>>17946561
>Jesus said everything the Pharisees preach is true and binding upon you btw.
That was said to the crowd at the time, since the Pharisees and scribes were civil authorities, similar to how Christ said they should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

>And what you said doesn't even make sense, she didn't object to it she made it known that she accepts her place as a dog.
In Isaiah 41:14, He called Jacob a worm.

As the Creator of the universe, Jesus Christ can call us anything He wants. To me however, being called a "worm", honestly seems to be worse than what He said to the woman in Matthew 15. Maybe the Lord simply didn't want to give worm food to someone who wouldn't benefit from it.

>>17823181
>Can't find anybody else returning to the promised land after a 2000 year exile
2000 years before 1947 was the year 54 BC. 2000 years before today was AD 25.

>This has nothing to do with Israel as a nation
See 1 Peter 2:9-10.

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
- 1 Peter 2:9-10

That's referring to us. I can quote more Scripture to establish this beyond any doubt.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
(Galatians 3:16)

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
(Galatians 3:29)

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."
(Galatians 4:28)

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."
(Acts 3:22-23)

>>17783492
>allow countless amounts of Christians who thought they were following His will to be damned for eternity?
It depends on each individual. If they were believing in something other than God's word, then yes they went to hell. The important thing is that God has reserved seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Those were the people and churches who successfully safeguarded the Scripture that we now use today.

>Why would he allow this false church to take over all of Europe, compile scriptures with false verses and false books which needed to be removed after the 1500s,
There have always been and continue to be corruptions being made to the Bible. That doesn't prevent the accurate and preserved Scripture from being preserved and available.

>and perform false miracles with false apparitions and false intercessions, all to deceive His faithful? As one giant test?
Christ warned us to believe in His word, commanding us to search the Scriptures. He said there would arise many false christs and that we should not go after them.

"And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them."
- Mark 13:5-9

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
- John 5:39

>That doesn't answer my question at all.
To my understanding, what has been said perfectly answers your questions.

>>17775885
>The KJV also based its translations off the Greek Septuagint, Masoretic Texts, and the Textus Receptus from 1516.
It is not based on any of these.

It is actually based on the Daniel Bomberg text of 1525 for the Old Testament, which differs from the Ben Asher Masoretic text in a number of places.

In the New Testament, it is based primarily on the 1550 Textus Receptus of Stephanus and the 1598 Textus Receptus of Beza, which were more accurate and used many more manuscripts.

>Whereas the Catholic Bible has remained the same since the Latin Vulgate, prepared by St Jerome in the 4th century.
Not true either. The Clementine and Sixtine recensions of the Vulgate were far different from ancient handwritten copies, such as Codex Amiatinus, and that manuscript isn't even exactly what Jerome used either. Modern renditions of the vulgate used Jerome's translation of the Hebrew, except for the Psalms where modern renditions use his translation of the Greek for some reason even though he also made a translation of the Hebrew Psalms.

See https://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html

You really seem not to know what you're talking about.