Replies

False

Read my post carefully. I posted the King James Version.

Yes, you did. But you used the Roman misinterpretation of it.

Strike 3. You're done.

Take care.

Hoss

>>False Read my post carefully. I posted the King James Version.>>

Yes, you did. But you used the Roman misinterpretation of it. Strike 3. You're done. Take care. Hoss

False; you rejected the King James Version and used some unattributed version. Being a baseball fan does not make one an impartial referee nor a workman who rightly divides the word of truth. What Protestant derived farm team do you root for that you have cast away the King James Authorized Version ?

In your post 587 you did attribute the King James Version which I posted as belonging to a cult. You wrote "Try a better translation -- it would help you -- instead of what the Catholic Cult "writes" --- "Acts, Catholic chapter seventeen" "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." God is not a "what" -- God is "He."

Yet you insist you knew that I posted the King James Version in your post where you wrote: Yes, you did. But you used the Roman misinterpretation of it."

Therefore, since you avow that you know I posted the KJV, and you called it posted another unattributed version which conflicts with the KJV, you have rejected the KJV, attributed the KJV to what you termed "what the Catholic Cult "writes" --- "Acts, Catholic chapter seventeen"."

In 584 I posted:

Paul wrote, by your assent under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that they were worshiping God in ignorance; are you now denying the scripture ? :

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Acts, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verse twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James