The Origins Of The Bible

[at0m1c]

This piece of writing needs to be refuted, but I have no idea what to say.

1. Rome recieved the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt in the earliest recorded church age.

2. At the same time the other Text, the Universal Text was spreading across europe.

3. Rome wanted to gain control and asked Jerome to interpret it into Latin.

4. This version contained the Apocryphal Books (which can still be found in today Roman Catholic Bible)

5. But this had no effect on the spread of the Universal Text, so Rome shelved it.

6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation.

7. Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed.

8. From beginning till this point, Rome refused unauthorised people to read the Bible. Only the Pope and the Highest Priest are allowed to.

9. But seeing that all the persercution was not effective in stamping out all Christians, Rome decided that to win back the dwindling support, they have to relax on the rule about the readership of the bible.

10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others.

11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."

So there you go, a short summarised history. If you are moved to know more just do some research.

Here is some interesting points, taken off a webpage. In the Roman Catholic Bible (and some modern Christian Bible translations), some scriptures are, should i said "left in the mirre of unknown." Take special note of the straining of the tenses:


- Luke 13:23 (RC & new versions), "Are there few who are being saved?" KJV, "...be saved."

- II Cor. 2:15 (RC & new versions), "are being saved." KJV, "are saved."

- I Cor. 1:18 (RC & new versions), "those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved" KJV, ...are saved."

- Acts 15:19 (RC & new versions) "are turning to God." KJV, "turned."

- Luke 15:32 (RC & new versions), "your brother was dead and has begun to live." KJV, "is alive."

- Acts 2:47 (RC & new versions), "were being saved." KJV, "should be saved."

- 2 Cor. 4:3 (RC & new versions), "are perishing." KJV, "are lost."


With all the unnatural straining of the tenses, and the teachings of the Catholic Church, no wonder the Roman Catholics never really know whether they are saved or not. The same reason goes to show why the Vatican Church can easily manupilate and control the Roman Catholics with such unclear scriptures.

[StColette]

All I can say to this person is that they have been reading too much Jack Chick. They seem to highly emphasize on the translation of the Bible toward the buttom in saying the the KJV is clearly the more correct. But are they using a new version of the KJV or are they using the original version from 1611. Clearly through the hundreds of years some translation in language form would change even in the KJV. This person should also note that when the KJV was first printed the " Apocryphal Books " were accepted by King James as part of Biblical Scripture and they were printed in his version of the Bible.

"11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."

This is definitely not a teaching of the Catholic Church

Catechism of the Catholic Church

"2653 The Church "forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles."

"10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others."

It is not to my knowledge that any version of the Bible has changed the Gospel in which the Last Supper occurs, which is clearly where the Eucharist comes from.

Lk:22:19-20
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (DRV)

"6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation."

Catholics in Rome were and are Bible-believing Christians. And even Martin Luther after his thesis still held true to many traditions of the Catholic Church, Communion and doctines concerning the Virgin Mary. But this person should also realize that not only was there a reformation outside of the Church but there was also one within it.

"7. Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed. "

Like I said previously the Church took into consideration many changes during and after the Reformation.

Concerning tradtion :

2Thes:2:15:
15 (2-14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (DRV)

And I'll also repeat what I have already said, Martin Luther held many traditions of the Catholic Church even after the Reformation. He did not clearly deny all that the Church teaches.

" By Faith Alone "

One can have Faith in God tremendously but if one does not keep God's commandments he is doomed. And with Faith comes good works. They are connected with one another. In having Faith in God and what He teaches we see that we must do good deeds unto others.

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
(DRV)

Hope some of this helps

God Bless,
St. Colette

[Crusader_4]

Okay lets take a loot at a few of the claims (any better Catholic apologist here feel free to add on or correct me)

Rome recieved the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt in the earliest recorded church age.
-Simply not true although the Church did use the texts from Alexandria a person must relazie that Alexandria was teh centre of learning of the world at that time as well there is much debate on actually whether or not who was using the septugnint which included the deuterocanonicals. However it was not corrupted by any means. An interesting side note is that around i think 90-100 AD the a group of prominent Jews many former members of the Sanhedrin got together at a town by the name of Jamenia (check spelling) they got together to discuss what books should belong in their canon...they decided the current protestant OT and rejected all of the NT books as well as the Deutrcanoncials so many Protestants will say they are actually following the Jews in picking books but since the Jews did not have an exact canon until this date and by the time they got to this they no longer had the authority whereas we as Catholics accept the books the Early Christians picked which include OT (with deutroncanonicals and) and the NT. So as you can see this Jewish council was not inspired or should be trusted to what books should belong as they rejected the Gospels and Christian writtings and anything that had Christian overtones...(deutercanonicals) think about Jewish Christian Relations at this time. Even among Christians there was some debate about what books should be included some were in favour of the Deutroncanocals some where not. In the end there were decided to be included. Now the council i believe it was the Counicl of Hippo led by Pope Damascus decided what books should b listed. the picked the 27 NT books and the Catholic OT. Protestants accept this councils pick of the NT but reject the OT why? they say its not inspired...yet they say Pope Damascus I and the Bishops picked an inspired NT...a bit of a double standard there. This is the council that we first get a good list of the NT...i believe there were even some before that time period but this was the big one.

3. Rome wanted to gain control and asked Jerome to interpret it into Latin.
-The author would have you believe that Rome is just one of many denominations...rather then the only CHURCH at the time. as a result the Church wanted to translate the texts and have a standard version so yes get control of a siutation so it would be easier and more adaptable for the Christians to read the Bible and ensure that there were valid texts. Also remember many parts of the KJV and other protestant bibles are based upon the Vulgate.

6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation.
-not quite sure if he is reffering to prior to the reformation...which is ridicolous and soo unfact based his article should then be disregarded considering the only Christians were Catholics.
if he is talking about the reformation for the most part the Catholics did very little persecution compared to the protestant connterparts especailly in England...altho there was some it was not like many make it out to be.


Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed.
-The author here really shows his/her lack of knowledge of Catholic belief and the role of councils. (T)radition had always been declared on equal par with scirpture since the very begginning this is affirmed in many Early Christian documents. Next a council is called generally when a heresy runs rampant or the Church is having problems and needs to clear things up. Quite often they make statements and Protestats jump up and say "THATS NEW YOUR MAKING STUFF UP" which is false rather it is clarifiying and ensuring the CHurch understands a doctrine or teaching that has always been taught...i.e. Stem Cells if the Church said stem cell research is wrong is it in the bible...no but it has been something the Church has always taught since 100Ad just different circumstances and technology. Now with the faith thing first its not biblical for example St. James says "Faith without works is dead" its un-biblical according to his interpertation an interpertaiton that some man made up rather then Jesus made and passed on through his disciples and Church...and interperation that is still living today through his holy APOSTOLIC church.

8. From beginning till this point, Rome refused unauthorised people to read the Bible. Only the Pope and the Highest Priest are allowed to.
-Simply false claim...Rome did say that unauthorized bibles shouldnt be read and a bishop should check to make sure that the new bible translatiosn were indeed well done and were not corrupt. For example, so people dont go around reading the New Watch Tower or something. They had a check in power to make sure the Holy Word of God was not being abused. Now the Church however has taught that private interperation when conflicting with Church teaching is wrong. Since as the Bible states "The Church is the Pillar of Truth".
Might we add that it was in fact a Catholic bible that was being printed by the printing press and german bibles were already being produced in the venacular (common language of the people) before Luther was around so it would be easier for people to read the bible.


9. But seeing that all the persercution was not effective in stamping out all Christians, Rome decided that to win back the dwindling support, they have to relax on the rule about the readership of the bible.
-simply false

10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others.
-I am curious i would like to know how scripture was changed to fit the Roman Catholic view when we still hold the same bible the apostles read. wheras the reformers wanted to take out books in the bible i.e. Jude and Luther really wanted JAmes out calling it "an Epistle of straw" he also wanted revelation removed and today in theolgical lutheran circles there is still some debate as to whetehr or not revelation is a canonical book. So the Catholics have not altered scritpure in any way rather the reformes by removing books to suit their agenda...catholics have always taught and will continue to teach teh same things and mainatain the same bible.

11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."
-Simply not taught by the Church Salvation comes through Jesus Christ neither the Bible nor the Church. The Church has been given the gift of the sacraments which one can RECIEVE graces from JESUS CHRIST. but no Pope or Bishop or anything like that saves you. So again it shows his complete lack of Catholic history, doctrine, teaching...and that last quote was borderline offensive.

I hope this helps
-William

[thicke]

First of all, any good historian will state their sources when making a statement of historical fact. I think others have refuted the statements made, but I would refute all of them by asking for sources.


[quote]Here is some interesting points, taken off a webpage. In the Roman Catholic Bible (and some modern Christian Bible translations), some scriptures are, should i said "left in the mirre of unknown." Take special note of the straining of the tenses:[/quote]

Here's what the Douay-Rhiems has on these verses (the Catholic trasnlation prefered by most scholars):

[quote] - Luke 13:23 (RC & new versions), "Are there few who are being saved?" KJV, "...be saved." [/quote]

23 And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them:

[quote] - II Cor. 2:15 (RC & new versions), "are being saved." KJV, "are saved." [/quote]

15 For we are the good odour of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.

[quote] - I Cor. 1:18 (RC & new versions), "those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved" KJV, ...are saved." [/quote]

18 For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.

[quote] - Acts 15:19 (RC & new versions) "are turning to God." KJV, "turned." [/quote]

19 For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.

[quote] - Luke 15:32 (RC & new versions), "your brother was dead and has begun to live." KJV, "is alive." [/quote]

32 But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.

[quote] - Acts 2:47 (RC & new versions), "were being saved." KJV, "should be saved." [/quote]

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

[quote] - 2 Cor. 4:3 (RC & new versions), "are perishing." KJV, "are lost." [/quote]

3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost,


Now, I'm not going to take the time to go through and post the verses from the RSV-CE, NAB and J translations also. It's past time for me to start getting ready for work.

Suffice it to say that all translations might have had the tense of these verses differently. There's nothing that turns my stomach more than when an anti-Catholic uses quotes from "the Catholic Bible" out context and doesn't even have to courage to mention which translation he's using.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The KJV is awful and was translated from bad manuscripts.