Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[pinacled]

All three?

You should know better

 

[pinacled]

No

 

[NathanH83]

What is the copywrite and publishers name ?

Have you denied Truth.

The copyright and publisher of the original 1611 King James Bible? Or do you want the names of the people who made this 400-year anniversary edition?

I already gave you the links to buy it on Amazon. Why do you need me to do the work for you? Is it because you’re too lazy to do it yourself?

Here’s the copyright inside the cover.

 

[pinacled]

The copyright and publisher of the original 1611 King James Bible? Or do you want the names of the people who made this 400-year anniversary edition?

I already gave you the links to buy it on Amazon. Why do you need me to do the work for you? Is it because you’re too lazy to do it yourself?

Here’s the copyright inside the cover.

2011 reprint of what yr kjv?
I very much doubt the original 1611 had commentator notes.
So little information is available for investigation.

I don't purchase online.

 

[pinacled]

The copyright and publisher of the original 1611 King James Bible? Or do you want the names of the people who made this 400-year anniversary edition?

I already gave you the links to buy it on Amazon. Why do you need me to do the work for you? Is it because you’re too lazy to do it yourself?

Here’s the copyright inside the cover.

Interesting dates. I thought 1988 seemed a decent guess
Excerpt;
[ In 1988, Zondervan was acquired by Harper & Row, now HarperCollins, eventually leading them to be one of the two major publishing houses that formed HarperCollins Christian Publishing in 2012.]


As for the bible museum there is very little known except that they operate out of hotel in az.
Which doesn't sound like a credible source.

You may want to get your money back Nathan.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

The copyright and publisher of the original 1611 King James Bible? Or do you want the names of the people who made this 400-year anniversary edition?

I already gave you the links to buy it on Amazon. Why do you need me to do the work for you? Is it because you’re too lazy to do it yourself?

Here’s the copyright inside the cover.

Yes,
Who made the 400yr anniversary edition?
That will likely explain why the calligraphy looked so recent.

 

[NathanH83]

2011 reprint of what yr kjv?
I very much doubt the original 1611 had commentator notes.
So little information is available for investigation.

I don't purchase online.

I already told you. It’s a photocopy of the 1611 KJV.

If you wanted a picture of the original 1611 part, then why didn’t you specify?
Gotta wait till I get home now.

You can also find PDF documents for free online that show the original 1611 KJV. It’s public knowledge. You’re acting like it’s all locked up in Area 51 or something. This is publicly available stuff.

 

[pinacled]

I already told you. It’s a photocopy of the 1611 KJV.

If you wanted a picture of the original 1611 part, then why didn’t you specify?
Gotta wait till I get home now.

You can also find PDF documents for free online that show the original 1611 KJV. It’s public knowledge. You’re acting like it’s all locked up in Area 51 or something. This is publicly available stuff.

From the calligraphy style I don't believe its a photo copy of the original 1611 kjv.
Rather a reprint from around a few yrs ago.
Especially considering the marginal notations are in print font similar to a typewriter from the 1980s.

 

[NathanH83]

Yes,
Who made the 400yr anniversary edition?
That will likely explain why the calligraphy looked so recent.

Who made the 400-year edition?
Uh, can you read? Look at the picture. It says Zondervan did it.

And no, Zondervan did not create the calligraphy. It’s a photocopy replica.
Do you know what photocopy means? Have you ever used a copy machine before?

I mean seriously, are you just joking? Or do you seriously not know what a photocopy is?

Also, you can download a PDF of the original 1611 King James from this website:

The Original King James Bible 1611 PDF

www.originalbibles.com

 

[NathanH83]

From the calligraphy style I don't believe its a photo copy of the original 1611 kjv.
Rather a reprint from around a few yrs ago.
Especially considering the marginal notations are in print font similar to a typewriter from the 1980s.

You can believe what you want, but you clearly have not lifted the smallest finger to verify your belief. You refuse to download the PDF of the original KJV. You refuse to buy a replica of the original KJV on Amazon. You refuse to visit any museum that has a original KJV on display.

You refuse to actually do the work of verifying any of these things, and yet you assert that the KJV didn’t have marginal notes referencing the apocrypha, when you haven’t done ANY of the research work to prove what you believe is true or not.

DO THE WORK!

If you’re not willing to actually research this, then you have no business telling people that the original KJV did not contain the apocrypha.

 

[pinacled]

Picture taken from John 10:22 in the original 1611 King James.
The Feast of Dedication is the Feast of Hanukkah, as shown in this marginal note.

Jesus celebrated the Maccabees?

But they told me that the New Testament never acknowledges the Apocrypha.

???????

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

Do the research yourself. I’m done with you.

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

Here’s another website that has archived the original 1611 KJV. This website is easier to use.

1611 The Authorized King James Bible : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1611 The Authorized King James Bible

archive.org

Research it yourself.

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

This is a screen shot from the website. This is chapter 10 of John’s gospel.

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

Zoom in of chapter 10.

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

The next page containing the rest of chapter 10:

 

[pinacled]

You can believe what you want, but you clearly have not lifted the smallest finger to verify your belief. You refuse to download the PDF of the original KJV. You refuse to buy a replica of the original KJV on Amazon. You refuse to visit any museum that has a original KJV on display.

You refuse to actually do the work of verifying any of these things, and yet you assert that the KJV didn’t have marginal notes referencing the apocrypha, when you haven’t done ANY of the research work to prove what you believe is true or not.

DO THE WORK!

If you’re not willing to actually research this, then you have no business telling people that the original KJV did not contain the apocrypha.

Many here have already done the "work" and have proven your assumptions to be an error of understanding.
Whether or not you accept their work shows a form of bias.
Do you accept every form of information that is on the internet besides actual human interaction and communication.
Or are you willing to accept that you were hoodwinked by this company promoting an alleged anniversary version of the 1611 kjv bible.

Simply look closer at the fonts of the marginal notes and you'll find multiple time stamps.

Blessings Always

 

[NathanH83]

Do the marginal notes look familiar/similar to a certain era of font style?

Zoom in of marginal note in John 10:22.

 

[NathanH83]

Many here have already done the "work" and have proven your assumptions to be an error of understanding.
Whether or not you accept their work shows a form of bias.
Do you accept every form of information that is on the internet besides actual human interaction and communication.
Or are you willing to accept that you were hoodwinked by this company promoting an alleged anniversary version of the 1611 kjv bible.

Simply look closer at the fonts of the marginal notes and you'll find multiple time stamps.

Blessings Always

Nobody here except you thinks that the original KJV didn’t contain marginal notes referencing the apocrypha. You’re the only one here denying that fact. And you won’t find anyone here who is going to agree with you that this isn’t a genuine photocopy replica of the original King James. You’re alone on that point.

 

[pinacled]

Zoom in of chapter 10.

Did they have typewriters in 1611?