Catholics, if your claim that without you (catholics) there is no Bible (KJV) is true?

Question

Then how would you (catholics) reconcile your claim to these verses?
1. John 1:1-3.
2. John 15:5.
3..Ecclesiastes 1:9.
4. 2Timothy 2:15
5. 2Timothy 3:16-17.

Besides, why then you put a curse against yourselves(catholics)?
1. Revelation 22:18-19.

and why are you (catholics) not using the Bible (KJV) to teach your (catholics) members? but you (catholic) prefer your cathecist book? Are you saying your catechist book is much better than the Bible then?

And if so then are you saying you (catholic) owns the whole world?
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Answer 1

The KJV was made well after the Catholic Church put the bible together



We do use the bible and we don't own the whole world



How did we put a curse against ourselves, new to me

Answer 2

Well, first, let me state my position: I'm a Fundamentalist Christian. What that means is that I believe the bible should be taken literally whenever the bible allows us to do so, and that the bible is the highest authority regarding Christian doctrine.



I've also read the *entire* Roman Catholic Catechism. Second-best Christian book I've ever read (though, I admit, I've not read many other than that and the bible - repeatedly).



SO - I just want you to understand that I am NOT Roman Catholic and that I do not ***agree*** with many of their doctrines. However, there is a huge step from disagreement to criticism. WHEN I question a fellow Christian's doctrine, I do so ONLY on the basis that it is CONTRARY to what the bible teaches.





Now - it is quite possibly true that the King James Version would not exist without the Roman Catholic Church. Even if you do not credit them with the creation of the bible (and you may have good reason for doing so), the fact remains that the Crusades were largely Roman Catholic supported undertakings - ones which likely would not have happened if the Roman Catholic Church had not existed, as that unifying Church was probably the only thing that could persuade traditionally hostile feudal forces to join and press back the overwhelming tide of Muslim invasion that at one point reached as far as **Vienna**.



Without the Roman Catholic Church, it is not hard to believe that Europe would be Muslim - and it is quite possible that no King James Version would have been produced under such circumstances. In fact, it is most likely that there would not have been a King James under those circumstances.





Enough about that. Let's address your verses. You do realize, of course, that all of these verses - every one of them - were written **centuries before** ANY bible existed, right? And about 1500 years before the King James Version existed, right? OK....



Jhn 1:1-3 - says nothing about any bible. Roman Catholics would likely respond that Jesus is The Word spoken of here, not the bible - and they would be correct.



Jhn 15:5 - says nothing about any bible. I have no idea why you listed this.



Ecc 1:9 - Was written centuries before the bible was put together. Note what it *says*: "there is no new thing under the sun" - NOT "there will never, ever be anything new under the sun".



2Ti 2:15 - An injunction to an elder of the church (bishop?) to study. I think that perhaps one or two (or more) Roman Catholic priests have done something like this maybe once or twice during their lives. In fact, there is even the slightest of chances that extensive religious (including biblical) study is a prerequisite in the Roman Catholic Church for becoming the leader of a congregation.



2Ti 3:16-17 - speaks of the source of religious Scripture - not the preservation or transmission or translation or dissemination of it. However, at least I can understand how you might think this on-target. Roman Catholics will undoubtedly agree 100% with what this passage claims.



Rev 22:18-19 - SO - what exactly is your complaint relative to this passage (which indisputably refers only to the book of Revelation)? IF you (mistakenly) believe that it refers to the entire bible, are you saying that the Roman Catholics should never have removed 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh - all 3 of which were included in the King James Version by the translators?



Or do you have the mistaken idea that modern **heavily abridged** versions of the King James Version are "complete" and that Roman Catholics have added to that? You cannot be more mistaken. Here is the table of contents of the first edition of the King James Version

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36



And here is my explanation of what modern PUBLISHERS - not pastors, not the Holy Spirit, not biblical scholars, but PUBLISHERS - have chosen to omit from modern editions of the King James Version. THEY are the ones that should be ashamed!

http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html





You wrote:

and why are you (catholics) not using the Bible (KJV) to teach your (catholics) members



Roman Catholics read more from the bible during religious services (they call it "Mass") than any other Christian sect I have ever attended except, perhaps, for the Anglican Communion (Episcopalians here in the U.S.) I have attended a *great many* different Christian religious services - probably over a dozen major denominations as well as several "non-denominational" and small-denomination churches. It is a shame for you and for all Christians that you make such a groundless charge against Roman Catholics.



The Roman Catholic Catechism is the book that teaches them what they NEED to believe to be Roman Catholic. Needless to say, that document not only refers the reader to the bible in almost every paragraph; it also makes it quite plain just how important (very important) the bible is to Roman Catholic doctrine. True - they do not consider the bible to be the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine. However, they do hold it VERY HIGHLY with regard to that, and there are many Roman Catholics scholars through the centuries who have taken great pains to NOT contradict the bible when establishing doctrine as necessary doctrine.





Anyway - I certainly don't believe that the Roman Catholics are doing everything right. But I am quite certain that they are doing no more wrong than you with respect to some of the accusations made here.



Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com

Answer 3

Why would we use an incorrect bible? And we do use the bible, just not your flawed translation.



None of your verses make any sense in this area. They have nothing to do with our claim to have been the collector of the bible. THe claim is that the Catholic church is the one that sorted out all the false books and compiled a canon of the bible. It wasn't until the 16th century that Martin Luther REMOVED books from the bible. We didn't add anything. YOU subtracted. So that verse really applies to YOU.



So basically, the church kept, maintained and distributed the bible for over a thousand years. Then Martin Luther comes along, breaks off and removed books from the old testament. Then YOU tell us that we added stuff? Wrong. Additionally, you take a translation that was politically motivated and bad and try to say that is the best one?



So basically, your church is in the wrong. I know that attempting to say we added to the bible is the only possible way to defend yourself, but it's wrong. Incorrect at best, a committing of false witness at the worst.

Answer 4

The Catechism isn't a source of beliefs. It is a compilation of beliefs. And if you took the time to look at it you would see that multiple scriptural references are provided for every paragraph in the Catechism. The Catholic Church used the Bible for a thousand years before the KJV existed. Furthermore, the original KJV is the poporest translation still in common usage, with more than 3,500 translational errors. The Bible is a Catholic book, compiled by Catholic Bishops from Catholic writings for the sole use of the Catholic Church. We don't mind that you borrowed our book, but please don't try to tell us what it means - especially when the thousands of conflicting Protestant denominations can't even agree among themselves what a single verse means.

Answer 5

King James of England, and his appointed scribes (translators), is the reason for the KJV. The Latin Vulgate was the Catholic Bible during that time period. The translators tried to use much of the original Apostles word, but unfortunately, some of the original word had been lost, or not attainable, and the translators had to translate much of the Latin Vulgate into the English translation of the KJV.

Answer 6

No. The KJV became into achieved in 1611. on condition that then there has been countless new analyze in archeology, etc that went into the extra moderen variations. while starting to be a sparkling version the group considers despite if or not they desire a version that sticks as close to to the origional languages as achieveable (which makes it difficult to envision because it interprets awkwardly into English) or a version it somewhat is somewhat basic to envision and understand (eg "The Message") or a mix of the two. The Revised common version is considered to be between the main precise and closest to the origional textual content textile. yet countless the variations available are in line with countless analyze and can be relied on. it is significant to earnings to earnings the Bible for your self.

Answer 7

Protestants believe in Jesus Christ, so do Mormons and Catholics. Although I do not agree with some of these Christian denominations' dogma; their belief in Jesus is really all that matters. It hurts the cause of Jesus to have different CHRISTIAN denominations bashing one another. Let's embrace what we have in common...not our dogmatic differences. BTW I attend Baptist Church, but I do not agree with all their doctrines either.



If you claim to be a Christian then I am respectfully asking you to not engage in bashing any Christian denomination. Sure, I disagree with Morman, Catholic, etc. dogma, but the bottom line is we all believe "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It does not further the cause of Christ to criticize other ChristiansI

Answer 8

Without God or Love there will be no Bible! for we who do believe in the bible are those who believe in God.

I am also catholic and who ever believes in God our the children of God. God Bless! God is the one and only one who will judge the heart of us all, no matter how we pray or read his word and what we do? even you in our path of life.

God Bless!

Answer 9

\Textus Receptus





the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

The Greek New Testament project was seen by its publisher, Johann Froben, as a considerable commercial opportunity. (ibid., pages 98 and 102-103) Accordingly Froben expeditiously negotiated with Erasmus, who had already nobly intended to produce a Greek-Latin parallel text New Testament for the primary purpose of allowing Latin readers to become better acquainted with the original New Testament text, which he wanted to approximate as best as possible. Froben rushed Erasmus' first edition text to market, in his attempt to get it into circulation ahead of the much more methodically prepared Complutensian Polyglot Bible, which was due to be published soon. (In contrast to the five months that Erasmus used to hurriedly put his text together and get it printed and circulated, the Complutensian text required eighteen years of careful preparation before its first edition appeared. Erasmus himself said in a letter in Latin in 1516 that this first edition had been "praecipitatum verius quam editum," -- more precipitated than edited.)

Erasmus' Greek manuscript basis. Erasmus' final 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century. Though Erasmus did in later editions of his work consult the Complutensian version of the Greek New Testament, Metzger is able to truthfully state:

Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agree agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]

The TR was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text. Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.

Due to the errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV were translated, the KJV contains some texts that are not consistent with Jesus' genuine teachings and other genuine New Testament teachings, as represented in the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament. For example:

(1) In Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29, the earliest and best available Greek manuscripts conclusively show that the words "or wife" (Greek: e gunaika, Strong's: #2228 and #1135) were not in the original Greek text and are contrary to Jesus' consistent, genuine teachings about marriage.

Note: See a thorough examination of Jesus' teachings and other New Testament teachings regarding marriage and separation at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm.

(2) In Matthew 5:22, "without a cause" (Greek: eike, Strong's: #1500) was not in the original Greek text of Matthew.

Note: See a textual commentary of "Mat 5:22" at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm. See also S&H 369:31-32.

(3) In some cases whole verses or large parts of verses, such as 1 John 5:7-8 (as noted above), were added at the behest of church authorities who, according to some very reputable scholars, presented to Erasmus forged manuscripts in order to include texts that justified their teachings.

Note: See a textual commentary of "1Jo 5:7-8" at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-1jo.htm.

Many, many other examples in the KJV of additions to, omissions from, and alterations of the Greek New Testament texts are listed in the following webpages