That's a very good job transliterating that verse; the long s is the only thing missing. Did you do it yourself? If so, a very good job!
...and I love the double proof that, again, destroys the OP's argument
I'm somewhat convinced that for all the OP's talk about Tyndale's translation being divinely inspired and the only good English Bible to read (for reasons that apparently only the OP knows) he doesn't seem to have ever actually read Tyndale's translation.
I don't recall whether it was in this thread or the Eve thread, but the OP acknowledged that Tyndale's work is based on Erasmus' critical Greek texts, which of course begs the question why the OP is now rallying against those same Greek texts when they use Christianos/Christianoi--which all Greek texts have since the beginning and as they were penned by the original authors in Greek two thousand years ago.
Likewise in the Eve thread there was much ado about Tyndale rendering Adam's wife's name as Heva, decrying the Vulgate as a corruption, despite the fact that the Vulgate renders Adam's wife's name as Heva.
Another thing that is going to perplex me is the fact that Tyndale didn't translate an entire Bible, Tyndale only translated the New Testament and part of the Old Testament.
The OP then refers to the a "Tyndale Matthew Bible" seemingly unaware that the Matthew Bible, while using Tyndale's material also incorporated the work of Myles Coverdale, specifically Coverdale's Old Testament + Apocrypha which were translated from German and (here's a fun part) Latin.
As such the OP has thus argued that Tyndale's incomplete translation, plus the Matthew Bible's supplemental Coverdale material are God's divinely inspired word, while simultaneously argued that the Greek source texts used by Tyndale are at once both accurate and wrong, and the Latin sources which both Coverdale and Tyndale used are corrupt, but apparently good enough to be used by God to produce the right, un-corrupt Bible.
And as such all I can see is a big hot steaming mess of a non-argument interspersed with juvenile ad-hominem remarks, in addition to a complete unwillingness to engage in any sort of reasonable discussion, back up any claim with any sort of evidence whatsoever leaving the rest of us completely unable to know where the OP even received his information. Though that last point doesn't even matter if the OP is unable or unwilling to actually address points, engage in conversation, or behave like an adult.
All of this still leaves me confused as to whether the OP is even serious at all or if this is simply a trolling operation. Part of me is unwilling to accept that someone would honestly believe any of this and behave in this fashion, but having been on the internet long enough I've seen worse. But it's another one of those losing faith in humanity moments, much like any time I make the mistake of scrolling down into the comments section on Youtube.
-CryptoLutheran
