[imardmd1]

Come on, the spelling of the words has changed to conform to the later custom. hen read either way, the sound is rhe same and the meaning is the same. This is not a translation, or even a transliteration. You do know that there was at that time no dictionary to illustrate accepted and universally applied spelling, right?

My take on what modern interpretive translators wish to achieve by choosing synonyms and phrasing styles to replace the KJV is mainly just to profit from clamping a copyright on novel re-presentations of the same lexical contents. Plus riding on the novelty that the redoing of it achieves.

[ealgeone]

Come on, the spelling of the words has changed to conform to the later custom. hen read either way, the sound is rhe same and the meaning is the same. This is not a translation, or even a transliteration.

Oh, that was but on example.

Have there been NO changes in the KJV from words originally used to words used today? The impact on the meaning of the texts?

There are many more.

You do know that there was at that time no dictionary to illustrate accepted and universally applied spelling, right?

Are you sure about that?