King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Perversions

[Marymog]

I thought I had answered you on the permit, If I havewn't then look at Bible Forbidden to the Laity which quote two catholic sources that state that the ordinary people were not to read the bible.
I've added a papal quote for good measure:-
Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

No scholars have provided any evidence that Tyndales translation was heretical. That includes RC scholars. The bible is very carefully scrutinised when ever someone seeks to translate it. So much so that a heretical translation is very unlikely to be produced.

I know of no translation that can be called heretical. The nearest thing is the JW parapharase where for there own purposes they change words or add words to promote there erronious belief.

Who would I chose to determine orthodox doctrine or bible.
Well the intellectual community will alert us to disputes over a new biblical translation.
Heretical doctrine. Is every persons responcibility to know what is andis not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheeps clothing spreading false teaching.

Still no evidence of permits...... However, I will take your word that you have actually seen one.

Do you know your Christian history and why 'ordinary people were not to read the bible'?

You should be careful not to project modern sensibilities into the context of medieval history.

Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

Still no evidence of permits...... However, I will take your word that you have actually seen one.

Do you know your Christian history and why 'ordinary people were not to read the bible'?

You should be careful not to project modern sensibilities into the context of medieval history.

Mary

The quotes about not reading the bible were from a RC source so any revission of history was by a member of the RCC.

The source give the reason quite clearly, that the ignorant ordinary person should not be confussed. That means you and me, we should not be confussed by reading the bible.

What happened when ordinary people read the bible, the reformation happened, they rejected the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

If you reread my previous post you'll see who it is that detects a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[Marymog]

The quotes about not reading the bible were from a RC source so any revission of history was by a member of the RCC.

The source give the reason quite clearly, that the ignorant ordinary person should not be confussed. That means you and me, we should not be confussed by reading the bible.

What happened when ordinary people read the bible, the reformation happened, they rejected the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

If you reread my previous post you'll see who it is that detects a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I reread your post. Since it is every persons responsibility to know what is and is not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheep's clothing spreading false teaching then I am now ALERTING everyone that you are a wolf.

Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

I reread your post. Since it is every persons responsibility to know what is and is not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheep's clothing spreading false teaching then I am now ALERTING everyone that you are a wolf.

Mary

I would be interested to read your reasoning as what makes someone who follows basic Christian doctrine into a 'wolf'.

I suspect it is because I am not a follower of Roman Catholism.

 

[Marymog]

I would be interested to read your reasoning as what makes someone who follows basic Christian doctrine into a 'wolf'.

I suspect it is because I am not a follower of Roman Catholism.

Basic Christian doctrine is Roman Catholicism....Soooo how can you be following it?

Mary

 

[Davy]

I realised yesterday that I do have a KJV , one that my parents brought me when I was 9years old. However I could never get along with the old English - so it's not the bible as such, but the language that is a barrier to me using it.

So one must assume the KJV Bible you were given was a 1st edition? The 1st edition KJV was in Old English. The later printed 1611 KJV Bible actually is not Old English. Just keeping a lot of the thee's and thou's while printed in modern English doesn't really make it still Old English. It indeed is difficult to read Old
Englilsh, like the 1st edition KJV Bible.

https://manifoldgreatness.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/desktop41.jpg

 

[Butterfly]

So one must assume the KJV Bible you were given was a 1st edition? The 1st edition KJV was in Old English. The later printed 1611 KJV Bible actually is not Old English. Just keeping a lot of the thee's and thou's while printed in modern English doesn't really make it still Old English. It indeed is difficult to read Old
Englilsh, like the 1st edition KJV Bible.

https://manifoldgreatness.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/desktop41.jpg

Oh, i am not sure- I cannot see it being a 1st edition-my mum and dad brought it in the 1960's from an ordinary book shop- so it must have been the thee's and the 'thou's ( and a few other old English words ) that put me off. I still have it, and use it from time to time as a reference, but just cannot use it for general use.
Butterfly

 

[Windmillcharge]

Basic Christian doctrine is Roman Catholicism....Soooo how can you be following it?

Mary

Thank you for clarifing.

May I inturn clarify my understanding of what you have said.

As far as you are concernen the Roman Catholic Church does not consider All who are not Roman Catholic to be Christian.

 

[mjrhealth]

Basic Christian doctrine is Roman Catholicism....Soooo how can you be following it?

Actually basic Christianity is Christ, that why we follow after Him.

I am teh way teh truth and teh Life says teh Lord, no one shall go to heaven but by me..

My sheep hear my voice, still so few listening...

 

[Marymog]

Thank you for clarifing.

May I inturn clarify my understanding of what you have said.

As far as you are concernen the Roman Catholic Church does not consider All who are not Roman Catholic to be Christian.

Your welcome.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is you can read what it believes and has taught for thousands of years. It is in a book called the Catechism. I believe this excerpt from the Catechism answers your question:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

Thank you for clarifing.

May I inturn clarify my understanding of what you have said.

As far as you are concernen the Roman Catholic Church does not consider All who are not Roman Catholic to be Christian.

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter

So how does this make me a heretic?

What doctrines do I believe that are heretical or contrary to RCC teaching?

 

[Davy]

So how does this make me a heretic?

What doctrines do I believe that are heretical or contrary to RCC teaching?

Because you likely are not willing to kiss the hand of the pope or bow to him, which I most definitely am not willing to do.

Rev 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
KJV

 

[Marymog]

So how does this make me a heretic?

What doctrines do I believe that are heretical or contrary to RCC teaching?

I don't recall saying you were a heretic. Whom decides who is a heretic? The Apostles were able to do that. Who has that authority now?

I don't know what your doctrines are so I can't answer your question. Only you can.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Because you likely are not willing to kiss the hand of the pope or bow to him, which I most definitely am not willing to do.

Rev 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
KJV

Not kissing the hand of the pope or bowing to him does not make one a heretic. Many people that meet him don't do it.

If you offer to shake my hand and I don't accept your offer that is MY sign of disrespect toward YOU. Even though I may choose to shake your hand, that does not necessarily mean I agree with you or your beliefs.

Bow to the Pope or don't bow. It is what is in your heart that matters.

Mary

 

[Davy]

Not kissing the hand of the pope or bowing to him does not make one a heretic. Many people that meet him don't do it.

If you offer to shake my hand and I don't accept your offer that is MY sign of disrespect toward YOU. Even though I may choose to shake your hand, that does not necessarily mean I agree with you or your beliefs.

Bow to the Pope or don't bow. It is what is in your heart that matters.

Mary

Don't be silly, those subject to him do... bow to him, and... kiss his hand, as if he were Jesus Christ. And isn't that one of your doctrines, that the pope is the direct representative of Jesus Christ here on earth?

 

[Marymog]

Don't be silly, those subject to him do... bow to him, and... kiss his hand, as if he were Jesus Christ. And isn't that one of your doctrines, that the pope is the direct representative of Jesus Christ here on earth?

The Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter. The Apostle Peter was the person who Jesus built his church upon, just like Jesus said he would do. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, just like scripture says.

The Pope is a representative of The Church that Jesus built. Just like the Apostles were representatives of The Church that Jesus built. He told the Apostles what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

When did that authority to bind and loosen end?

Lol....How did we get into this discussion? This thread is about the KJV being un-perverted.

Mary

 

[Davy]

The Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter. The Apostle Peter was the person who Jesus built his church upon, just like Jesus said he would do. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, just like scripture says.

The Pope is a representative of The Church that Jesus built. Just like the Apostles were representatives of The Church that Jesus built. He told the Apostles what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

When did that authority to bind and loosen end?

Lol....How did we get into this discussion? This thread is about the KJV being un-perverted.

Mary

The office of "pope of popes" didn't even begin until the 3rd century A.D. So you can't refer to "The Pope" as successor to Peter, for that is a falsehood.

The many popes established between Rome and Byzantine vied for power over each other, so a "pope of popes" office was created.

 

[Marymog]

The office of "pope of popes" didn't even begin until the 3rd century A.D. So you can't refer to "The Pope" as successor to Peter, for that is a falsehood.

The many popes established between Rome and Byzantine vied for power over each other, so a "pope of popes" office was created.

Thank you. The 3rd century is when the word "pope" started first being used to describe the leader of the Christian Church. However, historically we know that from the 1st century there was always a leader of the Christian churches.

We know from Tertullian's writings that Clement was ordained by Peter in Rome. Clements writings show authority over all the other churches. Historically we also know that the head of the church in Rome has, from the 1st century, been the church that settle differences with all the other churches.

Can you provide your historical evidence when the office of the Pope began?

Pope = leader of the Christian Churches

Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

I don't recall saying you were a heretic. Whom decides who is a heretic? The Apostles were able to do that. Who has that authority now?

I don't know what your doctrines are so I can't answer your question. Only you can.

No you called me a 'wolf', said I don't follow RCC teaching, said that Tyndale was tried as a heretic and since I as a protestant follow the same doctrines that Tyndale taught, as do all protestants, that would make me what and make protestants what?

 

[Windmillcharge]

Because you likely are not willing to kiss the hand of the pope or bow to him, which I most definitely am not willing to do.

Rev 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
KJV

An irrelevent comment and one that Marymog answered.

If you were invited to meet the Queen of England you would follow protocol when you met her. It is the same with the pope.