No matter how much you want to repeat it, the use of preost/priest for presbuteros did not come about by employing an English word that only meant hiereus. The insistence that priest can only mean hiereus is a linguistic fallacy.
No, as that is Rome's problem with the Holy Spirit, as it is He who unlike Rome, never uses the distinctive title given to OT and pagan hiereus for presbuteros …
But preost/priest is not a distinctive title given to TO and pagan hiereus. It was a distinctive title given only to presbuteros, a usage that has lasted for over a thousand years. Its use for hiereus came latter.
Thus it is God which disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter.
It is not God but Tyndale and his following Protestants who have attempted to disassociate the two.
Rather, bo matter how much you want to repeat it, the fallacy is that while preost/priest was first used for presbuteros then that simply does not justify it being used for hiereus and presbuteros without the distinction the Holy Spirit evidenced by not once giving NT presbuteros the title of hiereus. Period!
Its use for hiereus came latter.
And which is just what we are dealing with!
It is not God but Tyndale and his following Protestants who have attempted to disassociate the two.
What absurdity! The Holy Spirit never gives NT presbuteros the title of hiereus, but Catholicism makes the two indistinguishable to support her theology, while Prot translators (as in the KJV) maintain that linguistical distinction, and your charge them with fallacy!
The fact is that God makes the linguistic distinction, which Catholicism (and a few others) circumvents in order to support the unScriptural idea that NT presbuteros engaged in a uniquely sacrificial function, and as their primary one. Ecclesiastical eisegesis!