Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Yes, I believe the KJV is "the word of God", but in the same way that the Geneva Bible was "the word of God", Tyndale's translation was "the word of God"
Brian
|
Hi Brian. It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.
Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”.
Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “
Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”
In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!
Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?
Do you mean that Tyndale contained some or even most of God's words, but not all of them? Or did the King James Bible add these parts to the word of God? How is this "in the same way"?
It seems you are trying to satisfy (or confuse) everyone and end up sounding like you have a few screws loose in the ol' brain pan.
How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?
Thanks,
Will K