If you mean there isn't a one-sentence rule to make it child-proof, then I guess so. But maybe we could use our brains and figure it out?
Ay, there's the rub.
The problem, as I understand it is not just the varied translations of the Holy Bible where a word has been changed here and there, and commentaries from those favoring various bibles have their own opinions of what was meant I do have trouble with the following 2 items. No matter which translation you prefer, especially for #2.
#1. I personally have trouble with the use of the word Easter...in the KJV because
It was not until The Council of Nicaea in 325 decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox , which is March 21
This is when Easter became of noted importance.
But prior to that, as can be read in the Encyclopedia we learn that The earliest recorded observance of an Easter celebration comes from the 2nd century, long after Peter was jailed. Further suggesting that Herod would not have referred to Pascha as Easter, and likely not Luke ( the author?) who was recording events as accurately as possible.
Alternative Title: Pascha
Easter, Latin Pascha, Greek Pascha, principal festival of the Christian church, which celebrates the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after his Crucifixion. The earliest recorded observance of an Easter celebration comes from the 2nd century, though the commemoration of Jesus’ Resurrection probably occurred earlier. The English word Easter, which parallels the German word Ostern, is of uncertain origin. One view, expounded by the Venerable Bede in the 8th century, was that it derived from Eostre, or Eostrae, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility.
It should be reasonably safe to say
There were no specific "Easter" observances when Acts 12:4 was taking place. None of the importance of the day like Passover was observed.
And with Peter's death around 64 AD. The recording of any such observances such as Easter not being noted anywhere... Herod would not have used that term and if Luke had used it there , without explanation of where the name came from ??
Fact: The first Christians, Jewish and Gentile, had to be aware of the Hebrew calendar. All ,at that time, would have been aware of the Jewish celebrations and festivals.
Jewish Christians, the first to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, timed the observance in relation to Passover for a reason. This was fact in that it was right after Passover that Mary and company discovered the empty tomb.
We do not see a more fully formed Christian festival of Pascha (Easter) begin to appear until the mid-2nd century.
Ergo, So when Peter was jailed they did NOT celebrate Easter as such.
It was all the kings men who likely thought it best to not confuse the people who, by that time were well accustomed to the word and its meaning.
#2. The most troubling is all the translations of the Holy Bible that likely got the ending of Mark wrong.
I have read and studied Mark over and over again. I have researched it and am fairly convinced that the original
writings of Mark ended at Mark 16:8.
Now if it was the intention of Mark to end his commentaries there, so be it.
Has a nice ring and truly fits the entire narration as Mark was telling the things of Jesus' ministry as he walked the earth teaching.
Mark 16  And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid
Some have suggested that the rest of the story of Mark's has been lost.
And there are disputes that the ending of Mark 16: 9-19 were not of him but other scribes and therefore should
not be included.
The most inclusive explanations of the following links is this...
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-20, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus.https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
Mark 16:9-20 includes the disputed longer ending of Mark that is included in later Greek manuscripts yet is missing from earlier ones, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Should these verses be in the Bible?https://www.compellingtruth.org/Mark-16-9-20.html