti-KJVO contenders are having a conniption over it to mean today as if referring to the pagan use of Easter.