Kent Hovind’s KJV, Corrupted?

Kent Hovind doesn’t review questions before taking them. He doesn’t sit down and study a topic prior to airing a Question and Answer video. As a result, it is often the case that somebody will ask a question, and Kent will give an odd-to-ridiculous response that does little more than itch his ear.

In a recent broadcast, one writer asked about “the difference between ‘examples’ and ‘ensamples’ in 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 10:11.”

Both verses read as follows:

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

I don’t believe I have ever heard the word ensample. My mind was immediately taken to the prefix, en. This struck me as being different than ex; after all, enter and exit are two different words, assuming fixed directionality (See Coming or Going, Noah?).

Kent apparently felt the same way, but was even more certain in his response:

“Excellent question. My theory is that one is external, and one is internal. Some things you see, and you say ‘whoa, that is a good example.’ Other things are internal—you think about it, like ‘wow.’ I think there is a distinction there, and the King James preserves the two words.”

I too think there is a distinction there, in English. But English is irrelevant. Was there a distinction when Paul wrote the letter? That is the question we ought to be asking ourselves.

Hovind’s last statement stood out to me; “…the King James preserves the two words.” When a King James Onlyist speaks of preservation, my ears perk up. If there is indeed a preserved distinction, we ought to see evidence of this in other translations as well. Unless, of course, they’re all just corrupt ☺.

Let’s take a brief walk through a few renderings of these passages, starting with the Latin Vulgate, and ending with the English Standard Version:

Latin Vulgate (~400 AD)
6 Haec autem in figura (figure) facta sunt nostri ut non simus concupiscentes malorum sicut et illi concupierunt. 11 Haec autem omnia in figura (figure) contingebant illis scripta sunt autem ad correptionem nostram in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt.

This first reading is of particular interest to me, because the term figure was cited in the margins of the Authorized Version for verse 6. Note, however, that both verses use the same term: figura.

Wycliffe Bible (1382)
6 But these things were done in figure of us, that we be not coveters of evil things, as [and] they coveted. 11 And all these things fell to them in figure; but they be written to our amending, into whom the ends of the worlds be come [soothly they be written to our correction, or amending, into whom the ends of the world have come].

Note again the use of figure; and in both passages.

Tyndale New Testament (1526)
6 These are ensamples to vs that we shuld not lust after evyll thinges as they lusted. 11 All these thinges happened vnto them for ensamples and were written to put vs in remembraunce whom the endes of the worlde are come apon.

Now we arrive at William Tyndale’s work. Tyndale uses the term ensamples not in one passage, but in both passages. While he uses a different word than Wycliffe, he leverages the pattern of using it twice.

Textus Receptus (1516)
6 ταῦτα δὲ τύποι (typoi, typos) ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν 11 ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τύποι (typoi, typos) συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησεν

Above is the TR; the foundation from which the New Testament of the King James Bible was constructed. Granted, it’s Greek, and King James Onlyists despise Greek more often than not. But this is the KJV Greek, so perhaps they’ll give it  a pass.

Note how the term typoi/typos is used in both verse 6 and verse 11. At this point, we can argue confidently that the King James Bible, rendering two different English words, is not a very good example of preservation in the formal equivalency sense.

Geneva Bible (1599)
6 Now these are ensamples to us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things came unto them for ensamples, and were written to admonish us unto whom the ends of the world are come.

Note: The above text from the Geneva was taken from an old scan (scans below). I tried to reflect it accurately, but the quality was very poor. While I own a Geneva, it is a modern product, and may have slightly-revised content.

The Geneva Bible follows Tyndale, and uses ensamples in both verses. Some Geneva bibles today may contain a margin note for verse 6 staying “Some read figures,” calling back to Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate.

So at this point we have the Latin using a single term, twice. We have Wycliffe using a single term, twice. We have Tyndale using a single term, twice. And lastly, we have the Textus Receptus using a single term, twice. A pattern is established.

1611 King James Bible (Spelling modernized)
6 Now these things were † our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for || ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Gr. our figures. || Or, Types.

Now we get to the 1611 AV. It breaks from the pack, and uses two terms: examples, and ensamples. Though it broke the pattern, the translators referenced the Latin term figure in verse 6, and the Greek term typos in verse 11.

As I read this version, I wonder if the translators were tying our to examples, and them to ensamples. Pure speculation. What we do know is that the Greek from which the KJV NT was derived doesn’t use two words, and most (if not all?) of the preceding English translations also used one word.

Lets keep pressing forward in History.

King James Bible (1769 on BibleGateway, and BibleStudyTools)
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Here we arrive at today’s King James Bible. Note how today’s KJV has rejoined the pack, using a single term in both verses. If indeed the presence of ensample and example are signs of preservation (as Kent stated), then we have a clear example where the modern King James Bible removed a preserved distinction.

Update 4/19/2016: Some King James Bible’s today still contain “ensamples,” while others contain “examples”. Unfortunately, it has been difficult determining when the wording changed, and who was responsible for the change.

Lets wrap up our journey through history with the English Standard Version:

English Standard Version (2001)
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

We see yet again, one word, used in both passages. The King James Bible has been brought back into the fold with other translations (including modern ones).

Herein lies the problem: Kent Hovind, and King James Onlyists like him, assume nearly every distinction between the King James Bible and other modern versions is some type of substantive preservation from the very Hand of God. As he stated himself, “…the King James preserves the two words.

What Kent failed to realize is that his KJV likely does not contain both terms. So if indeed the presence of both is preservation, the absence of one must be corruption.

Is your King James Bible corrupted, by Hovind’s reasoning?


Geneva and King James Bible scans, as promised.

1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (Geneva Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:6 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)
1 Corinthians 10:11 (King James Bible)



God Creates Evil?

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? (1 Corinthians 14:9a, KJV)

King James Onlyists often claim the KJV is, without question, the easiest of all translations to read and understand. They’ll cite articles claiming modern translations require an 8th or 9th grade reading ability, while alleging the King James requires little more than a 5th grade education. Now, these studies are questionable (and perhaps worth debunking), but lets first evaluate the practical reality of this claim.

Suppose you were a middle-aged man, and have had your mind washed in the Word of God for nearly 50 years. Each year, you read the King James Bible cover to cover. So confident are you in your understanding of it, you decide to make a life of ministry to others. For decades, you stand before multitudes, and lead many thousands to the Lord.

One day, during a routine online broadcast, a young Christian woman by the name of Amber writes-in regarding a verse that gives her some confusion. “I love the King James, and read it only” she says, but she has encountered an odd passage:

…I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You read the passage on the air, but you struggle to form an answer. In hopes of being rescued, you reach for Peter Ruckman’s Errors in the King James Bible, and begin fanning through the pages. After a moment, you find Ruckman’s book to be dumb (in the traditional sense, of course).

What now? You quickly defer to a joke, and move on to the next question.

The tragic ending to this story is the young woman is left wondering whether God is directly involved in committing moral evils. After all, isn’t that what the King James Bible says in the book of Isaiah?

I wish I could say the above story was purely a work of fiction, but it is not. Today, on his evening YouTube broadcast, Kent Hovind was unable to clear up this minor semantic issue. Rather than turn to other translations or commentaries for clarity, he turned to Ruckman.

When critics of King James Onlyism ask if the King James Bible could be improved in any way, this is precisely the type of thing we have in mind. When Dr. James White sat across from Steven Anderson, and inquired about the conflation of hades and gehenna, this is the type of thing he had in mind. Sadly, advocates of onlyism refuse to concede the point.

So what does Isaiah 45:7 say, exactly? Well, lets seek out a multitude of counselors, per Proverbs 11:14, and see what we learn:

New American Standard Version
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

English Standard Version 
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

New King James Version
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.

1599 Geneva Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

What we find by looking at other translations is that “calamity” is a very popular alternative. It’s also worth noting that “calamity” serves as a meaningful parallel to well-being, and peace. This adds even more to its weight as an alternative reading.

When we consult older translations, such as the Wycliffe (from the Vulgate), or the Geneva (from the Masoretic), we see the same terms are used that are found in the King James Bible. This suggests the term “evil” floated through each English translation since Wycliffe, and may have once enjoyed a broader semantic range.

Imagine for a moment that the tables were turned, and “calamity” appeared in the King James Bible while “I […] create evil” appeared in the modern versions. Gail Riplinger and Kent Hovind would take every opportunity to declare this  to be heretical, and attribute it to Satan.

Blue Letter Bible is a great resource for those of you who wish to continue digging beyond this point. Utilizing this resource, we learn that the Hebrew term here is רַע (raʻ, rah), and has the following semantic range:

  • evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
    • evil, distress, adversity
    • evil, injury, wrong
    • evil (ethical)

For completeness, I’ll close with Calvin’s commentary from the mid-1500’s:

Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort.

Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences.

If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

Coming or Going, Noah? (Updated)

Update: On March 2, 2016 I sent the following article to Dr. Kent Hovind. My expectation was that, since he issued the challenge on his broadcast, he would consider my response on his broadcast. On Kent’s March 28, 2016 broadcast (at 23:30), the first line of my email was read before Kent decided to skip the email entirely, going on to another question.

A picture of Jonathan Sampson's email to Kent Hovind
Original email sent to Dr. Kent Hovind after he issued a challenged to Jonathan Sampson regarding God’s command for Noah to go/come into the Ark.

A Bit of Backstory

If you know me, you likely know that I used to be a King James Onlyist. I adopted the perspective shortly after moving to Pensacola, FL as a young man around 2003.

Shortly after moving to Pensacola, I was surrounded by a group of wonderful people who all began to show me where my Bible was “missing” verses like Matthew 18:11 (see Luke 19:10). Having no knowledge to catch me, I fell by persuasion rather swiftly, and began parroting the same arguments.

Fast-forward now, 13 years later, and I am no longer a King James Onlyist. However, many of my friends are, including Kent Hovind (yes, that Kent Hovind). Since his release from prison, Kent has been leveraging YouTube to uncritically gush over the works of Gail Riplinger. I watched each broadcast, but eventually became so frustrated with his/their misinformation that I had to begin responding.

Well, my responses caught Kent’s attention, and before long I was banned. Yes, banned. Kent once threatened to throttle my comments on YouTube; this never happened. Almost immediately afterwards, my posts became visible to me, and me alone.

Kent Issues a Challenge

In spite of his decision to block me, Kent has called me out in a recent video:

“Jonathan (I assume you’re still watching), did God tell Noah to ‘come into the ark’, or ‘go into the ark’? I would just like an answer to that one question.”

— Kent Hovind, 2016-02-23 YouTube broadcast at 29:30

Kent claims, once again, that there is a crucial difference between the King James Bible, and the modern “perversions” (his words, obviously). For the record, lets look at the contrasting renderings:

English Standard Version (source)
Then the Lord said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

King James Version (source)
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The distinction here is with God being inside the Ark, in the KJV, while being outside the Ark, in the English Standard Version (and others). So which is it? Coming or going, Noah?

God’s Perspective

Normally, I wouldn’t spend much time on this type of issue. Theologically, nothing here is at stake. The Bible teaches the omnipresence of God. His eyes are in all places; no secret place can hide you from the God who fills Heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:24).

Given God’s absolute omnipresence, He is both within the Ark, and without. It’s proper for Him to say “come in,” and “go in,” given His unique perspective. Consider the record in Genesis 19:24 where God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah:

King James Version
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

So the Lord is on the Earth calling down fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. So where is the Lord? In heaven, or in Earth? Is the Lord sending judgment, or calling judgment? The question is flawed.

One thing that frustrates me is how King James Onlyists, and Kent in particular, pretend that these types of variant readings are part of a larger ploy to attack God in the modern “perversions” (again, his words). To test the consistency of their claim, I’ve made a habit of first checking earlier English translations to see how they rendered these passages:

Wycliffe (1382) “Enter thou and all thine house into the ship…”
Tyndale (1530) “goo in to the arcke both thou and all thy houssold…”
Matthew’s (1537) “Go in to the arcke; both thou and all thy household…”
Geneva (1599) “Enter thou and all thine house into the Ark…”

(Wycliffe and Geneva on BibleGateway)

Was Wycliffe trying to damage God’s Word? Tyndale, the originator of many famous Authorized Version passages, rendered the text “go”. Even the Geneva, stemming also from the Textus Receptus, rendered it without a reference point; “Enter thou…into the Ark.” There is no conspiracy, Kent.

And Finally, a bit of Hebrew

I fully expect Kent to check-out at this point (or maybe try and push one of Riplinger’s books), but for those of you who are interested in actually studying a matter out, we can briefly look to see which word is in question, and how else the King James Version translates it.

According to an online Hebrew Lexicon, the term used here is bow’. Now, I don’t speak, read, or comprehend Hebrew, but thanks to the many people who do, I don’t need to. A cursory glance at a couple of online resources shows the semantic range of this word:

בּוֹא bôwʼ, bo; a primitive root; to go or come

According to Strongs, this word appears 2,577 times, and with the following renderings:

come (1,435x), bring (487x), … in (233x), enter (125x), go (123x), carry (17x), …down (23x), pass (13x), …out (12x), misc (109x).


I feel pretty content with what we’ve learned here. I still feel it was an unnecessary journey, but I learned a couple of things along the way and am better for it. So whether you’re coming, or going, I wish you godspeed in your continued study of His Word.

Micah 5:2, and the NIV.

The Conflict

Micah 5:2 happens to be another verse in the New International Version that King James Onlyists detest. This is a prophetic verse speaking of Christ, and his coming. Let’s take a look at the King James Version and then the New International Version:

Micah 5:2 King James Version,
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

Micah 5:2 New International Version,
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins [b] are from of old, from ancient times. [c] “

The last part of both texts is what we’re interested in. The “origins” and “ancient times” as the New International Version puts it. King James Onlyists teach that by using the word “origins” to refer to Christ, the NIV teaches that Christ is a created being whose existence had a beginning. Furthermore, they teach this beginning was later in Creation, a long time ago during “ancient times.”

Don’t be so Presumptuous

One must always be cautious when they hear “The [insert translation] teaches [insert odd doctrine]” after reading a single verse. You can teach just about anything if all you are required to do is quote a single verse. Teachings in scripture come from studying the scriptures, not from reading a single verse. An equivalent example from the King James could be John 6:54:

John 6:54 King James Version,
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Do you see the harm in suggesting any translation teaches anything after reading only one verse, or a small portion of a context? We’ve just argued, by King James Onlyist standards, that the King James Bible teaches cannibalism of Christ is a Christian teaching. Of course if you fail to study the text, you may indeed come away with some very unscriptural ideas – but that isn’t the text’s fault, it’s the fault of the lazy reader.

Is Christ a Created Being in the NIV?

So, back to our text. King James Onlyists prefer the King James’ “goings forth” over the NIV’s “origins.” Why? Because they assume the origin is in reference to Jesus’ existence. This is not the case though, as we can see from other passages in the NIV. For instance, John 1 in the NIV still teaches that Christ is The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1 refutes the idea that Christ was created:

John 1:3 New International Version,
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Note the point here, everything that was ever made, was made through Christ. This precludes the possibility that Christ was made, because Christ cannot be made through himself. He must exist for anything to be made at all, and all that was made, was made through Him – again, precluding the option of He Himself being made.  This statement is made in other places in the NIV as well.

Colossians 1:16 New International Version,
“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”

Again, the NIV teaches emphatically that Christ was the Agent by which all that has been made was made. All things created, things in Heaven and Earth, visible things and invisible things – everything. Everything was made by Christ, and through Christ. So don’t permit the King James Onlyist to say the NIV teaches that Christ is a created being – He isn’t. He is the uncreated Creator of all that is created, according to both the King James Bible, and the New International Version.

Back to the Origin!

So if Christ was not a created being, how can he have an “origin”? The use of “origin” is in regard to what place Christ came from, not whether Christ was created. Somebody may ask you where your family originated – they’re not asking how your family came into being, but rather where they came from. This is the same thing with Christ.

The thoughtful King James Onlyist shouldn’t consider this a problem. Or, if he does, he should note that it is then a problem for him as well. You see, the phrase “goings forth” only appears once in the King James, preventing us from getting a better understanding of how it’s used, and what it is intended to mean. But, if you look it up in Strong’s (H4163) you will see that it’s under the noun mowtsa’ah. This word has the following definition.

  1. origin, place of going out from
    • origin
    • places of going out to or from
      • privy

So the word “goings forth” also means “origin” or the “place of going out from,” which is pretty much the same thing we stated above. Christ had an origin in the sense that he came from some location, but not in the sense that he was created. Both the NIV and the KJV are saying the same thing, they’re just using different terms. While the NIV uses a more familiar wording, the KJV uses a very strange and foreign wording.

From Ancient Time?

This is one that baffles me. I’m not sure why the King James Onlyist even finds this alarming. Most of our King James Onlyist friends attend rather conservative Churches which undoubtedly sing Hymns – I’m sure many of them know and love the “Ancient of Days” hymn. Clearly when we refer to God as “Ancient” we are not placing him in history alone, for God is timeless, from eternity to eternity.

We find the “ancient of days” phrase throughout Daniel 3 times. Further, we happen to find the exact phrase “ancient time(s)” found in the King James too five times.

2 Kings 19:25 King James Version,
“Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps.”

Psalm 77:5 King James Version,
“I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.”

Isaiah 37:26 King James Version,
“Hast thou not heard long ago, how I have done it; and of ancient times, that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps.”

Isaiah 45:21 King James Version,
“Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”

Isaiah 46:10 King James Version,
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

So these are the instances of “ancient time(s)” in the King James Bible. Does it sound like we’re just looking at events that took place in recorded history? When does God’s declaration about what will happen really take place? When did God declare the end from the beginning, and the things that are not yet done? This phrase seems to be pushing events back into eternity past.

Although the NIV says Christ is from “ancient times,” this doesn’t mean he is from history. Although the KJV calls God “wise,” this doesn’t mean He learns new things. While we use these terms to help understand our Creator, we must keep in mind how their meanings differ from when we use them against any other object. Man’s origin is unlike God’s origin. Man’s wisdom is unlike God’s wisdom. This distinction must always be made.

Digging a little deeper

The phrase “ancient times” appears in the Hebrew as qedem yowm. This also happens to be the same exact Hebrew words found in Micah 5:2 (KJV), translated “from of old, from everlasting.” While you may hear Onlyists object to the NIV’s wording in Micah 5:2, the fact is that the King James performed the exact same translation in other instances of these words. Hardly sounds like a conspiracy now, right?


So in the end, we don’t have any grand conspiracy, no Satanic secrets, nothing of which to base a Dan Brown book on – just two translations of the same text, using different words but saying the same thing. In fact, we even have strong testimony from the King James that the translation made in the NIV “ancient times” of qedem yowm is a legitimate translation, thanks guys!

Words of the King James Bible: Ague

Contrary to what King James Onlyists claim, the King James Bible is not written in the “Universal Language.” It’s written in a 400 year old version of it, and languages change radically over a few centuries.

That being said, the King James Bible is a beautiful work of antiquity, and one of the most elegant translations we have today. It will at times contain difficult words, but these should be viewed as opportunities to expand your vocabulary. As I come across words that cause me some trouble, I’ll share them here for others.

Today’s word, “ague”.

“The Burning ‘Ague'”

Leviticus 26:16 King James Bible:
“I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.”

When you come across words you don’t understand, at times the context will define them for you. Especially in places where parallelism is commonly used. But when this option isn’t present, consulting modern versions can help in your understanding:

Leviticus 26:16 New International Version:
“then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.”

Leviticus 26:16 New American Standard Bible:
“I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up.”

Of course consulting a lexicon is always helpful too:

And for good measure, toss in a dictionary reference like Noah Webster’s 1828:

  1. The cold fit which precedes a fever, or a paroxysm of fever in intermittents. It is accompanied with shivering.
  2. Chilliness; a chill, or state of shaking with cold, though in health.
  3. It is used for a periodical fever, an intermittent, whether quotidian, tertian, or quartan. In this case, the word, which signifies the preceding cold fit, is used for the disease.

Now you know what “ague” means. The next time you’re reading through Leviticus, and you come across it, you’ll be prepared!