If you answered in the negative: "All those words and phrases are NOT THE WORD of God. They are but man made additions to the word of God." This answer would at least show our readers what you really believe. It would also show your UNBELIEF of what you call the word of God - the AV. And yes, by saying that any portion of the word of God (AV) is NOT THE WORD OF GOD that my dear sister IS AN ATTACK on the word of God (AV).
If that is the case, then you believe in a Bible translated by men who also had UNBELIEF in the word of God, because they (figuratively speaking) took a black marker, and crossed out verses, phrases, and words found in the word of God - the Bishop's; the word of God - the Geneva; the word of God - the Tyndale and various other translations in addition to the printed Greek New Testament.
They even as much as expressed their "UNBELIEF" (as you put it), when they stated that when there was doubt as to certain readings, it was best that the alternative be included in a margin note, so that the reader could seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit concerning that verse.
And, considering they were such "unbelievers", how can we be sure their choices were right? I know you have said that our proof is that the KJV has been accepted by the church of the Living God for close to 400 years; but what about the Catholics whom you work so hard to witness to? They have believed their teachings concerning the word of God for even longer. Their teachings have been accepted by the church of the Living God, in their eyes, too. So, how do you know that you are right concerning the KJV and they are wrong?
Cetainly not. If you said: "Every word of the underlined portions of the following verses ARE the word of God and NOT ADDITIONS of men", then that would not be an attack.
UNLESS, it was true that some of those words WERE added by men. I wonder if it would be an attack on the word of God to call them the word of God, when they were not.
You STILL have not addressed the issue of variant readings between the KJV and the Reina-Valera. How can a reading be the word of God in one language, but not another, especially considering they were both translated from Greek manuscripts. If the Reina-Valera can accept a different variant verse from the Greek from what the KJV translators chose, why is that considered the word of God? Why do you not call them unbelievers? Why are modern translation users called unbelievers when they make the same kinds of decisions made by the RV translators and the KJV translators? I would really like to see you address these questions!
Now, I will answer yours:
Now, are the underlined portions of the previously quoted verses the word of God or not?
They are variant readings (or translations in the case of the one verse) found within the word of God.
If that is the case, then you believe in a Bible translated by men who also had UNBELIEF in the word of God, because they (figuratively speaking) took a black marker, and crossed out verses, phrases, and words found in the word of God - the Bishop's; the word of God - the Geneva; the word of God - the Tyndale and various other translations in addition to the printed Greek New Testament.
They even as much as expressed their "UNBELIEF" (as you put it), when they stated that when there was doubt as to certain readings, it was best that the alternative be included in a margin note, so that the reader could seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit concerning that verse.
And, considering they were such "unbelievers", how can we be sure their choices were right? I know you have said that our proof is that the KJV has been accepted by the church of the Living God for close to 400 years; but what about the Catholics whom you work so hard to witness to? They have believed their teachings concerning the word of God for even longer. Their teachings have been accepted by the church of the Living God, in their eyes, too. So, how do you know that you are right concerning the KJV and they are wrong?
Cetainly not. If you said: "Every word of the underlined portions of the following verses ARE the word of God and NOT ADDITIONS of men", then that would not be an attack.
UNLESS, it was true that some of those words WERE added by men. I wonder if it would be an attack on the word of God to call them the word of God, when they were not.
You STILL have not addressed the issue of variant readings between the KJV and the Reina-Valera. How can a reading be the word of God in one language, but not another, especially considering they were both translated from Greek manuscripts. If the Reina-Valera can accept a different variant verse from the Greek from what the KJV translators chose, why is that considered the word of God? Why do you not call them unbelievers? Why are modern translation users called unbelievers when they make the same kinds of decisions made by the RV translators and the KJV translators? I would really like to see you address these questions!
Now, I will answer yours:
Now, are the underlined portions of the previously quoted verses the word of God or not?
They are variant readings (or translations in the case of the one verse) found within the word of God.
