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
If you refer to something as Catholic, with a capital C, it’s “cultic”.
The KJV is fine. So is the ESV. So are many other translations. The KJV is a beautiful translation but causes issues with its use of old english and the confusion that breeds (as is evident in your reading of it). I like the ESV because it’s a word-for-word, thought-for-thought translation that is easier to read and understand without trying to remember the old english definition of words and terms that vary with those used today.
Instead of twisting things off topic, why not address the issues? Dodge and weave; I see it a lot here.
Try something new... like answering a straight-forward question I posed to you. Or not. If not, I have my answer. If so, maybe I can learn and maybe you can convince me of the error of my opinion of your Church.
Hoss