Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

I edited Zaroves response for easier reading. I like how he answered it, and rather risk his post (which most likely Not get answered) being deleted, I'm posting it here.

He is what "Steve" (55555@aol.com) wrote on June 30, 2004 in the Catholic forum:

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.)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004

Answers

Actualy this is just wgar Sreve said, not any answer by me...

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

I know Zarove, I was editing your reply to make it more readable. I also edited it for spelling. Your reply will be in purple.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

[Zarove reply]

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

Zarove: 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 Catholics seem to either not know or fail to mention is that those large portions of other books (Daniel and Esther) are not present in any extant Hebrew MSS. They are found only in the LXX (Septuagint, Greek Translation).

The reason for the omission of these segments of the books is because they are NOT a part of the MSS used by Protestants when translating the Bible. The most common source for the Old Testament in Protestant, and even Catholic, Bibles these days is the Mesozoic Hebrew Text. This text does not contain the additional segments of Daniel and Esther. It never has to the best of our knowledge. The oldest books lack the segments, and most scholars concede that the additions found in the LXX are newer additions to the text, an not part of the original work

Steve: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:

Zarove: Not the "Most Protestants are ignorant" line again...

Steve: 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.

Zarove: This is not what most Protestants find at all. You are operating on a catholic Bias, which forbids you to realize exactly what a protestant sees while examining the origin of the Bible.

For instance, since Protestants do NOT think of the Apostles as Catholic Bishops, even those who know Catholics issue this claim, they do not see the New Testament as written by Catholic Priests and Bishops in the first century, rather, they see it as written by Apostles and inspired writers.

They would contend the Catholic Church had yet to evolve and thus had no Bishops and priests.

If you want an honest discussion, you must include the actual point of view you are trying to deflect, not construct a ridiculous straw man.

Steve: 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.

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

Steve: 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.

Zarove: Odd... Nicea and Carthage didn’t do it? Likewise, many protestants know all this already...

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

Zarove: This is an internal contradiction to your post. You said Trent determined the final Cannon. Trent happened in the late 1500's...

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

Zarove: Actually, the Jews we are now talking about, the Rabbinical never used the LXX or the additions to Daniel and Esther or the contested books. Only some independent groups of Jews used them, which was why they where part f the LXX, others viewed them as vital history and Jewish Literature, but not scripture.

After the war with the Jews, the rabbinical Judaism formed, and it is form them that we get the Jewish Cannon of today. They descended from the Pharisees, who had pretty much determined the Cannon already by the 2nd Century BC, which had nothing to do with Catholics who did not exist, even by Catholic reckoning, in the era before Christ.

Steve quotes Zarove: “TECHNICALLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL BOOKS IN ITS FIRST SEVERAL PRINTINGS, THEY WHER EONLY REMOVED IN THE 19TH CENTURY...”

Steve responded: 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”.

Zarove: Actually, the original KJV had them in the middle, I believe, in a separate section...

Steve: (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!)

Zarove: Not only are we dealing with the Anglican Communion, technically, but as a matter of fact, this is one instance where I have to defend Luther. Please make this rare in occasion. Luther was not being arrogant by claiming that he wanted to preserve the books so they wouldn’t be lost. He did not see them as inspired, but valuable for reading. He did not assume the Catholic Church would shrivel and die, rather he assumed it would follow suit with his reformation.

Steve: 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!

Zarove: False. The books where removed in the 1630's to eliminate shipping costs, and reintroduced in the 1700s. "The Protestants" didn’t remove them until he 19th century, based on the fundamentalist movement that began in America. Religious revival swept the nation, and the overall theme of fundamentalism was belief in the Bible as the Literal word of God, and not to have anything added to scripture. The Apocrypha was removed because it was not seen as scripture and thus should not be in the Bible. And again, the removal of the books was not arbitrary, it had a motive, in that the books are not seen as inspired by protestants, and thus should 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 removed arbitrarily and saying this is a disservice tot he whole discussion.

Steve: And from that commercial decision flows the modern protestant bible.

Zarove: Actually, this is only true of the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version. Most other Protestant Bibles, from Luther’s Bible to the Geneva Bible, had already lost the Apocrypha decades to centuries earlier. Likewise, it was not a commercial decision...

Steve quotes 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.”

Steve replied: 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.

Zarove: The Vulgate is, however, not an English translation...and their have been many editions for the Vulgate.

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

Zarove: Which is my point. It is a translation of a translation, which makes it dubious at best. The Latin didn’t fully capture the Greek or the Hebrew, as it can't being a different language. The DR likewise did not capture the fullness of the Latin, because of the disparages of language. I prefer a translation form the original languages, not one from a separate translation. That is why the Douay-Rheims is rejected by me.

Steve: 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”.

Zarove: Nor was the Vulgate. Jerome did not translate from the original “Acts of the Apostles" Straight from the hand of Luke. Nor did he translate the original Letter to the Romans form Paul. If he did, he wouldn’t need to correlate the different MSS. He assuredly worked form copies while translating 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 translation of a translation. It doesn’t mater how good the Vulgate was, the fact remains that the Douay-Rheims will have linguistic drift, just as the vulgate had linguistic drift. The Douay-Rheims is a translation of a translation, and thus is not as safe a translation as either the original Vulgate or the King James Bible.

Steve: 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.

zarove: Actually the oldest was a little over 500 years old, and in a written text, this shouldn’t matter, since copies have been revealed to be remarkably well done. The New Testament of the Bibl is the most attested compilation from the ancient world, with most MMSS agreeing wildly, with little real deviation. It’s not like telephone where the older MSS are more accurate, in a written source, if the copy is exact, the information is preserved. This is why we can rely on the Bible today, in any Interlinear one can find.

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

Zarove: Lets not get tot he conspiracy theories shall we?

Steve: 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.

Zarove: Poppycock. The accuracy of the text was paramount to the translators. I can just as easily claim the New American Bible was written with an agenda to confirm Catholic beliefs and wasn't concerned 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 Catholic may think this is OK since the Catholic Church is true, but a protestant can use the dishonest tactic you employed and say the New American Bible is base don a similar conspiracy to hide the truth and confirm Catholicism, not convey accuracy.

The King James Bible was the result of trying to form a better translation of the Bible, to repalce the defective Bishops Bible, and to remove the effects the Geneva Bible which WAS the result of an agenda.

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

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

Here is the original preface for you.

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

Read it, and see for yourself.

Steve: 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.

Zarove: What "Many Mistakes"? Supposedly, the King James is one of the worst things out and has huge tinnes of errors. Well guess what, its not that flawed. You didn’t show any errors, and the one time people did on this site it was easy to debunk. The King James doesn’t HAVE that many errors and is actually LESS in error than ANY modern Bible in use, this includes the paraphrased New American Bible.

I am not claiming its fully perfect, but it doesn’t have "Many Mistakes", as you imply that its only marginally better than the New world translation.

Likewise, this is false. The language was not archaic at the time of the KJV. All you have to do is read Shakespeare, and you see the same language used in Hamlet as in the KJV. It was called high, or formal, English, which was used in all official meetings, parliament documents, and Kingly addresses.

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

Zarove: No, it doesn’t. Likewise, this would be less the case then.

Steve: Many phrases and even whole sentences are almost incomprehensible.

Zarove: Like what? I have read the KJV all my life and have yet to run into an incomprehensible passage.

Steve: But technical arguments aside,

Zarove: You didn’t make any technical arguments, you just accused the KJV of containing many flaws and implied it had more mistakes than most Bibles, claimed it was all base on an agenda, used bad reasoning to support this, then proceeded to call the language incomprehensible when its not. You don’t even site a clear example.

Steve: 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?

Zarove: This argument contains several flaws. first off, protestants don’t see the Catholic church as writing the Bible, if you are going to present an intelligent argument to refute Protestantism, you should at least realize what protestants believe to begin with...likewise, we aren’t discussing the original languages, but rather we are talking about the translations into English, and which matches the text better. The best English version is the KJV, which I will happily demonstrate upon request.

Steve: 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.

Zarove: Neither the authors (plural) nor the editors (plural) of the Bible where even alive at the time of the Authorized Version release. The Catholic Church isn’t the author of the Bible. Paul writes the letters, so did James, Peter, John, Mathew, Luke, and others... it was not written by a single conglomeration nor does any single institution own the Bible.

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

Zarove: False. Your whole argument is false, and doesn’t even take into consideration the real protestant argument; you just create straw men and then lie about other important facts. This isn’t a balanced post but propaganda.

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

Zarove: This is just shameless Protestant baiting...

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

Zarove: How do you know it’s false? You don’t even seem to know what the protestant arguments are.

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

Zarove: Which has no bearing on this thread about the KJV, which you malign, based on falsehood and slander...

Steve: 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.

Zarove: Not only are you now limping all protestants into the same boat by implication thus painting them with the same brush, thus becoming guilty of the false “Guilt by association" argument, but this has nothing to do with the argument for the KJV. Its just slander against Protestantism. I call it slander because you take what one group does, then present it as a "Protestant" thing, thus implying it is somehow universally embraced. Only Liberals denounce the Miracles and resurrection, and their are even Catholic theologians who do this, and its dishonest to even imply that this is a major segment of Protestantism in general.

Steve: 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.)

Zarove: Yeah Catholics where always the victims, protestants are just pure evil...whatever. Need I remind you of the Inquisition, or several other Heresy hearing s where protestants where killed\? Lets not go down the “Whose guiltier" road shall we? Catholicism doesn’t exactly have a pure record you know...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 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 you claim that the Greek MSS where not reliable because they weren’t Old, then the DR isn’t reliable because it is based on a Latin Text that is less than a century old itself.

You said the Vulgate came from the 4th century, and then criticize the Greek copies because of heir Youth. Unless you demonstrate that Jerome's personal Vulgate, which he personally translated and personally compiled, was used by the DR committee, and not a copy of the Vulgate, then your whole argument 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.

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, 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?

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.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.