Hi! I am catholic, married to a protestant w/no specific church preference....We have several King James Bibles in our home, along with several catholic bibles. What is the difference? I am told there are 7 books added to the catholic version? What is this? Now I AM confused!! Can anyone enlighten me? thank you

-- Lori K (me@myhowz.com), June 29, 2004

Answers

The Catholic "version" is the original "version", and was the only version until a few hundred years ago. The Catholic "version" used today still contains exactly the same 73 sacred books it contained when the Bible was first compiled by the Catholic Church 1,600 years ago. It was the founders of Protestantism who decided to trash 10 books of the Word of God in the 16th century. Fortunately, their plans to remove three New Testament books met with such vehement opposition that the New Testament was not desecrated. But they did manage to toss out seven books of the Old Testament which, by a remarkable coincidence, contain teaching contrary to some of the new traditions they were imposing on their followers. The New Testament books which were rescued from their grasp also contain teaching contrary to their new traditions - such as the powerful teaching by James regarding the necessity of works for salvation - but that they just have to live with. In any case, absolutely nothing has been added to the original Canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church, but a great deal was removed by the early Protestants, who now have only 66 books of God's Word available to them; and who would have had only 63 if their founders had had their way.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

no offense to protestants, but im glad to read what paul has written. the reason is that it gives me faith in knowing that im directing my spriritual growth in a church that hasnt evolved or altered its teaching for the interests of a few zealots.

but paul-- our Church never really changed anything about the bible we used (except for updating the english, for example)???? i would have sworn i heard, over the years, protestants ranting that we pretty much bastardized the bible.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

"our Church never really changed anything about the bible we used (except for updating the english, for example)????"

A: That's right. Not a word. The Church has translated the Bible into virtually every language on earth, always being as faithful to the original texts as possible. Any time anything is translated, there is always the danger of losing a certain shade of meaning from the original language. Indeed sometimes a word may not even exist in the new language that expresses exactly the same nuance as a word in the original language. But the scholars who have produced the priniciple Catholic translations have been the best the world has known. Contrast this with a translation like the original King James version, which contains literally thousands of translational errors.

Actually, the phrase "the Bible we use" is inadequate. It's the Bible the Catholic Church DEFINED, not just a particular "version" we "use". The Catholic Church alone discerned and defined exactly which texts would go into the Bible and which would not; and no-one on earth, Catholic or otherwise, has any way of knowing which texts belong in the Bible, except by the infallible pronouncement of the Catholic Church. That's what so strange about early Protestants removing and attempting to remove various books. They claim that the Catholic Church was mistaken 7 times in its canonization of early Church writings. Yet they accept as infallible and indisputable the Catholic Church's canonization of the remaining 66 books. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If the Church allowed into the Bible seven (or ten) books that didn't belong there (about 10% of all the books they accepted) then its decisions were clearly NOT infallible, and therefore there is no way we can be certain that ANY book they accepted is actually divinely inspired. On the other hand, if the Church WAS divinely guided and infallible in its compilation of the Canon, then ALL of its decisions must be correct. The entire 73 texts which made up the original Bible either were selected infallibly, or they were not. It is absurd to claim that the men God used to compile the book were infallible on 66 selections, but completely wrong on 7 others.

"I would have sworn i heard, over the years, protestants ranting that we pretty much bastardized the bible."

A: I'm sure you did. It's amazing how little most Protestants know about the origin and early history of the Bible. Of course, most Catholics don't know a whole lot about it either, but at least we don't claim that we base our entire faith life on a book, without having any idea where the book came from.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

While we're on the subject of Bibles, how is "Douay Rheims" pronounced? I hate saying words when I'm not sure how to pronounce them, and I can't find this one in any dictionary.

-- JoeJeff (douay@rheims.com), June 29, 2004.

tECHNICALLY THE kING jAMES bIBLE INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL BOOKS IN ITS FIRST SEVERAL PRINTINGS, THEY WHER EONLY REMOVED IN THE 19TH CENTURY...

The KJV is acknowleded as one o the better translatiosn out their, even if pepel here may objet tot hat, and show the usual " Mistranslations" ( Which are msitranslated even in the New American Bibl most fothe time)

It is a formal equivolency Bible, that is pretty accurate when compared tot he origional Hebrew and Greek, and, if you do a comparrison, generally speaking, the KJV is not different in docotrine than the Douay Rheims, New American, or any other Bible. It is, however, a better translation than the two mentioned, the firts beign a paraphrase, and the second beign fro the Vulgate and so a translation of a translation.

On the hwole I use the KJV as my general study Bible.

Precisely because of its accuracy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 29, 2004.

all right-- good thread. but i would be interested in hearing an alternative point of view, perhaps from a protestant explaing why those books were removed.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Again, they wheeren't from th KJV.

However, and I am very tired as I type this so forgive the brevity, I can answer you.

The Contested books are not now, nor have they ever been, a part of the Jewish Cannon. If you poruchase a Jewsh Bible, you will note that these "Old Testement" books are not preasant in the Hebrew Bible at all.

Now, accordign to Catholics, these books ARE part of the Old Testement.

The Jews compiled the Old Testement and we rest on their authority as to which books where inspired before the Advent of Jesus's first coming.

Thus, protestants rejectt he Additional books as they lack authentication form the Jews who never quiet accepted htem as God's word.

( And I am aware of the old " The Jews reject the new testement too, so why listen tot hem" argument, hswoever, it is THEIR Old Testement, so thus their auhtority is respected as far as pre-Christain writtings.)

This said, even soem within the chruhc, Jerome oncluded, discounted these books from the Bibkle when he wrote his Latin Translation up in the Third Century.

The debate was a long one. It didnt just start with Martain Luther, as some tend to think.

I will elaborate later.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 29, 2004.

It is completely irrelevant whether these sacred books were disputed by the Jews or not. Matthew, Corinthians and Revelation were not part of the Jewish Canon either. But they ARE part of the Christian Canon, because the Holy Spirit guided the compilers of the Bible to include them. That statement is equally true of each and every one of the 73 books of the Bible. Otherwise, you have nothing that can be reliably called scripture, as explained above.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

The trole withthat explanaiton is that the Jews rejected those books, but acceptd the other Old testement works. Since we relied o their Old testement decisions, and used THEIR Old testement works , why on earth does it not follow logiclaly that we do the same?

The New testement is differnet, Mathew, Corinthians, and Revelations, are all spacificlaly Christain in charecter, and thus where rejected byt he Jews base don them beign Christain. Maccabees is NOT spacificlalYC hristain, and in fact rpedates Chrisainity and is spacifically Jewish, and not part of their cannon, which they DID havrthe authority to authorise at that time.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 30, 2004.

You didn’t mention that besides the seven whole books the Protestants ripped out, they also removed several largish PARTS of several other books.

A minority of thoughtful protestants DO make some effort to find out the origin of the book on which they base their whole religion. This is what they find:

All of the books of the New Testament were written by Catholic bishops and priests in the first century. All the books of both testaments were compiled and chosen by bishops of the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Now the Protestant wants to think, “Ah but the books virtually chose themselves because they are so self-evidently holier than other books.” Not so. Every part of every book in the Bible, has had its right to be there disputed. Some in the early centuries argued that the whole of the Old Testament should be dropped. There were also vigorous arguments against John’s Gospel, and the Apocalypse. And there were literally scores of other books which were seriously considered for a place in Holy Scripture. Many of them contain much useful and inspiring content. The question was regarded as important, but not absolutely ESSENTIAL, until the Protestants made such an issue of it that the Council of Trent finally formally fixed the canon of scripture.

The Jews, btw, excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture. The Jews did this partly to try to accentuate their differences from the Catholics.

“tECHNICALLY THE kING jAMES bIBLE INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL BOOKS IN ITS FIRST SEVERAL PRINTINGS, THEY WHER EONLY REMOVED IN THE 19TH CENTURY...” (Zarove)

Yes, the first Protestants included them in the back of their Bibles as “Apocrypha” (Greek “hidden” – they copied the name from the Catholic name for the books they excluded from the Bible in the 4th century) . Even though the Protestants claimed not to acknowledge these books as scripture, they included them “so that they will not be lost”. (Apparently Luther and co were so arrogant that they thought that after THEY left, the Catholic Church and all its works would just shrivel up and die!) In the 19th century the Protestants arbitrarily decided to cut these books out completely, merely to reduce the Bible’s weight and save on shipping costs! And from that commercial decision flows the modern protestant bible.

“The KJV is acknowleded as one o the better translatiosn out their, even if pepel here may objet tot hat, and show the usual " Mistranslations" .... pretty accurate when compared tot he origional Hebrew and Greek, ... the KJV is not different in docotrine than the Douay Rheims, New American, or any other Bible. It is, however, a better translation than the two mentioned, the firts beign a paraphrase, and the second beign fro the Vulgate and so a translation of a translation.”

St Jerome wrote the Vulgate in Jerusalem. He used many original documents in the Middle East which have since been destroyed, mostly during the Muslim conquests. (The great library of Alexandria alone had more than a million books, all burnt.) The Vulgate, as the earliest standard edition based on the widest variety of texts of both testaments, is thus the most accurate. The Douay-Rheims is essentiallly an English version of the Vulgate.

The KJV was based on the Hebrew and Greek books still existing and available in England in the 17th century. Yes the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, but the books the KJV used were not “original”. They had been copied from copies many times over the centuries. Most of them were less than 100 years old, and none was more than 400 years old. And the KGV was produced with a firmly set agenda in mind. The original KJV preface makes it clear the KJV was written by a committee under instruction from the Protestant English government to write it in such a way as to preclude both “popish” beliefs and those of “self-conceited Brethren who run their own ways”. That is, the reason for producing it was to argue the case for official Anglican beliefs – not to achieve accuracy. And besides its many mistakes, the KJV was deliberately written in a style and language which was archaic even at the time it was written. Some see "beauty" in this - but it comes at the expense of loss of clear meaning. Many phrases and even whole sentences are almost incomprehensible.

But technical arguments aside, if a person or an institution (in this case the Catholic Church) writes, compiles, edits, produces and publishes a book, which edition do you take as the correct and better one? The one authorized by the original author and editor, or another version produced by somebody else without the author/editor’s authorization? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

So it’s the Protestants, not the Catholics, who have made both “additions” to and “subtractions” from the Bible. Just as they have continually made “additions” to and “subtractions” from their doctrine – the very other thing which they falsely accuse the Catholics of. We see the totally new doctrine of the so- called “rapture” taken up by many Protestants. The Adventists say we must be vegetarians.

And it is not just the smaller protestant denominations. The main ones like the Anglicans/Episcopalians have embraced things they formerly condemned as immoral like contraception, homosexual activities, and divorce. And most of them now reject the early Protestants’ belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, Jesus’ miracles, and many other articles of faith; some even reject the Resurrection! And they accuse the Catholics of “adding” things.

I like the true story of the Anglican bishop in England, who, when Pius XII formally proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, wrote a nasty article in the press, headed “NOW they have to believe THIS!” attacking the Pope for “adding” “new” beliefs to the faith. It was then pointed out to him that Mary’s Assumption was depicted in a large 700-year old stained glass window of his own cathedral! (which his predecessors had stolen from the Catholics; its windows one of the few pieces of English church art to have survived the periodic bursts of State-sanctioned vandalism by Protestant thugs over the centuries.)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 30, 2004.

You didn’t mention that besides the seven whole books the Protestants ripped out, they also removed several largish PARTS of several other books.

{aGAIN, THE BOOKS WHERENT RIPPED POUT, AND LETS HAVE LESS DRAMA AND MORE FACTS SHALL WE, ITS STATEMENTS LIEK THIS THAT CAUS EME TO LOOSE INTEREST IN THE CONTESTED BOOK DEBATE

What Cahtolics seem to either not know or fail to mention si that those large protiosn of other books ( Daniel and Esther) are not preasent in any extant Hebrew MSS. They are found only in the LXX ( Spetugent, Greek Translation).

The reaosn for the omision of thse segments of the books is because they are NOT a part of the MSS used by Protestants when translatin the Bible. The most common soure for the Old Testement in Protestant, abd even Catholic, Biblkes these days is the Mesorotic Hebrew Text. This text does not contain the additional segments of Daneil and Easther. It never has to the best of our knowledge. The oldest books lack the segments, and most shcolars conceed that the additions found in th LXX are newer additions to the text, an dnot part of the origional work.}-Zarove

A minority of thoughtful protestants DO make some effort to find out the origin of the book on which they base their whole religion. This is what they find:

{Not the " Most Protestnats are ignorant" line again...}-Zarove

All of the books of the New Testament were written by Catholic bishops and priests in the first century. All the books of both testaments were compiled and chosen by bishops of the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

{This is not what most Protestants find at all. You are operatign on a cathlic Bias, which forbids you to relaise exaclty what a protestant sees while examinign the origin of the Bible.

fr instance, since Protestnats do NOT think of the Apostles as Catholic Bishops, ven those who know Cahtolics issue this claim, they do not see the New Testement as written by Cahtolic Prietss and Bishops in the firts century, rather, they see it as wirrtten by Apostles and inspired writers.

They woudl contend the Cahtolic churhc had yet to evilve and thus had no Bishops and priests.

If you want an honest discussion, you must include the acutal point oc veiw you are tryign to deflect, not contstruct a ridiculous straw man.}-Zarove

Now the Protestant wants to think, “Ah but the books virtually chose themselves because they are so self-evidently holier than other books.” Not so. Every part of every book in the Bible, has had its right to be there disputed.

{Since this is based on the above flaw in reasoning, it can be rejected. Protestants don't ususaly make this claim either...}-Zarove

Some in the early centuries argued that the whole of the Old Testament should be dropped. There were also vigorous arguments against John’s Gospel, and the Apocalypse. And there were literally scores of other books which were seriously considered for a place in Holy Scripture. Many of them contain much useful and inspiring content. The question was regarded as important, but not absolutely ESSENTIAL, until the Protestants made such an issue of it that the Council of Trent finally formally fixed the canon of scripture.

{ Odd... Nicea and Carthage didnt do it? Likewise, many protestants know all this already...}-Zarove

The Jews, btw, excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture.

{This is an internal conradiction to your post. You said Trent determiend the final Cannon. Trent hapened in the late 1500's...}- Zarove

The Jews did this partly to try to accentuate their differences from the Catholics.

{ Actually, the Jews we are now talkign about, the Rabbinical's, never used the LXX or the additions to Daniel and Esther or the Contested books. Only soem independant groups of Jews used them, which was why they where part f the LXX, others veiwed them as vital hisotry and Jewish Liturature, but not scripture.

After the war withhte Jews, the rabinical Judaism formed, and it is form them that we get the Jewish Cannon of today. They decended formt eh Pharasees, who had pretty much determiend the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC, which had nohtign to do with Cathlics who did not exist, even by Cahtlic reconing, in the era before Christ.}-Zarove

“tECHNICALLY THE kING jAMES bIBLE INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL BOOKS IN ITS FIRST SEVERAL PRINTINGS, THEY WHER EONLY REMOVED IN THE 19TH CENTURY...” (Zarove)

Yes, the first Protestants included them in the back of their Bibles as “Apocrypha” (Greek “hidden” – they copied the name from the Catholic name for the books they excluded from the Bible in the 4th century) . Even though the Protestants claimed not to acknowledge these books as scripture, they included them “so that they will not be lost”.

{Actually the origional KJV had them in the middle, I beelive, in a seperate section...}-Zarove

(Apparently Luther and co were so arrogant that they thought that after THEY left, the Catholic Church and all its works would just shrivel up and die!)

{Not only are we dealign withthe Anglican Communion, tehcnically, but as a matter of fact, this is one instance where I have to defend Luther. Please make htis rare in occassion.

Luther was not beign arrogant by claimign that he wanted to preserve the books so they woudltn be lost. He did not see them as inspired, but vlauable for reading. He did not asusme the Catholic chruch woudl shrivel and die, rather he asusmed it woidl follow suit with his reformation.}-Zarove

In the 19th century the Protestants arbitrarily decided to cut these books out completely, merely to reduce the Bible’s weight and save on shipping costs!

{ False. The books where removed in the 1630's to eliminate shipping costs, and reintrodiuced in thw 1700s. "The Protestnats" didnt remove them untilt he 19th century, based on teh fundamentalist movement that began in America. Religious revival swept the naiton, and the overal theme of fundamentalism was beleif in the Bible as the Literal word of God, and not to have anyhtign added to scirpture. The Apocrypha was removed because it wa snto seen as scripture and thus shoudl nto be in the Bible.

And again, the removal of the books wa nto arbitrary, it had a motive, in that the books ar enot seen as inspired by protestants, and thus shoudl be removed.

The logic is that they are not in the Hebrew Cannon, and where never even quoted form by the Apostles or Jesus. They contain no hint of divine origin. They where not rmoved arbitrarily and sayign this is a disservice tot he whole discussion.}-Zarove

And from that commercial decision flows the modern protestant bible.

{Actually this is only true of the Authorised Verison, also known as the King James version. Most other Protestnat Bibles, from Luthers Bibnbel to the Geneva Bible, had alreayd lost the Apocrypha decades to centuries earlier.

Likewise, it was not a commerscial decision...}-Zarove

“The KJV is acknowleded as one o the better translatiosn out their, even if pepel here may objet tot hat, and show the usual " Mistranslations" .... pretty accurate when compared tot he origional Hebrew and Greek, ... the KJV is not different in docotrine than the Douay Rheims, New American, or any other Bible. It is, however, a better translation than the two mentioned, the firts beign a paraphrase, and the second beign fro the Vulgate and so a translation of a translation.”

St Jerome wrote the Vulgate in Jerusalem. He used many original documents in the Middle East which have since been destroyed, mostly during the Muslim conquests. (The great library of Alexandria alone had more than a million books, all burnt.) The Vulgate, as the earliest standard edition based on the widest variety of texts of both testaments, is thus the most accurate.

{The Vulgate is, however, not an englush translation...and their have been many editions fo the Vulgate.}-Zarove

The Douay-Rheims is essentiallly an English version of the Vulgate.

{Which is my point. It is a translation of a translation, which makes it duboious at best. The Latin didnt fully capture the Greek or the Hebrew, as it can't being a diferent language. The DR likewise did not capture the fullness of the Latin, because of the disparages of language. I prefer a translation form the origional languages, not one from a seperate translation. That is why the Douay Rheims is rejected by me.}-Zarove

The KJV was based on the Hebrew and Greek books still existing and available in England in the 17th century. Yes the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, but the books the KJV used were not “original”.

{Nor was the Vulgate. Jerome did not translate from the origonal " Acts of the Aposltes" Striegt formt eh hand of Luke. Nor did he translate the origional CLetter tot he romans form Paul. If he did, he woudlt need to corrolate the differnt MSS.

He assuredly worked form copies while translatign the Hebrew.

And again, the translation from Jerome was not the one we contested here, rather, I contested the Douay Rheims as it is a translatio of a translation. It doesnt mater hwo good the Vulgate was, the fact remains that the douat Rheims wll have lingusitic drift, just as the vulgate had linguistic drift. The douay Rheioms is a translation of a translation, and htus is not as safe a translation as either the origional Vulgate or the King James Bible.}-Zarove

They had been copied from copies many times over the centuries. Most of them were less than 100 years old, and none was more than 400 years old.

{Actually the oldest was a little over 500 years old, and in a wirrtten text, this shouldnt matter, since copies have been revealed to be remarkabely well done. The New Testement of the Bibl is the most attested compilition from the ancient world, with most MMSS agreeign wildly, with little real deviation. Its not lik telephone where the older MSS are more accurate, in a written source, if the copy is exact, the informaiton is preserved. This iss why we can rely on thr Bible today, in any Interliner one can find.}-Zarove

And the KGV was produced with a firmly set agenda in mind.

{Lets not get tot he conspiracy theories shall we?}-Zarove

The original KJV preface makes it clear the KJV was written by a committee under instruction from the Protestant English government to write it in such a way as to preclude both “popish” beliefs and those of “self-conceited Brethren who run their own ways”. That is, the reason for producing it was to argue the case for official Anglican beliefs – not to achieve accuracy.

{Popycock. The accuracy of the text was paramount to the translators. I can hjust as eaisly claim the New American Bible was wirtten with an agenda to confirm Cahtolic beleifs and wasn't concenred for accuracy. And guess what, I CAN quote form the preface where it says that it is a translation form a Catholic Perspective. You as a Cahtolci may think this is OK since the Cahtolci Chruch is true, but a protestant can use the disbhoenst tactic you emplyed and say the New american Bibel is base don a similar conspiracy to hode the truth and confirm Cahtlicsisim, not convey accuracy.

The King James Bible was the result of tryign to form a better tranaltion fo the Bible, to repalce the defective Bishops Bible, and to remove the effects th Geneva Bibel which WAS the result of an agenda.

The King James Bible was the result of the King beign petitioned by Ouritains who wanted a pure translation that was uncorrupt by the ideas of men, so no, it was not designed to support Anglicanism, it was designe dot be accurate.

Likewise, even if it was NOT, the fact is, and I have read the Bible in the origional languages, that it IS accurate.So even if it HAD an agenda, the fact remains that it IS an accurate translation, base don comparrisons between the Greek and Hebrew texts and the King James text.

Here si the origional preface for you.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

Read it, and see for yourself.}-Zarove

And besides its many mistakes, the KJV was deliberately written in a style and language which was archaic even at the time it was written.

{What "Many Mistakes"? Suppsoeldy the King James is oen of the worst thing s otu and has huge tinnes of errors. Well gues what, its not that flawed. You didnt show any errors, and the oen time peopel did on this site it was easy to debunk. The King James doesnt HAVE that many errors and is actually LESS in error than ANY modern Bibel in use, this inclused the paraphrased New American Bible.

I am not claimign its fully perfect, but it doesnt have "Many Mistakes", as you imply that its only margionally better than the New world translation.

Likewise this is false. The language was not archaic at the time of the KJV. all yo have to do is read Shakespere, and you see the same language used in Hamlet as in the KJV. It was called high, or formal, english, which wa sused in all official meetigns, parlemental documents, and Kingly addresses.}-Zarove

Some see "beauty" in this - but it comes at the expense of loss of clear meaning.

{No, it doesnt. Likewise, this woudl be less the case then.}-Zarove

Many phrases and even whole sentences are almost incomprehensible.

{Like what? I have read the KJV all my life and have yet to run into an incomprehensable passage.}-Zarove

But technical arguments aside,

{You didnt make any rtehcnical arguments, you just accused the KJV of contanign many cflaws and impleid it had mor emistakes than most Binbles, claimed it was all base don an agenda, used bad reasonign to support this, then procceded to call the language incomprehensable when its not. You dotn even site a clear example.}-Zarove

if a person or an institution (in this case the Catholic Church) writes, compiles, edits, produces and publishes a book, which edition do you take as the correct and better one?

{This argument contains several flaws. first off, protestants dotn see the Catholic chruhc as writing the Bible, if you are goign to present an intellegent argument to refute Protestantism, you shidl at elats realise what protestants beleive to begin with...likewise, we arent discussing the origional languages, but rather we are talkign about the translatiosn into english, and which matches the text better. The best english version is the KJV, which I will happi;y demonstrate upon requeast.}-Zarove

The one authorized by the original author and editor, or another version produced by somebody else without the author/editor’s authorization? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

{Neither the auhtors ( pural) nor the e ditors ( Pural) of the Bible where even alive at the time of the Authorised verisosn release. The Cahtolic chruhc isnt the auhtor of the Bible. Paul write the letters, so did James and Peter and John and Mathew and Luke and others... it was nto ritten by a single conglomoration nor does any single instetution own the Bible.}-Zarove

So it’s the Protestants, not the Catholics, who have made both “additions” to and “subtractions” from the Bible.

{False. Your whole argument is false, and doesnt even take into consideration the real protestant argument, hou jut create straw men and then lie about other important facts. This sint a balanced post but propoganda.}-Zarove

Just as they have continually made “additions” to and “subtractions” from their doctrine –

{ This is just shameless Potestant baiting...}-Zarove

the very other thing which they falsely accuse the Catholics of.

{How do you knwo its false? You dotn even sem to know what the protestant arguments are.}-Zarove

We see the totally new doctrine of the so- called “rapture” taken up by many Protestants. The Adventists say we must be vegetarians.

{whihc has no bearign on this thread about hte KHV which you malign based on flasehood and slander...}-Zarove

And it is not just the smaller protestant denominations. The main ones like the Anglicans/Episcopalians have embraced things they formerly condemned as immoral like contraception, homosexual activities, and divorce. And most of them now reject the early Protestants’ belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, Jesus’ miracles, and many other articles of faith; some even reject the Resurrection! And they accuse the Catholics of “adding” things.

{Not only arr you now limping all protestnats intot he ame boat by implication thus painting them withthe same brush, thus becomign guilty of the falsed " Guilt by association" argument, but this has nohtign to do withthe arugment for the KJV. Its just slander agaiust protestantism. I call it slander because you tak what one group fdeos, then esent it as a "Protestnat" thing, thus implhign it is somehow universlaly embraced.

Only Liberals denounce the Miracles and ressuection, and their are evenCatholci theologians who do this, and its dishoenst to even imply that this si a major segment of protestnatism in general.}-Zarove

I like the true story of the Anglican bishop in England, who, when Pius XII formally proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, wrote a nasty article in the press, headed “NOW they have to believe THIS!” attacking the Pope for “adding” “new” beliefs to the faith. It was then pointed out to him that Mary’s Assumption was depicted in a large 700-year old stained glass window of his own cathedral! (which his predecessors had stolen from the Catholics; its windows one of the few pieces of English church art to have survived the periodic bursts of State-sanctioned vandalism by Protestant thugs over the centuries.)

{Yeah Cahtolcis where always the victms, protestnas are just pure evil...whatever. Need I remind ou of the Inquesition, or several other Heresy hearign s where protestans where killed\? Lets not go down the " Whose guiltier" road shall we? Catholiisism doesnt exaclty have a pure record you know...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 30, 2004.

I would like to add that the Vulgate used by the Douay Rheims Committee was not the original one that Jerome Penned. Indeed, the one they used had been revised several times, and was from the contemporary times. The Book ( They used printed and codex forms) had no editions older than 300 years. Thus, the Complaint that the KJV used MSS form the middle ages is hypocritical, since the MSS used in the DR extend back no farther than 300 years... unless one wants to think the Vulgate was magically preserved and the Greek text wasn't.

The fact is if yuo claim that the Greek MSS where not reliable because they wheren't Old, then tne DR isnt reliable becauswe it is base don a latin Text that is less than a century old itsself.

You sad the Vulgate came from the 4th century, and then critissie the Greek copis because of heir Youth. Unless you demonstrate that Jerome's personal Vulgate which he personally translated and persoally compiled was used by the DR committee, and not a copy of the Vulgate, then yor whole arguent is Hypocritical.

You see, the Vulgate was ALSO copied, and the DR committee used COPIES of the Vulgate, therefore, if we cannot trust the Greek copies form the middle ages, we cannot trust the Vulgate copies either.

And remember, this was your argument, not mine.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 01, 2004.

The Catholic Encyclopedia commented on the KJV, here: The Authorized Version. Here is an excerpt:

It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Looks like I hit a raw nerve there. If your Biblical criticism is as painstaking as your dissection of my post, you must be a fine Bibliologist. You make a fine defence of the KJV. But you misunderstand me; I’m not saying the KJV is evil, just that your claims for its superiority over all others are a bit overblown.

“THE BOOKS WHERENT RIPPED POUT, AND LETS HAVE LESS DRAMA AND MORE FACTS SHALL WE”

I apologize for the dramatic metaphor “ripped out”. I think everyone knows I didn’t mean it literally.

“A minority of thoughtful protestants DO make some effort to find out the origin of the book on which they base their whole religion. .. {Not the " Most Protestnats are ignorant" line again...}”-Zarove

Hey don’t feel bad, most Catholics are ignorant of the Bible’s origins too. What I mean is that it surprises me that Protestants who take the Bible as the SOLE BASIS for their religion, are totally uninterested in its origin. Of course I exclude you from that criticism, my learned friend.

“since Protestnats do NOT think of the Apostles as Catholic Bishops, ven those who know Cahtolics issue this claim, they do not see the New Testement as written by Cahtolic Prietss and Bishops in the firts century, rather, they see it as wirrtten by Apostles and inspired writers. They woudl contend the Cahtolic churhc had yet to evilve and thus had no Bishops and priests.”

Excuse my ignorance, but exactly when DID the Catholic Church first “evolve”, in your opinion? Who, when and where was the first catholic Bishop; the first Catholic Priest? If the body of believers in Christ from 30 AD to whatever (apparently post-Apostolic) date the Catholic Church “started” was NOT the Catholic (i.e. “universal”) Church, what was it?

“The question was regarded as important, but not absolutely ESSENTIAL, until the Protestants made such an issue of it that the Council of Trent finally formally fixed the canon of scripture. { Odd... Nicea and Carthage didnt do it? Likewise, many protestants know all this already...}-Zarove... The Jews, btw, excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture. {This is an internal conradiction to your post. You said Trent determiend the final Cannon.”

Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. The question of the Catholic canon of scripture was settled in the 4th century (because it was seen as important) and there was little dissent from this until the Protestants arose. Then Trent first formally and dogmatically defined it for the entire Church, because it had now become essential to do this due to the Protestants’ attacks on parts of it.

“Pharasees, who had pretty much determiend the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC”

Not so, there were many later additions to the Jewish canon, even up to the Middle Ages.

“Luther was not beign arrogant by claimign that he wanted to preserve the books so they woudltn be lost. …. He did not asusme the Catholic chruch woudl shrivel and die, rather he asusmed it woidl follow suit with his reformation”

Isn’t that two ways of saying the same thing? If the Catholics all joined Luther’s movement, the Catholic Church would cease to exist.

“the books where never even quoted form by the Apostles or Jesus”

You mean “quoted as recorded in the New Testament”. And this proves what? Some of the OT books which the protestants DO accept are not quoted in the NT. And I believe some or all of the “Apocrypha” ARE referred to at least in paraphrase in the NT. I’ll leave it to better scholars than I to provide examples.

“They where not rmoved arbitrarily”

No, as I said they were removed partly because some of their contents tended to militate against novel Protestant doctrines such as denial of Purgatory, salvation by faith without works etc.

“The books where removed in the 1630's to eliminate shipping costs … it was not a commerscial decision” – You seem to contradict yourself here.

“this is only true of the Authorised Verison, also known as the King James version. Most other Protestnat Bibles, from Luthers Bibnbel to the Geneva Bible, had alreayd lost the Apocrypha decades to centuries earlier.”

But the KJV was recognized as the pre-eminent Protestant English version until well into the 20th century.

Mea culpa, when I said the “preface” I meant that the “epistle dedicatory” reveals the agenda. That was what I quoted from.

The Preface does provide some interesting insights though.

1. “his Majesty that now reigneth, (and long and long may he reign, and his offspring for ever, himself and children, and children's children always) knew full well, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God”

Claiming that the head of the Anglican Church is blessed by God with a unique wisdom above all other men? Wow, this goes far beyond the Catholic claim of infallibility for the pope in VERY restricted circumstances.

As for their homage to his descendants, lets see: His son Charles I, publicly beheaded (no Al-Quadea didn’t invent it) by extremist protestants.

HIS first son, Charles II had no (legitimate) children.

Second son, James II, and his descendants, forced off the throne, made war on and exiled for being too tolerant of Catholics.

Daughter Mary II (who died soon after, also childless) given the throne with her husband the Dutch protestant William of Orange. Laws passed which endure to this day that any member of the royal family who becomes or marries a Catholic is automatically ineligible for the throne. (Muslims, Hindus, atheists and Communists are accepted no problem.)

2. It calls “The translation of the Seventy” (including the excised books) "the Word of God" .

3. “Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch;”

Now I’m guessing that they actually meant exactly the opposite to what this SEEMS to say. An example of language that is worse than incomprehensible, it conveys the opposite from what was intended.

4. “we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Prćpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.”

No sectarian agenda?

5. “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

Then why put it in archaic “high” or “kingly” language? I do appreciate Shakespeare, but I admit that its meaning is not plainly obvious on reading it, unless you have footnotes taking up as much space as the text, explaining what it means. I have seen some wonderful Shakespearian productions where excellent direction, acting and stage movements brought out (most of) the meaning even though the words were little changed from the original. I have also seen amateur productions where it was quite obvious that despite reading their parts for weeks and memorizing them, the actors had no idea what the words meant. I don’t want to have to work this hard to get the real meaning from the Bible!

And surely you can’t disagree that the Protestants have made “subtractions” from the Bible. Whether they were justified in doing so is another question. (Admittedly it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".)

“Just as they have continually made additions to and subtractions from their doctrine“ { This is just shameless Potestant baiting... Its just slander agaiust protestantism. I call it slander because you tak what one group fdeos, then esent it as a "Protestnat" thing, thus implhign it is somehow universlaly embraced. }-Zarove

No, it's an historical fact. ALL protestants condemned contraception until the 20th century. Today AFAIK there is not one protestant sect, not even a single protestant, who condemns it. Certainly not in the major denominations. Similar situation with Mary’s perpetual virginity. Until 20th century they insisted the Bible forbad women priests or ministers; now they’re accepted by nearly all protestants. Not to mention homosexual “marriages” and openly and actively homosexual bishops.

“the very other thing which they falsely accuse the Catholics of. {How do you knwo its false? You dotn even sem to know what the protestant arguments are”

Well I didn’t mean to go too much into doctrine in a thread about the Bible; I was just illustrating the absurdity of protestants complaining about Catholic “addition and subtraction” to both Bible and doctrine when they unblushingly have done a heap of changes to both. Perhaps on another thread you could explain what you think Catholics have added to or subtracted from doctrine, and why.

“{Yeah Cahtolcis where always the victms, protestnas are just pure evil...whatever. Need I remind ou of the Inquesition, or several other Heresy hearign s where protestans where killed\? Lets not go down the " Whose guiltier" road shall we? Catholiisism doesnt exaclty have a pure record you know...}”

I never mentioned anyone killing anyone and I certainly don't think protestants are pure evil. I was just explaining the historical fact that this window survived even though nearly all English religious art was deliberately destroyed by vandals under the direction and instruction of Protestant rulers. But if you are going to do a body count of Protestants killed by Catholics, they make a very small pile compared to the number of Catholics killed by Protestants.

I wouldn’t dream of keeping you from your beloved KJV if you find spiritual profit from it. But to people in general, it is more likely to turn them away from the Gospel than toward it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 01, 2004.

Looks like I hit a raw nerve there. If your Biblical criticism is as painstaking as your dissection of my post, you must be a fine Bibliologist. You make a fine defence of the KJV. But you misunderstand me; I’m not saying the KJV is evil, just that your claims for its superiority over all others are a bit overblown.

{No, their not. I claim this based on simple facts, such as it beign a formal transalation whihc makes it closer to the origional by default than any paraphrase, the bul of modern Bibles are paraphrases. I support the text family, the Textus Recipitus, which correlates tot he Majproty of known Greek MSS, and because they did an excellent job at constructing the Bible in such a way that it IS superior to most Modern Bibles on its face.

This, in addition tot he skill and mastery of the linguists invovled, render the KJV the best transaltion available in my estemation, and recognised as one of the vbest by most Textual critics.}-Zarove

“THE BOOKS WHERENT RIPPED POUT, AND LETS HAVE LESS DRAMA AND MORE FACTS SHALL WE”

I apologize for the dramatic metaphor “ripped out”. I think everyone knows I didn’t mean it literally.

{I was not taking it literally, however, you are in error when you make it sound liek the books where just removed without any real thought.}-Zarove

“A minority of thoughtful protestants DO make some effort to find out the origin of the book on which they base their whole religion. .. {Not the " Most Protestnats are ignorant" line again...}”-Zarove

Hey don’t feel bad, most Catholics are ignorant of the Bible’s origins too.

{I am aware...}-Zarove

What I mean is that it surprises me that Protestants who take the Bible as the SOLE BASIS for their religion, are totally uninterested in its origin. Of course I exclude you from that criticism, my learned friend.

{Most peopel in general don't concern themselves with important issues. Many Americans don't een knwo the real contents of the Ocnstetution. I know more baout it and I'm a Brit. This human failing I am well aquainted with, however, it shoudl come as no real shock.}-Zarove

“since Protestnats do NOT think of the Apostles as Catholic Bishops, ven those who know Cahtolics issue this claim, they do not see the New Testement as written by Cahtolic Prietss and Bishops in the firts century, rather, they see it as wirrtten by Apostles and inspired writers. They woudl contend the Cahtolic churhc had yet to evilve and thus had no Bishops and priests.”

Excuse my ignorance, but exactly when DID the Catholic Church first “evolve”, in your opinion?

{We aren't discussing my opinion, we are discussing the standards of {rotestant thought.Both Protestant and secular history tends toward this veiw.

This said, it is also a moot queatsion, isnce you cannot possibley assign a foundation date to soemthign that progressively came about over time.

The operating theory for cathlisism is that it was foudned spacifically by Jesus Christ at a spaficic time and never changed. The operatign Theory for Protestants in general is that the Catholic church grew out of the established chruch, but slowly mutated into what it is today. Their is no set foundign Date unless you beleive it started with Constantine, which few protestants beleive.

Most beleive it slowly developed, thereore hteir is no set foundign date.Various things became part of the chruch at Various Times.}- Zarove

Who, when and where was the first catholic Bishop;the first Catholic Priest?

{Cannot be answered. And inaplicable tot he discussion.}-Zarove

If the body of believers in Christ from 30 AD to whatever (apparently post-Apostolic) date the Catholic Church “started” was NOT the Catholic (i.e. “universal”) Church, what was it?

{Christians. Just general Christains. That's the poitn of Veiw of the protestants. }-Zarove

“The question was regarded as important, but not absolutely ESSENTIAL, until the Protestants made such an issue of it that the Council of Trent finally formally fixed the canon of scripture. { Odd... Nicea and Carthage didnt do it? Likewise, many protestants know all this already...}-Zarove... The Jews, btw, excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture. {This is an internal conradiction to your post. You said Trent determiend the final Cannon.”

Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. The question of the Catholic canon of scripture was settled in the 4th century (because it was seen as important) and there was little dissent from this until the Protestants arose.

{Actually, their was. Many did not include the Contested books, until Trent, they where not formally proclaimed part pf yhe Scurpture, the other books where.}-Zarove

Then Trent first formally and dogmatically defined it for the entire Church, because it had now become essential to do this due to the Protestants’ attacks on parts of it.

{No, they formalised the cannon in the 4th Century, and simp;ey formalised the contested books at tfent, which is why they are called "Deuterocannonical", they where added tot he LXX, and added tot he Christain Bible as well.}-Zarove

“Pharasees, who had pretty much determiend the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC”

Not so, there were many later additions to the Jewish canon, even up to the Middle Ages.

{Not tot he acutal Bible though, and the only real addition to written holy books was the Babylonian Talmud... which is not part of the Hebrew Bible itsself but a seperate work.}-Zarove

“Luther was not beign arrogant by claimign that he wanted to preserve the books so they woudltn be lost. …. He did not asusme the Catholic chruch woudl shrivel and die, rather he asusmed it woidl follow suit with his reformation”

Isn’t that two ways of saying the same thing? If the Catholics all joined Luther’s movement, the Catholic Church would cease to exist.

{The Catholic chruch woudl no have ceased to exist, it merely wudl have reformed...that is the veiw of Luther.}-Zarove

“the books where never even quoted form by the Apostles or Jesus”

You mean “quoted as recorded in the New Testament”. And this proves what? Some of the OT books which the protestants DO accept are not quoted in the NT. And I believe some or all of the “Apocrypha” ARE referred to at least in paraphrase in the NT. I’ll leave it to better scholars than I to provide examples.

{The poin is the debate over the contested books has MUCH MORE invovled than you presetned.}-Zarove

“They where not rmoved arbitrarily”

No, as I said they were removed partly because some of their contents tended to militate against novel Protestant doctrines such as denial of Purgatory, salvation by faith without works etc.

{Actually, no they don't. For strters, beign "Old testement" works, they coudl NOT have mentioend Salvation by works, indeed, they coudnt have mentioend xSalvation in the same manner that Christ brought as Christ had ye to come by the time of their composition.

Likewise, Purgetory is not mentioned in the contested books. Maccabees merely said that some poeple stll alive prayed for the dead who wore Pagan Jewelry, it did NOT mwntion Purgetpry directly...

And again, this was not the reason for their removal in total.}- Zarove

“The books where removed in the 1630's to eliminate shipping costs … it was not a commerscial decision” – You seem to contradict yourself here.

“this is only true of the Authorised Verison, also known as the King James version. Most other Protestnat Bibles, from Luthers Bibnbel to the Geneva Bible, had alreayd lost the Apocrypha decades to centuries earlier.”

But the KJV was recognized as the pre-eminent Protestant English version until well into the 20th century.

{Which doesn't change the fact that they where ot seen as scripture and where alreayd removed. Printings of th King James made available the purchase of one minus theApocrypha. Not due to shippign costs, but because many felt they didnt belong in the Bible. They where only removed form most ( And not all) KJV tanslations int he 19th century.}-Zarove

Mea culpa, when I said the “preface” I meant that the “epistle dedicatory” reveals the agenda. That was what I quoted from.

The Preface does provide some interesting insights though.

1. “his Majesty that now reigneth, (and long and long may he reign, and his offspring for ever, himself and children, and children's children always) knew full well, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God”

Claiming that the head of the Anglican Church is blessed by God with a unique wisdom above all other men? Wow, this goes far beyond the Catholic claim of infallibility for the pope in VERY restricted circumstances.

{ This is misrepresentation. The passage above does NOT claim that the King was blessed with UNIQUE wisdom. It claims God gave him wisdom, this is a standard thanks to God and compement to a commissioner of a ork one woudl expect formt he period. It does not go out of its way to proclaim him soemhow superior to anyone else. If you read othe wirtigns form the peripod you will ifind this sort of speach common. The treality is that in these modern days we ruse reserved, rather stiled language in formal docments that shy away form platitudes, but in the 1600's, platitudes where offered in formality, and expected. }-Zarove

As for their homage to his descendants, lets see: His son Charles I, publicly beheaded (no Al-Quadea didn’t invent it) by extremist protestants.

HIS first son, Charles II had no (legitimate) children.

Second son, James II, and his descendants, forced off the throne, made war on and exiled for being too tolerant of Catholics.

Daughter Mary II (who died soon after, also childless) given the throne with her husband the Dutch protestant William of Orange. Laws passed which endure to this day that any member of the royal family who becomes or marries a Catholic is automatically ineligible for the throne. (Muslims, Hindus, atheists and Communists are accepted no problem.)

{ The last bit is untrue. The exclusion act forbade anyoen who was not a Protestant Chrisian form asscending the Throne. Thus Hindu's, Atheists, and communists ( A boit reduntdant...) cannot ascend the throne. ( Communists least of all since they renounce such tings as titlage... and comunism is athsistic.)

Until the 19th Century's closeing years Atheists coud not even testefy in a court of law.

And again, the flowing Platitudes where general praises common tot he era.}-Zarove

2. It calls “The translation of the Seventy” (including the excised books) "the Word of God" .

3. “Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch;”

{Its pretty standard practice even today to consult prior translations for assitance.}-Zarove

Now I’m guessing that they actually meant exactly the opposite to what this SEEMS to say. An example of language that is worse than incomprehensible, it conveys the opposite from what was intended.

4. “we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.”

No sectarian agenda?

{If you actually read the passage, it isn't really saying anyhtign that bad. All it said was that it has avoided the wording of various groups that render the text less understandable. It avoids the puriains oversimplisity which could retard ones understanding for ht text, and it avoids the Latinisms which prevailed in Catholic works at the time which where not readily understood in English. This is not really an insult to Catholics. Leats of all since th Cahtolci Bibels of today do the same thing.}-Zarove

5. “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

Then why put it in archaic “high” or “kingly” language?

{Because it was mroe majestic. High English was not relaly had to understand in 1611. The common man coudl understand it, even if it was not used every day. Just liek formal speach is not employed by most poeple today in common communicaiton, but is nevertheless used when compiling an important Document, such as a legal form.}-Zarove

I do appreciate Shakespeare, but I admit that its meaning is not plainly obvious on reading it, unless you have footnotes taking up as much space as the text, explaining what it means.

{Funny, I never had trouble. also, the point mainly is that in 1611 it woudl have been much easier tfor the commo man to unerstand Shakespere. Except a few Poitical Jokes that are made that reference events no longer extant.}-Zarove

I have seen some wonderful Shakespearian productions where excellent direction, acting and stage movements brought out (most of) the meaning even though the words were little changed from the original. I have also seen amateur productions where it was quite obvious that despite reading their parts for weeks and memorizing them, the actors had no idea what the words meant.

{Which proves that King James diliberatlry obscured the text how? You claimed the Bible was made in Archane language that was not readily understood even in his own time. I dont care what you, as soemone living in the 21st Century America, hae trouble readng, we are discussing them.}-Zarove

I don’t want to have to work this hard to get the real meaning from the Bible!

{I dotn work that hard, nor woudl anyone have had to in 1611.}-Zarove

And surely you can’t disagree that the Protestants have made “subtractions” from the Bible.

{Why not\?}-Zarove

Whether they were justified in doing so is another question.

{The poitn I am gettign at and tryign to get you to see is that you are not looking at it form a Protestant perspective which makes your whole premise false.}-Zarove

(Admittedly it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".)

{Like whom?}-Zarove

“Just as they have continually made additions to and subtractions from their doctrine“ { This is just shameless Potestant baiting... Its just slander agaiust protestantism. I call it slander because you tak what one group fdeos, then esent it as a "Protestnat" thing, thus implhign it is somehow universlaly embraced. }-Zarove

No, it's an historical fact. ALL protestants condemned contraception until the 20th century. Today AFAIK there is not one protestant sect, not even a single protestant, who condemns it.

{Don't be so sure. I mean, are you really willign to claim that 100% of protestants EVERYWHERE disallow contraception? I have MET Protestnats who think it evil. So you are wrong, nto all protestants allow contraception. Many Baotists are fiuirm in their oposition to contraception, in fact. Indeed, on Free reublic theirs even a thread aout it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715625/posts

Do NOT sat all protestants think Contraception is OK and that you cant find a signel protestat who disagrees. Such is nothign btu an outrageous flashood, which displays your ignorance.}-Zarove

Certainly not in the major denominations. Similar situation with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

{Actually the Perpetual Virginity was contested from the earliest periods of the reformation...And by pre-reform nonCatholic groups.}- Zarove

Until 20th century they insisted the Bible forbad women priests or ministers; now they’re accepted by nearly all protestants.

{Woudl you beleive Half... most Protestant gorups still forbid women ministery.}-Zarove

Not to mention homosexual “marriages” and openly and actively homosexual bishops.

{Most Protestant Chruches oppose this too. Ineed, only a small amoung actually SUPPORT htis. You make this claim as i the majority of Protestants support Gay Marriage, which is false. If it where true, the news woudl eb so hard on Christaisn in general.}-Zarove

“the very other thing which they falsely accuse the Catholics of. {How do you knwo its false? You dotn even sem to know what the protestant arguments are”

Well I didn’t mean to go too much into doctrine in a thread about the Bible; I was just illustrating the absurdity of protestants complaining about Catholic “addition and subtraction” to both Bible and doctrine when they unblushingly have done a heap of changes to both.

{But even in this latest post ypu use Misrepresentation to make points. Likewise, the issue of this thread isnt who has added or subtracted form docotorine, but rather if the King James Verison fo the Holy Bible is n accurate Translation, which is what I am endeavourign to demonstrate and yet you sideline it over issues that arent relevant.}-Zarove

Perhaps on another thread you could explain what you think Catholics have added to or subtracted from doctrine, and why.

{ Why? I dot nessisarily beleive anyhting added to anyhting. Obvioosuly my veiws about rleigion in General aren't typical of either Catholics or Protestants.My veiws are that they each vew thigns differently.}-Zarove

“{Yeah Cahtolcis where always the victms, protestnas are just pure evil...whatever. Need I remind ou of the Inquesition, or several other Heresy hearign s where protestans where killed\? Lets not go down the " Whose guiltier" road shall we? Catholiisism doesnt exaclty have a pure record you know...}”

I never mentioned anyone killing anyone and I certainly don't think protestants are pure evil. I was just explaining the historical fact that this window survived even though nearly all English religious art was deliberately destroyed by vandals under the direction and instruction of Protestant rulers. But if you are going to do a body count of Protestants killed by Catholics, they make a very small pile compared to the number of Catholics killed by Protestants.

{This is actually innaccurate, since the numbers are about equel.}- Zarove

I wouldn’t dream of keeping you from your beloved KJV if you find spiritual profit from it. But to people in general, it is more likely to turn them away from the Gospel than toward it.

{I disagree, it is a beutiful and wonderous Bible. If they have diffculty readin it, they can still apprciate its beuty, while reading a contemporary transaltion to supplement them and aid in spacific understandign of verses.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

I apologize for the dramatic metaphor "ripped out". I think everyone knows I didn't mean it literally. {I was not taking it literally, however, you are in error when you make it sound liek the books where just removed without any real thought.}-Zarove

Hey, you didn’t object when Paul M said “the founders of Protestantism decided to trash 10 books of the Word of God .. their plans to remove three New Testament books met with such vehement opposition that the New Testament was not desecrated . But they did manage to toss out seven books of the Old Testament which, by a remarkable coincidence, contain teaching contrary to some of the new traditions they were imposing on their followers. The New Testament books which were rescued from their grasp also contain teaching contrary to their new traditions”

“the Catholic church grew out of the established chruch, but slowly mutated into what it is today”

I put it to you that “the established church” is identical with “the catholic church” of the 1st to ?th centuries – just a different form of words to make protestants feel comfortable pretending that the Catholic church was started as something new at some later time. Pure sophistry.

Who, when and where was the first catholic Bishop;the first Catholic Priest? {Cannot be answered. And inaplicable tot he discussion

Why is it inapplicable? The point is whether or not the apostles were bishops. You say no. If so there must have been someone later who was the first bishop.

"If the body of believers in Christ from 30 AD to whatever (apparently post-Apostolic) date the Catholic Church "started" was NOT the Catholic (i.e. "universal") Church, what was it?" Christians. Just general Christains.

Yes and Catholics often described themselves as just "Christians" until the 16th century when the need arose to point out that they remained in the main body of Christians loyal to the Pope. Then the term Catholic came into general use for this. Prior to this “Christian church” and “catholic church” were synonymous.

Isn't that two ways of saying the same thing? If the Catholics all joined Luther's movement, the Catholic Church would cease to exist. {The Catholic chruch woudl no have ceased to exist, it merely wudl have reformed...that is the veiw of Luther.}-Zarove

Luther produced his version of the Bible long after he had been excommunicated. He had formed his own separate church and had been vilifying the Pope and the Catholics for years. I don’t think even Luther was arrogant enough to think that after all that, the Pope and all his followers would simply toss aside their beliefs and practices and follow Luther’s lead.

beign "Old testement" works, they coudl NOT have mentioend Salvation by works

I was actually referring to James’ letter here, which as Paul M mentioned was saved by vehement outcry against the Protestant plans to remove it.

Purgetory is not mentioned in the contested books. Maccabees merely said that some poeple stll alive prayed for the dead.

There’s no point praying for people in Heaven because they already have everything they need. And there’s no point praying for people in Hell because there’s no escape from Hell. (Cf the rich man and Lazarus). So those people must have been somewhere else. Call that place (or spiritual state actually) another name if you like, but we call it Purgatory.

"according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God"... The passage above does NOT claim that the King was blessed with UNIQUE wisdom.

Yes it does. “Singular” means “unique”, both now and in the 17th century.

Hindu's, Atheists, and communists ( A boit reduntdant...) cannot ascend the throne.

Yes they can. The Act of Settlement explicitly prevents anyone from becoming king or queen only if they "profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist". It doesn’t say they “must profess protestantism”. And eight other laws reinforce the ban on Catholics. There was a proposal to change this shocking piece of unfair religious discrimination in 1999 but Parliament soundly voted against even allowing it to be discussed. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/547220.stm

Communists least of all since they renounce such tings as titlage – Tell that to the North Koreans!

KJV says “the Papists [are] of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.” And you say “This is not really an insult to Catholics.”!

"you are not looking at it form a Protestant perspective which makes your whole premise false” - That’s a remarkably unhelpful comment.

it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".) {Like whom?}-

Some I know of are the Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses.

“are you really willign to claim that 100% of protestants EVERYWHERE disallow contraception?”

No, I said AFAIK, as far as I know. I have never heard or seen any protestant mention contraception in anything other than positive terms until I looked at that web page. OK I admit my “ignorance”, but take it easy on the “outrageous falsehood” accusations. I don’t claim to be omniscient. I bet if you asked 100 people in the street “Do protestants allow contraception?” they’d all answer simply “Yes.” Reading the link you provide, even those protestants who are anti-contraception admit that they are a very small minority and that the official position of all protestant churches, except a very few small ones like the Amish, is that contraception is morally indifferent or even good.

"most Protestant gorups still forbid women ministery”

Yes, if you count by number of different denominations. But nearly all the large ones have women clergy, so that by numbers of people, the great majority of protestants have women clergy in their churches.

"the issue of this thread is... if the King James Verison fo the Holy Bible is n accurate Translation, which is what I am endeavourign to demonstrate and yet you sideline it over issues that arent relevant”

No, the question which was asked is, what is the difference between the KJV and Catholic Bibles, and why? I’m trying to answer it.

Obvioosuly my veiws about rleigion in General aren't typical of either Catholics or Protestants.

Well then sorry for wasting both of our time asking you for the protestant view of the origin of the Catholic church and the Bible.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 02, 2004.

{I was not taking it literally, however, you are in error when you make it sound liek the books where just removed without any real thought.}-Zarove

Hey, you didn’t object when Paul M said “the founders of Protestantism decided to trash 10 books of the Word of God .. their plans to remove three New Testament books met with such vehement opposition that the New Testament was not desecrated . But they did manage to toss out seven books of the Old Testament which, by a remarkable coincidence, contain teaching contrary to some of the new traditions they were imposing on their followers. The New Testament books which were rescued from their grasp also contain teaching contrary to their new traditions”

{Actually I did. We discussed this issue to death. But if you read this thread I did mention it.}-Zarove

“the Catholic church grew out of the established chruch, but slowly mutated into what it is today”

I put it to you that “the established church” is identical with “the catholic church” of the 1st to ?th centuries – just a different form of words to make protestants feel comfortable pretending that the Catholic church was started as something new at some later time. Pure sophistry.

{Its not Sophestry and the theory sint protestant, its the academically accepted prevailing veiw of Hisotry. And no, the early chruch was not considered Identical withthe Cahtlic chruch. Their is simpley no founding date available for the Cahtolic chruhc since it grew out of existign traditions. It has nothign to do with making Protestants feel better. Perhaps if you read a secukar acocunt of Histry, you woudl see how other peopel veiw events over time. }-Zarove

Who, when and where was the first catholic Bishop;the first Catholic Priest? {Cannot be answered. And inaplicable tot he discussion

Why is it inapplicable? The point is whether or not the apostles were bishops. You say no. If so there must have been someone later who was the first bishop.

{Can yoj at least re-read my post. I am offerign the prevaling veiw, not just the protestnat veiw, although most protestants generally agree witht he veiw. I also note you seem to ignore the whole point, which was to show you that Protestants do nto recognise the apostles as Catholic Biships and the Cahtolic chruch as existign in apostolic times.

I meant not to go into detail here myself, the poitn was to correct you on your fallacious veiw which assumes that anyone who reads a hisotry book will walk away concluding the same thing you di as a Catholic, that the Apostles where Cahtolic Bishios, and that this is a firmly established Hisotryical fact that sit contested.

The reality is that a Protestant who reads the Hisotry fo christainity wilk not come to that cnclusion as an inevitability, makign your statement completley false.

I will not be dragged into a deeper debate when you can't even seem to understand the main thrust f my argument was crrectgion of your error and not an open attempt to refute Catholisisim. All I wanted was for you to recognise the legitimate Protestant argumet rather than inventign a straw man and attackign it. To this end and for the sake of sparign space, I omit frther discussion of this matter, as the relevance is lost, you just want to defend the Cahtlic perspectice and arent relaly interested in honestly and objectivley discussing the issue of what protestnats beelive and why.

Least of all shoujdl we in this thread which is about the KJV.}-Zarove

Isn't that two ways of saying the same thing? If the Catholics all joined Luther's movement, the Catholic Church would cease to exist. {The Catholic chruch woudl no have ceased to exist, it merely wudl have reformed...that is the veiw of Luther.}-Zarove

Luther produced his version of the Bible long after he had been excommunicated. He had formed his own separate church and had been vilifying the Pope and the Catholics for years. I don’t think even Luther was arrogant enough to think that after all that, the Pope and all his followers would simply toss aside their beliefs and practices and follow Luther’s lead.

{Yet you think he beeloves ther Cahtolic Chruch woudl shrivel and die? Sorry, the reality is still that Luther dd not intend the Cahtlic chruhc to shrivel and die, rather, he waned to continue with hsi rformations... the movement was already beun and had a life of its own, and he STILL sought the rest of th Chrisain world to follow his lead.}-Zarove

beign "Old testement" works, they coudl NOT have mentioend Salvation by works

I was actually referring to James’ letter here, which as Paul M mentioned was saved by vehement outcry against the Protestant plans to remove it.

Purgetory is not mentioned in the contested books. Maccabees merely said that some poeple stll alive prayed for the dead.

There’s no point praying for people in Heaven because they already have everything they need. And there’s no point praying for people in Hell because there’s no escape from Hell. (Cf the rich man and Lazarus). So those people must have been somewhere else. Call that place (or spiritual state actually) another name if you like, but we call it Purgatory.

{Which misses the poin of the books rmoval and creates a false argument for you to defeat... Protestants regject these books baed on seperate Criterion than you attribite.}-Zarove

"according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God"... The passage above does NOT claim that the King was blessed with UNIQUE wisdom.

Yes it does. “Singular” means “unique”, both now and in the 17th century.

{Again, this was common flowery praise for the era. It means little.}- Zarove

Hindu's, Atheists, and communists ( A boit reduntdant...) cannot ascend the throne.

Yes they can. The Act of Settlement explicitly prevents anyone from becoming king or queen only if they "profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist". It doesn’t say they “must profess protestantism”.

{No, not hte acof Settlement. But their are other laws as well that prevent Atheists form aceendign the throne. Exclusionary laws are not merely Aimed at Cahtolics, and th Atheists where forbidden to ascend the Throne long before Catholics whee forbidden.

A Communist can't be King anyway since communism denounces such things.}-Zarove

And eight other laws reinforce the ban on Catholics. There was a proposal to change this shocking piece of unfair religious discrimination in 1999 but Parliament soundly voted against even allowing it to be discussed. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/547220.stm

{Thus proving...what? Again, I never said their wheren't laws preventign Cahtolics from ruling. I merely said Atheists coudlnt either,nor can Communists... becaose of otehr laws alreasyd in palce befre the Cahtolic ones. Indeed, Cahtolics sat on the throne when the anti-Atheist laws where passed and are still in effect...}-Zarove

Communists least of all since they renounce such tings as titlage – Tell that to the North Koreans!

{North Korea is ruled by a Presedent, not a King, who, in theory, represents the people and workers of Korea. Granted, in practice he lives as a despot, but the Govenrmental system is not a Monarchy.}- Zarove

KJV says “the Papists [are] of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.” And you say “This is not really an insult to Catholics.”!

{History reveals this is pretty sandard and nonoffensive dialouge, for the period. Their humour wasn't funnt to us these days either...}- Zarove

"you are not looking at it form a Protestant perspective which makes your whole premise false” - That’s a remarkably unhelpful comment.

{No its not. One must take into account alernate views or else one presents one sided debate.}-Zarove

it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".) {Like whom?}-

Some I know of are the Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses.

{Mormons aren't Protestants... neither are Jehova's witnesses.

In fact, if you GO tot he Mormon website, you will se that they aren't classified as Protestnats. Your definition fo Protestant seems ot be "Not Cahtolic". Most peope don even recognise Mormons as vlaid christains. They are a reconstiction fo what they beleive the early chruch was, not a chruch in active protest to Rome.

Icf you think Mormons are Protestant, then you are compley ignorant od ehat the Mormon Chruch really is.

Seventh Day Adventists made no real additions to scriptue, and only advocate a Vegitarian diet based on Health stricters.}-Zarove

“are you really willign to claim that 100% of protestants EVERYWHERE disallow contraception?”

No, I said AFAIK, as far as I know.

{I did not know what that meant, besids, you said " Not a single protestnat". Rather sweepign satement.}-Zarove

I have never heard or seen any protestant mention contraception in anything other than positive terms until I looked at that web page. OK I admit my “ignorance”, but take it easy on the “outrageous falsehood” accusations.

{It is outrageous when you claim you cant even find a single protestant who opposes cntraception. Not a single one? That is like sayig you cant find a Cahtolic who suppors Abortion, its false since many Cahtolcis do een in spite of their chruhc's teahcinbgs. even soem priests do. You can't generalise like that.}-Zarove

I don’t claim to be omniscient. I bet if you asked 100 people in the street “Do protestants allow contraception?” they’d all answer simply “Yes.”

{Not in conservitive Rhea County. In Daytin its hard to find a sroe that sells basic condomns...Indeed, one drg store began to stock them after the federal Government made them do it loclaly.}-Zarove

Reading the link you provide, even those protestants who are anti- contraception admit that they are a very small minority and that the official position of all protestant churches, except a very few small ones like the Amish, is that contraception is morally indifferent or even good.

{which negates the fact that soem protestans as individuals, and soem protestant chruches in genral, oppose it how?}-Zarove

"most Protestant gorups still forbid women ministery”

Yes, if you count by number of different denominations. But nearly all the large ones have women clergy, so that by numbers of people, the great majority of protestants have women clergy in their churches.

{I doubt this as well... since the "Small ones' Havd been the oens seeign growth, and the "Large ones" or mainline ones, have been dyng out.}-Zarove

"the issue of this thread is... if the King James Verison fo the Holy Bible is n accurate Translation, which is what I am endeavourign to demonstrate and yet you sideline it over issues that arent relevant”

No, the question which was asked is, what is the difference between the KJV and Catholic Bibles, and why? I’m trying to answer it.

{Thier is little real difference except i a few passages wording. Such as " Full of Grace" and "Favoured one" when Gabriel greets Mary.}-Zarove

Obvioosuly my veiws about rleigion in General aren't typical of either Catholics or Protestants.

Well then sorry for wasting both of our time asking you for the protestant view of the origin of the Catholic church and the Bible.

{I understand th Protestant eiw, better than you do, and am wualified to answer it. I siley have a more academic approach and try to present a fair and balanced veiw. You not as you just want to tear intot he protestnat veiw and defend the cahtilic one, honeslty was not your concenr and this is why I needed to Address your statements.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

you didn’t object when Paul M said ... “trash ...desecrated ... toss out ... the new traditions they were imposing ... rescued from their grasp “ {Actually I did. We discussed this issue to death. But if you read this thread I did mention it}

No, you DIDN’T mention all HIS dramatic metaphors. Why pick on me for using one?

“the early chruch was not considered Identical withthe Cahtlic chruch. Their is simpley no founding date available for the Cahtolic chruhc since it grew out of existign traditions. It has nothign to do with making Protestants feel better. Perhaps if you read a secukar acocunt of Histry”

I have read secular history. “Secular” supposedly means “treating all religions neutrally”, but “secular” history in English genrally reflects a protestant or post-protestant worldview. I remember chuckling reading a “secular” history book which said the Council of Trent “enabled the Catholic Church to survive even to the present day” – as if it feebly limped along as some tiny splinter group! But secular histories I have read present what you have called “the Catholic view” that the first Pope was St Peter etc. Sometimes they preface this with “Catholics believe” but without giving any alternate view.

I’m not trying to post “propaganda” otherwise I wouldn’t be having a conversation with you. But the idea that the Catholic Church “evolved” from something that wasn’t the Catholic Church doesn’t make sense. If it’s “impossible to be certain” WHEN the change occurred, how can you be certain THAT it occurred? Sure, the practices of the Church were different in later centuries from what they were in the first century. But Catholic practices are very different now to what they were just 50 years ago. Are we now a different church? OK maybe it’s inappropriate for you to post an apologia for the protestant view in this forum. Maybe you could direct me to a Protestant forum where I could ask such questions and have them answered reasonably, without being told that I’m a follower of the Antichrist.

“their are other laws as well that prevent Atheists form aceendign the throne. Exclusionary laws are not merely Aimed at Cahtolics”

OK so you admit anyone OTHER than an atheist or a Catholic may be king or queen. But what is an atheist? A large proportion of England’s population are atheists in all but name. Legally, AFAIK even Stalin and Hitler would be considered as Christians since they were baptized.

North Korea is ruled by a Presedent, not a King, who, in theory, represents the people and workers of Korea. Granted, in practice he lives as a despot, but the Govenrmental system is not a Monarchy.

The present communist ruler of N Korea became so automatically (without even any pretence at an election) when his father died. That’s a monarchy to me, whether they call the monarch King, Shah, Emir, Sultan or Dear Leader.

“it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".) Some I know of are the Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. {Mormons aren't Protestants... neither are Jehova's witnesses. In fact, if you GO tot he Mormon website, you will se that they aren't classified as Protestnats. Your definition fo Protestant seems ot be "Not Cahtolic". Most peope don even recognise Mormons as vlaid christains. They are a reconstiction fo what they beleive the early chruch was, not a chruch in active protest to Rome. Icf you think Mormons are Protestant, then you are compley ignorant od ehat the Mormon Chruch really is. Seventh Day Adventists made no real additions to scriptue, and only advocate a Vegitarian diet based on Health stricters.}-

No my definition of Protestant is the standard one “tracing their origin to those churches in NW Europe who broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century”. Excluding Orthodox and others who broke away from the Catholic church earlier or later. You seem to want to restrict Protestant to mean “believing in most of the things the larger Protestant churches believe in”. The above four groups all grew out of the original Protestant churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist etc), as did the Methodists, Baptists etc. These latter are called “protestant” even though they were not formed “in active protest to Rome”.

You yourself stoutly defended the Mormons on another thread from the charge that they are not Christian. As I understand the SDA beliefs they teach that God wants us to be vegetarian. It’s not just a matter of health, otherwise why would a religious organisation even have a view on it?

You then stretch your narrow definition of “protestant” to suit your other argument that it is “outrageous” to say that all protestants believe or don’t believe something. Yes, among the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, there is probably not one belief that they all agree exactly on. But that’s my point. The protestant movement and everyone in it have all moved a (greater or lesser) distance from where their spiritual ancestors were when they firts broke away from the Catholics in the 16th century.

"In Daytin its hard to find a sroe that sells basic condomns”

Wow, maybe I should move there. But I think you’re talking about shyness in putting them on display. That’s a different thing from seeing them as evil in themselves. I’m sure those who want them know where to get them.

I assure you again I do not “want to tear intot he protestnat veiw” and I AM concerned with honesty.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 02, 2004.

you didn’t object when Paul M said ... “trash ...desecrated ... toss out ... the new traditions they were imposing ... rescued from their grasp “ {Actually I did. We discussed this issue to death. But if you read this thread I did mention it} No, you DIDN’T mention all HIS dramatic metaphors. Why pick on me for using one?

{I did. I said we have discussed the contested books before, and shoudltn bring them up in this thread...}-Zarove

“the early chruch was not considered Identical withthe Cahtlic chruch. Their is simpley no founding date available for the Cahtolic chruhc since it grew out of existign traditions. It has nothign to do with making Protestants feel better. Perhaps if you read a secukar acocunt of Histry”

I have read secular history. “Secular” supposedly means “treating all religions neutrally”, but “secular” history in English genrally reflects a protestant or post-protestant worldview. I remember chuckling reading a “secular” history book which said the Council of Trent “enabled the Catholic Church to survive even to the present day” – as if it feebly limped along as some tiny splinter group! But secular histories I have read present what you have called “the Catholic view” that the first Pope was St Peter etc. Sometimes they preface this with “Catholics believe” but without giving any alternate view.

{Actually lenty present alternative veiws. The point is that it is hte prevailing idea...and it is the prevailign protestant Wrgument. Protestants who look back to examien where the Bible comes form will nt automaticlaly beleive Paul was a Cahtolic Bishop, for instance.}- Zarove

I’m not trying to post “propaganda” otherwise I wouldn’t be having a conversation with you. But the idea that the Catholic Church “evolved” from something that wasn’t the Catholic Church doesn’t make sense.

{Actually, it does. Its called progressive innovation. even the United sttaes has evolved over time in its form of cgovernance and culture.The same ap;lies to Busnesses, societies, and religious bodies, including the Cahtlic chruch.}-Zarove

If it’s “impossible to be certain” WHEN the change occurred, how can you be certain THAT it occurred?

{You need to read my statements mroe carefully. I didnt say it was iporribel to be certain of when it ocicred, I said that it didnt occire all at once. You want the Cahtolci churhc as it is now to have existed back to when Jesus foudnd it. You HTINBK I beleive and am presentign a case where it began at soem later date, cut-from-whole- clith. what I am doign is presentign the Protestant veiw which you simpley misrepresent.

The Protestant and Secular veiw is that their is no set origin Date for the Cahtolic chruch simpley because all of its trappings didnt come into existance at the same time...This is why it is impossible to asign it a foundation Date. Becaused it did NOT come about all at once but slowly evovled into existance. Please be more careful withte tritise, and please consider why I am even saying it.My whole motivation was not to debate Catholicsism but to present the Protestant eiw fairly. As was requeasted. You misrepresented that veiw.}-Zarove

Sure, the practices of the Church were different in later centuries from what they were in the first century. But Catholic practices are very different now to what they were just 50 years ago. Are we now a different church? OK maybe it’s inappropriate for you to post an apologia for the protestant view in this forum. Maybe you could direct me to a Protestant forum where I could ask such questions and have them answered reasonably, without being told that I’m a follower of the Antichrist.

{Or maybe you cvan get the gist of it here, and realise why I am presentign the Arument in the irst palce. You misrepresented the Protestant eiw, I rectified the error, nothign more. Had you not misrepresented the Protestant eiw, we woudl nto be so intangled in this thread in this discussion which I now feel is basiclaly useless.}-Zarove

“their are other laws as well that prevent Atheists form aceendign the throne. Exclusionary laws are not merely Aimed at Cahtolics”

OK so you admit anyone OTHER than an atheist or a Catholic may be king or queen.

{Not really. The King or Queen asusmes the headship of the Anglican Communion and thus must be Protestant under engliush Law. The law stupilates hat ONLY a Protestant can assume the throne.}-Zarove

But what is an atheist? A large proportion of England’s population are atheists in all but name. Legally, AFAIK even Stalin and Hitler would be considered as Christians since they were baptized.

{Legally, Stalin renounced his faith and Hitler was Catholic. Neither woidl have been elegable. Stalin was an avoid, practicing Atheist. Likewise, neither had claim tot he royal throne.}-Zarove

North Korea is ruled by a Presedent, not a King, who, in theory, represents the people and workers of Korea. Granted, in practice he lives as a despot, but the Govenrmental system is not a Monarchy.

The present communist ruler of N Korea became so automatically (without even any pretence at an election) when his father died. That’s a monarchy to me, whether they call the monarch King, Shah, Emir, Sultan or Dear Leader.

{Legally thouhg, its a communist nation, not a Monarchy. Semantics are all important in politics.}-Zarove

“it is only the minor Protestant sects who have made major "additions".) Some I know of are the Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. {Mormons aren't Protestants... neither are Jehova's witnesses. In fact, if you GO tot he Mormon website, you will se that they aren't classified as Protestnats. Your definition fo Protestant seems ot be "Not Cahtolic". Most peope don even recognise Mormons as vlaid christains. They are a reconstiction fo what they beleive the early chruch was, not a chruch in active protest to Rome. Icf you think Mormons are Protestant, then you are compley ignorant od ehat the Mormon Chruch really is. Seventh Day Adventists made no real additions to scriptue, and only advocate a Vegitarian diet based on Health stricters.}-

No my definition of Protestant is the standard one “tracing their origin to those churches in NW Europe who broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century”.

{Mormons dont trace their origin to the break in the 16t Centry.It was origionated by Joseph Smith in 1830, not as a breakaway Chruch form an existign Chruch, but as a "Restpration" of origional Christainity.Any basic research woudl reveal to yo that even the Cahtolic Chruch doesn't consider Mromons as Protestants.}-Zarove

Excluding Orthodox and others who broke away from the Catholic church earlier or later. You seem to want to restrict Protestant to mean “believing in most of the things the larger Protestant churches believe in”.

{No I dont. However, Mormons aren't Protestants, neither by their claim, nor by the Cahtlic Chruhc's claim. Mormons do not trace their origins to a breakaway formt he Catholic chruch in the 16th Century. They trace their origins to Joseph Smith in 1830, and claim to trace it back o origional Chrisyanity before the great Apostacy wiped out alL Christainity till it was restored by Smith.

No part of reform theology comprises Mormon theology.}-Zarove

The above four groups all grew out of the original Protestant churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist etc), as did the Methodists, Baptists etc. These latter are called “protestant” even though they were not formed “in active protest to Rome”.

{Not so. Mormons did not origionate out of reform though. Mormons do not even share a reform root, and origionated in 1830 with Joseph smith and his claim of findign the Holsden plates. Mormons are not, nor shoudl they be, considered Protestnats as they d not trace the origin of their Chruhc to the Reform Era or to a chruch that emrbaced the Reformation. They in fact rehject the reformation and all other chruches as " All their Creeds are an Abomination".

Their is NO portion of reform thought in Mormonism. None. Its completley an origional prodict, seperate form the reformation and protestant chruches. As far removed form Protestantism as it is Catholisism. That is why its called a seperate religion.}-Zarove

You yourself stoutly defended the Mormons on another thread from the charge that they are not Christian.

{Yes, this is because on a technical sence they are, since they accept Jesus. }-Zarove

As I understand the SDA beliefs they teach that God wants us to be vegetarian. It’s not just a matter of health, otherwise why would a religious organisation even have a view on it?

{I woudl hae to look into it, but I beleive its just a customary, rather than a full requirement.}-Zarove

You then stretch your narrow definition of “protestant” to suit your other argument that it is “outrageous” to say that all protestants believe or don’t believe something. Yes, among the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, there is probably not one belief that they all agree exactly on. But that’s my point. The protestant movement and everyone in it have all moved a (greater or lesser) distance from where their spiritual ancestors were when they firts broke away from the Catholics in the 16th century.

{I nevedr said all protestnats agreed on everythign, I sad you cant make sweepign charges. I also said Mormosn wherent protestat, you seem tot hink they origionated by breakign off a Chruch that either broke off a reform Chruch or else was a reofrm church, this is not ture, as Mormonism is completley new and origional and did NOT break off of any one spacific chruch at all.}-Zarove

"In Daytin its hard to find a sroe that sells basic condomns”

Wow, maybe I should move there. But I think you’re talking about shyness in putting them on display.

{No, they where actively opposed to...}-Zarove

That’s a different thing from seeing them as evil in themselves. I’m sure those who want them know where to get them.

{You dont know Dayton then...}-Zarove

I assure you again I do not “want to tear intot he protestnat veiw” and I AM concerned with honesty.

{I hyo where concenred with Honesty, then let me ask you, what Chruch did the Mormon Chruc break off of?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

An article form a Catholic Website.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

Zarove, there's here I'm not done reading yet, but I have a few questions. Hopefully, you can give them some of your attention.

From above, you wrote:

After the war withhte Jews, the rabinical Judaism formed, and it is form them that we get the Jewish Cannon of today. They decended formt eh Pharasees, who had pretty much determiend the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC, which had nohtign to do with Cathlics who did not exist, even by Cahtlic reconing, in the era before Christ.}- Zarove

Did Christianity, develop out of Pharasean Judaism? Did the Pharasees represent Judaism as a whole? Also, how could they determine the Jewish canon if they did not represent Judaism as a whole? I have here:

"Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: "Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted" (Acts, xxviii, 22)."

Excerpted from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Thanks ahead for your answers.

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 02, 2004.

Which still doesnt prove that the KJV is an infirior translation. Look, steve may love the little " Beat the Protestant" game, but in this thread I was just givign an overview of the beleifs held BY protestants, I was not planign on formaly debatign these poitns to a finer degree, just correctig the msirepresentation that was preasented in this thread.

Now, can we please either return our talk tot he actual subject matter of this thread, namely the King James Bible, or else can we terminate it?

I mean, I woudlnt mind discussing these matters at lenght at a later date, but for now cant we be content to represent farly protestnat veiws and give a brief overview to answer the queastion offere din the beginning of the thread?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

Zarove,

Scroll up to Lori K's original question, then scroll back down.

Ok, now be more rational about it. If you get tired of this, I understand. I've also been there and done that. Furthermore, let me tell you that I understand this is not a political thread. Fair?

God bless you!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 03, 2004.

Vincent, Bravo! Finally someone fighting round-robin discussions!

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

Ah, nevermind Zarove. Don't worry about it.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 03, 2004.

OK Zarove I won’t ask you any more questions if that’s what you want. I assure you again I was not attacking anyone, I thought we were having an intelligent conversation. Is it really so hard to believe I just want to share with and learn from others, and that I don’t want to play a " Beat the Protestant" game ? Yeah I know we drifted off the original question but most threads in this forum do.

To explain what I mean in conclusion: “even the United sttaes has evolved over time in its form of cgovernance and culture” – Yes, but we still call it the same “United Staes of America” even though its form and culture are so different from 200 years ago. Just like the Catholic church has changed form but it’s still the same thing.

I still think there’s nothing legally to stop a Muslim or Hindu becoming monarch of England. Bizarre as it sounds, they could be Supreme Head of the Church of England while not being an Anglican. After all, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of Canada but she’s not a Canadian citizen. Maybe as you say there are other laws which are worded that the monarch must “be a protestant” but if so this seems to pose a problem. Many Anglicans/Episcopalians insist that they are NOT protestants at all, and would in fact be insulted to be called protestant. And when Queen Elizabeth is in Scotland she is Head of the Church of Scotland, i.e. Presbyterian, and worships at that church, not an Anglican one. And there seems no problem at all with a monarch being MARRIED to a Muslim/Hindu/Voodooist/Atheist/Communist. Catholics are definitely the only ones excluded there.

By saying the Mormons originated from protestant churches I mean that Joseph Smith and his original followers were overwhelmingly (I won’t say “all”) former members of the older protestant churches; and that it was the protestant view of the world and of the nature of religion and private interpretation of scripture that prepared the ground for them to come up with and accept Smith’s ideas. The Mormons got a lot of their beliefs and practices from other protestant groups. Sure they believe “all other creeds are an abomination” – so do all other denominations, when it comes down to it, though they are usually more polite about expressing this. I see the site you reference says that it’s incorrect to call them protestant, but most other Catholic sources (especially those outside the USA) classify the Mormons, JWs, SDAs etc as “protestant”, for these reasons. If you ask me to “recognise the legitimate Protestant argumet” please recognise that this is, I understand, the Catholic view on this matter, I didn’t invent it. But I understand why you wouldn't want to be lumped in with them, so I will no longer refer to them as protestant.

Bill, I don’t know what you mean by “round-robin discussions” and why they are something to be fought against. I thought they were the reason this forum exists.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 03, 2004.

I likwise don't know what a Round robin is. ( Unles you refer to a Bird... but Ornithology seems out of place to me, and I doubt that was his intent.)

As to Mromons, it is techniclaly innaccurate to portray them as Protestants. It is not tht I don' want to be lumoed in wiht them so much as it isn't true. Tghey don;t call themselves Protestants. Their veiws do not origionate with Reform theology. They do not beleive in Private interpretation of scripture and beelive instead that their Prophet and Clergy are the oens who have the right and Authority to interpret Scripture. ( Which, Ironiclaly, is a claim hey share with Catholics, though they aren't Catholic.)

They trace their origins to 1830. Unlike a Protestant Denomination that happened t begin in 1830, the theological backgrpund of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Reorginised Chruh of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and all other Kosephite Chruches ( Of whom their are over 200 vaient branches.) however is not based on refrm thought, and did not origionate from the reform era, nor did the Chruch itsself spacifically break off of any existant Protestant Chruch.

Thouhg it is true that most, though not all, of the Members where former Protestants themselves ( Joseph Smith Jr. himself came form a more Atheistic Background, initially) it is not true ot assume the Mormon Chruch broke off of a Protestant Chruch and is therefore Protestant, any more than a Cahtolic who adheres to the beleif that Cahtolisism is original christianity can adhere to the claim that the Catholic Chruhc is Pagan simpley by virtue of the earlyiest members of the orginisation largley came from Pagan backgrounds. It woudl be absurd to assume that Catholisism is Pagan based ont he fact that its members where ex-Pagan, just as it is Absurd to assume that Mofmons are Protestant simpley becase the Bulk of the Mmebers came from Protestant Backgrounds.

As Noted, the general Portestant rules of Private Interpretationa dn Sola Scriptura are not adhered to by Mormon theology, nor is their Chruch based on any known rformation attemt. Indeed, they claim theirs is a restoration of the True Chruch on the Earth.

As to English Law, technically speaking, a King or Queen MUST be Christian by English Law, and thi is hte Bottom Line. Hindu's canot sit on the Throne, nor can Atheists. ( At leats not public ones.)

As to mariage, why on earth WOULD a Communist marry a Monarch? Woudl a communist even BE a Monarch???

And the reason I didnt like the tone of the discussion was the overwhelming lack of freedom in the topic as well as the lack of its ability to answer or even address the point o the thrrad.

Remember, you cannot properly discuss ANYONE without first representign their arguments well. Thus, when I say you cannot say that a Protestant who looks at where the Bibel came form will see it as written by Catholic Bishops and Priests I mean it in a serious way, since you make no logical sence to a Protestant, since they do nto recognise Paul, Peter, and the lot as Catholic.

It is misrepresentation to assume the Protestants thin the same way Cahtolics do on this issue.

I have defended Mormons on this board before for the same reasons. I dont defend Protestantism based simpley o the fact that I am Protestant, I am just bog on the truth. I dont liek dishoenst arguments, and your argument is Dshonest in that it assumes that the fact that Paul and Peter and th Apsotles where Cahtolic Bishops and Priests is a view held by all Honest rotestants, which simple isn't the case.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 03, 2004.

No, I don’t assume “that the fact that Paul and Peter and th Apsotles where Cahtolic Bishops and Priests is a view held by all Honest rotestants” . I accept that they don’t belive this; just that I can’t understand their grounds for that belief. Thank you for trying to explain it to my little brain.

I suppose what I mean about Mormons is that they arose (and probably could only have arisen) out of a protestant CULTURE, and they continued to hold some of the protestant beliefs, although they adopted other beliefs which differ greatly from those of protestant churches.

“why on earth WOULD a Communist marry a Monarch? Woudl a communist even BE a Monarch???” – I think the history of communism shows that Communists will use every means possible, and co- opt anyone willing to co-operate with them, in order to gain power.

I’ll take your word there are English laws saying the monarch must be Christian. But also note Prince Charles said a couple of years ago that the monarch’s title “Defender of The Faith”, should be changed to “Defender of Faith” to mean that the monarch defends and represents ALL religions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 04, 2004.

No, I don’t assume “that the fact that Paul and Peter and th Apsotles where Cahtolic Bishops and Priests is a view held by all Honest rotestants” . I accept that they don’t belive this; just that I can’t understand their grounds for that belief. Thank you for trying to explain it to my little brain.

{The reaosn you can't understand t is that youwill nto even allow yourself to think outside of a Cahtolci Modle. The fact that I understand the Cahtolic veiw means that I, as a Protestant, can acceot the veiw as a atter of discussion wihtout actually beelivign as such nessisarily happened. Since I can accomplish this feat, it shoudlnt be unreasonabke to asusme others can as well. Likewise, you said that IF Protestants looked at the Hisotry hey WILL discover it was written by Cahtolic Priests and Bishops in the first Cnetury, as far as the Newe Testement was concerned. This is, of course, false. Since you rcognise Protestants do not see the Apostles as Catholic Bishops, then you must realise your whole argument was fallacious.}-Zarove

I suppose what I mean about Mormons is that they arose (and probably could only have arisen) out of a protestant CULTURE, and they continued to hold some of the protestant beliefs, although they adopted other beliefs which differ greatly from those of protestant churches.

{Actually schismatic and Heretical chruhces came into exisance long before Protestantism began. Just look at the QWaldenses, the Arians, the Marcions, the Gnostics, ect... Mormonism , or soemthign very similar, could easily have come about in a culture permeated with Catholisism as its primary, or even only, understandign of Christainity.}-Zarove

“why on earth WOULD a Communist marry a Monarch? Woudl a communist even BE a Monarch???” – I think the history of communism shows that Communists will use every means possible, and co- opt anyone willing to co-operate with them, in order to gain power.

{They have never taken noble titles though, since titlage is opposed to Communism, and woiudl be less subversive and mroe couter prodictive. They canot get ride fo the artistoctracy wotout neutralisign their own power. They woudl more likely run for Parlement.}-Zarove

I’ll take your word there are English laws saying the monarch must be Christian. But also note Prince Charles said a couple of years ago that the monarch’s title “Defender of The Faith”, should be changed to “Defender of Faith” to mean that the monarch defends and represents ALL religions.

{I have little respect for the current Prince of Wales. He has bought into the post modern, multicultureal worldveiw and has also proven himself immoral. Though I repsct the Office he holds as paert of a Long Standing tradition that helps define our culture, I do not have regard for thr man himself.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

OK Zarove, when I get time I will try to “think outside the Catholic mode” and study these matters from the Protestant perspective. But your advice on this seems to contradict your opposition to having a “multicultural worldview”. Re your lack of respect for Prince Charles, yes he has proven himself sexually immoral (less so than many of his ancestors), but he at least seems a bit more “human” than most of the royal family. And like you he is a stout defender of the KJV!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 06, 2004.

He may be more Human, and he may defend the KJV, but he is still one who needs to build a strogner charecter. His affair was not his only Vice. Charecter does matter.

Likewise, Multiculturalism is not what I endorse, since it usually emans that we must be a divided culture wiht no common ground and respect everyhtign no matter how absurd, except of course traditional Christainity.

It matters little if one agrees with the arguments of Protestants or not, but you shoudl at leats eight their concerns and claims honestly rather than simpley asusme Cahtolisism is right and they are wrong, to the poitn of misrepresentign their claims.

I disagree with Mormons, yet I defended them on this board when they where msirepresented.

That is all I ask of you, not that you convert.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 06, 2004.

"The Jews, btw, excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture. The Jews did this partly to try to accentuate their differences from the Catholics. { Actually, the Jews we are now talkign about, the Rabbinical's, never used the LXX or the additions to Daniel and Esther or the Contested books. Only soem independant groups of Jews used them, which was why they where part of the LXX, others veiwed them as vital hisotry and Jewish Liturature, but not scripture. After the war withhte Jews, the rabinical Judaism formed, and it is form them that we get the Jewish Cannon of today. They decended formt eh Pharasees, who had pretty much determiend the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC, which had nohtign to do with Cathlics who did not exist, even by Cahtlic reconing, in the era before Christ.}-Zarove

I quote The Oxford Companion to the Bible (a source which is not at all pro-Catholic):

"Until recently it was commonly assumed that Jews of the period immediately before and after the beginning of the Christian era had two canons, one that was current in Palestine and another in Alexandria, the greatest center of Jewish life in the Hellenistic world. But newer evidence, including that from Qumran, suggests a more complex reconstruction, and indeed that the use of the word canon may be somewhat inappropriate, since the list of included books was not explicitly fixed until the second century....The definition and final closing of the Jewish canon was in large measure due to ....the need for self-definition in the face of the threat presented by the rise of an aggressive Christian church. Christians...accepted the scriptures in the form most accessible to them, the Greek Septuagint. Jews.... reacted by emphatically rejecting the Septuagint and insisting that only those ancient books that were writtten in Hebrew could be regarded as authoritative. Even such books as Sirach and 1 Maccabees, which had clearly been written originally in Hebrew, were rejected."

The strangest thing about the Anglicans/Episcopalians excluding these books from their Bibles is that the laws of their church actually REQUIRE these books to be included in any edition of the Bible authorized for use in public worship, and they make considerable use of them in their lectionary. The only restriction their church officially places on them is that they can't be used as the SOLE proof of a point of doctrine.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 14, 2004.