Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

[Bible Highlighter]

How do you interpret that verse? If anyone sins at all, they are "of the devil"?

I believe it is talking about what you would call “mortal sin.”
If anyone abides in these kinds of sins, they are of the devil.
Remember, when Jesus said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:23).

If someone tells a white-lie, that is technically a sin, so does that means anyone who tells a white-lie is "of the devil"?

There is no such thing as a white-lie. All lies are lies. All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire according to Revelation 21:8. Granted, if a person seeks forgiveness of their lies with Jesus Christ and they forsake such evil, they will receive mercy and forgiveness. But they must endure to the end in being faithful to the Lord.

If you steal a pen from your workplace, does that mean you are "of the devil"?

Yes. One should return it. It’s steal steeling no matter how small the item is.

If you exceed the speed limit in your car, does that mean you are "of the devil"?

I believe this is a sin not unto death (non-mortal sin) unless one is speeding in a school zone with kids around; or unless somebody is driving at 100 plus miles per hour and placing other lives at risk. In the area where I live, I will see cars speeding crazy fast at least 3-4 times a weak. I have even seen semi trucks speeding crazy fast before and flying off the exit almost hitting the end of the guard rail and other vehicles. I believe the point here is to love your neighbor while you drive. Meaning, do not drive in such a bad way that puts others at risk. I believe loving your neighbor is key to inheriting eternal life according to Luke 10:25-28. So to answer your question, it depends. Going 5-7 miles per hour over the speed limit is not likely to put others at any greater risk. Perhaps if it was raining or snowing really bad this would be a problem. So it is situational of course.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please do not spread falsehoods about the Catholic Church, Most of your misinformation about Catholics could have been avoided with minimal research. Our Catechism is available to all, and I strongly suggest you quote the Catechism as to actual Catholic teaching, which you are free to dispute or disagree with. First, Catholics believe God can save people any way God wants to. The Bible says we are saved through Baptism, and Catholic believe the Bible to be the Word of God and indeed believe and today the way the majority of Christians are normally first saved is through Baptism: 1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE
Contrary to your assertion, Catholics are allowed to read the KJV. But we must realize that is not an approved translation. As to the Word of God, the Catholic Church has used top scholars to get the best translations of the Bible, not just Catholics but Jews and Protestant scholars as well. Realize the KJV contained many errors and that books were removed. Unfortunately much of the KJV came from a Greek text prepared rather hurriedly by a Catholic named Erasmus. Lacking all of the original Greek text Erasmus actually "back translated" lines from a Latin version, and the Greek texts were not the best (not as true as some to the original). Your assertion that Catholics were not allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War II is as false as can be. I have a family Bible maybe twenty feet away that dates back to the 1800s. We all owe a great debt to the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. The truth is that many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people and have spread the Gospel century after century. After Latin surpassed Greek as to the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. The Catholic Church has strongly defended the Bible, and took action over the centuries to prevent those who would add or subtract from the Word of God. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims, they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible.

​

I am not here to endlessly argue or debate the facts of what I know. I merely put forth the truth of what I know according to my own extensive research. You can disagree of course. As I said, you have your own history and narrative that supports your church. Why wouldn’t you? You are not going to stand by and accept what I can report from history that is not biased to the Catholic Church. But you have your own history of course. Continue on. I am not interested in endlessly debating such a thing with you. One has to be open to seeing the truth on such a thing in order to receive it.

Side Note:

Also, if you were paying attention, I mentioned the Catholic King James Bible that came out in 2020. But this is not enough to erase the attacks against the KJB from the Catholic Church through history. There are other things I did not mention due to time restraints.

 

[Valletta]

I am not here to argue or debate the facts of what I know. I merely put forth the truth of what I know according to my own extensive research. You can disagree of course. As I said, you have your own history and narrative that supports your church. Why wouldn’t you? You are not going to stand by and accept what I can report from history that is not biased to the Catholic Church. But you have your own history of course. Continue on. I am not interested in debating such a thing with you. One has to be open to seeing the truth on such a thing in order to receive it.

Side Note:

Also, if you were paying attention, I mentioned the Catholic King James Bible that came out in 2020. But this is not enough to erase the attacks against the KJB from the Catholic Church through history. There are other things I did not mention due to time restraints.

You are posting misinformation about Catholics. It's disturbing to see you stand by such statements as "no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2." As I've told you, I have a Catholic Bible that has been in my family since the 1800s. My great grandmother found work as a maid and they did not have much money, why do you think poor people would purchase a Bible for a family if they were not allowed to study it by themselves?" It makes no sense, and if, again, you had done MINIMAL legitimate research you would have found out your statement is a lie.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What does "my sins have already been judged in Christ" mean?

Of all humanity, we all are deserving of God's wrath because of our sin. I'm assuming you are familiar with this condition of fallen man and would agree with that statement. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

As a consequence of all being sinners; in order not to be eternally punished in the Lake of Fire, one's sin needs to be atoned for. Which means he who atones for sin must take on the wrath of God in the stead of one being atoned for. Theologically, that's called "substitutionary atonement". Which I believe the Roman Catholic church (RCC) also asserts this doctrine to be Biblical. Some people have issues with the term "substitutionary atonement". (Of which, I'm not sure why? But that's another subject.)

Now the consequence of the fall brought about 3 issues regarding death for humanity.
1. - One of those is eternal punishment for sin; which I just mentioned.

2. - The second is separation from God in regards to "fellowship" (with God - but also obviously affects human relationships too) and connection in this life; has caused humans not to be able to be in fellowships again with God outside of being atoned for. The consequence of sin from the perspective of humanity is that none of us want God anyways. Adam and Eve's transgression brought this corruption into the material realm of the cosmos. This is what's called "the fall" and why we are all in a fallen state. I believe the RCC calls this "original sin". Some people don't believe in "original sin". Which means humans are born into this world in a fallen state in rebellion against God even before they personally commit sin themselves. The consequence of the fall is that sin is inevitable. Everyone will sin at some point. And we do this because since Adam and Eve disobeyed; we all have a fallen nature.

Now in Protestant Reformation theological terms; the condition of fallen humanity is called "total depravity". "Total depravity" means none can; nor do any want to be reconnected to God because the consequence of the fall was so profound. "Total depravity" does not mean that fallen humans have no conscience and can't make moral choices to do things that are in alignment with God's goodness. We can still make those choices because having a conscience is part of being made in God's image. And the conscience is an integral part of what we are as humans. Though that's been affected by the fall; the fall did not erase that aspect of our being.

Fallen angels on the other hand though; have no moral conscience. When they fell; their fall was complete and they became "depraved totally". So though Satan and demons may seek to "disguise themselves as angels of light"; their corruption is complete and absolute. This is because they are not created in God's image. Although, because they are sentient entities; they are accountable for their sin; just as humans are. Both humans and angles are sentient beings. Animals are intelligent; but not "sentient" as in relation to their accountability to God or their disobedience. Although because of what Romans 8:22 says about creation groaning and travailing in pain; I believe all life has some form of awareness of the Creator. And I attribute this awareness to "the breath of life"; which comes from God. The fall plunged all of creation into a certain state of disobedience. But all life outside of humanity did not have a choice as to being cast into that fall; and this is why plants and animals aren't accountable to "sin". I know that sounds strange because how do plants "sin"? I don't know the answer to that; but we do have verses like Deuteronomy 24:4 and Ezekiel 14:13.

3. The third is physical death. Everything with the breath of life dies and fallen angels become subject to death at least at the point Judgement Day comes. Granted there are some verses that raise the question of whether or not demons contend with some form of death like unto carbon based life does. (The demons that went into the pigs and plunged into the sea.) But I don't know the answer to that either.

The Atonement:
So the atonement deals with all three of these aspects of the consequences of the fall; as well as the personal sin people commit.

And that's what I mean by "my sins have already been judged in Christ".

How do explain that dire warning, if Jesus paid the penalty for all their sins?

Assuming you are addressing this from the idea that Jesus paid for the sin of every single human being that ever lived?

Now the issue with that idea; is that it perverts the justice of God; because essentially for humans who end up in the Lake of Fire; basically two people are paying for the sin of one. (Jesus paid for their sin and they are in the Lake of Fire paying for their own sin.) Even in human terms that's not justice.

The other issue is that this makes at least a portion of Christ's atonement ineffectual. Which causes additional issues when Jesus makes statements like "All that the Father gives me shall come.... " John 6:37-39

Which leads back to the doctrine of election. I do know Roman Catholics who do believe in election.

Now what is meant by "I believe in election" isn't consistent among all people who state so.

1. Some believe "election" means that God "saw down the corridors of time who would accept Him".
2. Other's state Scripture says they were "chosen from the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 3:4) "Chosen" and "elect" are the same Greek word. Thus "neither having done good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works but of Him that calls." (Romans 9:11)

So to answer your question would depend on whom one believes Christ atoned for.

How do you know they have "no power to overcome" their sins?
Does a thief have no power to stop himself stealing if he knows a policeman is watching him?

What it means to be "dead in trespass and sin" is a theological concept that is different than the action of conscience that indicates to a person they've crossed a line.

And this here I think demonstrates the difference between those under the law who will be condemned for their sin and those whom are atoned for who are (or will be) regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

(Now.... how's the best way to explain this..... )

Those who will be condemned; are condemned predicated upon the reality that "the wages of sin is death". The punishment they earn is based in the sin they've committed. The commission of sin is an act of the fallen will. This is why "all have sinned and fallen short...." But the extent of sin one chooses to commit is an act of the will. This is why their punishment is based on the "wages of sin" they've earned. (Thus the application of your statement about the thief and the cop.)

Does that make sense to you?

That's the manifestation of "the law of sin and death". Which is testified to the sinner by the Mosaic moral law; despite the sinner knows this prior to the revelation of the Mosaic moral law, because all humanity has a conscience due to being created in God's image.

The Mosaic law / consequence "law of sin and death" is a different process than what happens when someone is redeemed. The person who is redeemed no longer being subject to the condemnation of the Mosaic moral law, because they are now under the "law of Christ". Keeping in mind though; that this does NOT mean those under grace are immoral. And this is because, to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit caused the desire to obey Christ; the consequence of this being morality.

This is what 2 Timothy 2 is talking about with "the man who strives..." (does so "lawfully") And the power by which he is able to "do so lawfully" is because the indwelling Spirit being the 3rd Person of the Trinity can not deny Himself.

Does that make sense? Can you follow the explanation I'm giving?

Not all sins are "deadly", but some are (1John 5:16-17). I suggest that murder (which includes abortion) is one of the "deadly" sins - it's not unpardonable, but it certainly has the potential to put one's hope of salvation at risk.

Except one indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't going to be prone to committing that sin; even if they had done so in the past. And this is because the redemptive process has created them as "... a new creature in Christ..." They've been raise from the dead of "sin and death" becoming inherently moral because God is a moral entity. Thus God can't deny Himself.

Incidentally, how does one determine what sins are "deadly" - the Bible doesn't elaborate. That would really trouble me ... not knowing what sins are "deadly"!

And this is a very valid issue for one concerned about it.

In the grand scheme of the redemption plan though; one doesn't have to fear condemnation because past sins are atoned for and the indwelling Spirit compels one on; in the concern for morality which.... repents one from continuing in committing these what you'd call in the RCC "deadly sins".

Of course this doesn't mean that genuine believers still don't contend with "non-deadly sins". This being the residual of the fallen nature that still bears the propensity to "fall short of the glory of God".

For example; I'm not murdering, committing adultery, stealing stuff, lying etc; but yes, I'm still getting frustrated unduly. I'm still loosing my temper on occasion. I'm still assuming something someone says as opposed to listening carefully and trying to understand their thought process behind what they are saying. Things like this, are what you as a Roman Catholic might call "non-deadly sins". They are a consequence of still having a fallen nature and are what one might call "sins of omission" as opposed to "sins of commission".

These things aren't intentional and deliberate "shake your fist at God" willful disobedience. They are the consequch of living with a currupt nature, still in a fallen and corrupt world. This is why "the last enemy to be overcome is death" and why we still die given natural outcome of life and death.

Mosaic law was God's standard of holiness - with the death and resurrection of Jesus, God instituted a different standard of holiness, although his moral laws remain.

Fundamentally, I agree with you here. Although the Mosaic law is really just the "behavioral basics" of the totality of what the holiness of God really requires. And this is why Jesus made statements like "Well, you think adultery is..(what the Mosaic law states).; but what I tell you is... (the expanded version).

And I conclude that even the "expanded version" still is not the totality of what the holiness of God really entails. The totality of God's holiness we'll never grasp because we are not God. We can only grasp the reflection of that holiness being created entities who are only "in His image".

The only human who ever actually "got" the entirety of the holiness of God was Jesus; and this is because he had a Divine nature. Adam, due to the nature of being a temporal created entity is why he fell and Christ didn't; because Adam was corruptible to begin with. Adan was corruptible; not because God created him of God's own intention that Adam would fall; but because Adam simply did not bear the nature of God. (He only bore the image.) The nature; would come later in the incarnation. Where God took Divinity (the Son) and inseparably joined it to a human nature (the son) Thus creating the God-man who is the only one who could atone for sin.

Does my explanation make sense to you?

The Mosaic laws that Jesus fulfilled were rendered defunct, but the moral laws remained.

Other Mosaic laws were rendered defunct when the gospel spread to the Gentiles. It's interesting that Jewish Christians were expected to adhere to the Mosaic laws that Jesus didn't fulfill, whereas Gentile Christians were not expected to adhere to those laws (at least, that's how it seems to me).

Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the Mosaic law; yet morality remains a product of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the believer because God is moral.

Now what your saying about Jews as opposed to gentiles; you're going to have to explain a little more because I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to by laws Jews were still expected to keep.

There are different ways of interpreting "the law of Christ", I guess.

I don't' think there are "different ways" as much as continuously expanding understandings of.

 

[The Righterzpen]

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible all apocryphal texts were rejected. You can read about the Great Schism, but perhaps the most well known difference between The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox is in regard to recognition of the pope. The Catholic Church uses the same 73 books today, in the same order, as was finalized in the late 300s. I think of a rite as being mostly liturgical, all of us are Catholics, we all use the same Catholic Catechism and the different rites are seen as added beauty rather than any kind of source of division. Catholics can attend mass in any Catholic rite.

The "great schism" over the apocrypha (at least from a Protestant perspective) I'm familiar with because the place in history where the apocrypha should occupy; was also an issue in the Reformation. To my knowledge the RCC didn't canonize the apocrypha until after the Reformation had already started. I know Jerome (who translated the Latin Vulgate) was of the conviction that the apocrypha was not part of the canon of Scripture. Thus when he translated the apocrypha; he left it separate from what you'd call "the Protestant Bible" today.

Now how much of the apocrypha Jerome had access to: I don't know? (The Eastern Orthodox church has more apocrypha books than the Catholic church does.) I know the eastern church was telling Jerome to use the Septuagint, as opposed to the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament translation, because they were stating the Masoretic Text was corrupted.

The Masoretic text is a post 1st century "adaptation" of the Hebrew. It's kind of like the difference between a Bible translation and a paraphrase of the Hebrew text; paraphrased in Hebrew.

Interestingly! Now that we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls; which is the Hebrew that the Septuagint was translated from; we find that the Eastern church was right all along. The consistency between the Dead Sea Scrolls "paleo-Hebrew" and the Septuagint is much stronger than the Septuagint to the Masoretic text.

Which when comparing to the quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament: (which what was commonly thought of as Paul quoting the Septuagint) was probably actually Paul quoting the paleo-Hebrew OT text. (Paul was more likely quoting the Dead Sea Scrolls, than he was quoting the Septuagint.)

It's all very interesting. When talking about how God preserves His word; there's a lot of rabbit holes we could go down there! All translations are based off of not only the Greek and Hebrew, but also the translations that preceded the later translations. Don't know if you are aware of this; but one of the comparison texts used in the translation of the King James was the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You are posting misinformation about Catholics. It's disturbing to see you stand by such statements as "no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2." As I've told you, I have a Catholic Bible that has been in my family since the 1800s. My great grandmother found work as a maid and they did not have much money, why do you think poor people would purchase a Bible for a family if they were not allowed to study it by themselves?" It makes no sense, and if, again, you had done MINIMAL legitimate research you would have found out your statement is a lie.

They may have allowed you to have a Catholic Bible, but you were not allowed to study it. From a Catholic website:

“Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so.​

Source:

Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

By Msgr. Daniel Kutys Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if a...

www.usccb.org

 

[Valletta]

They may have allowed you to have a Catholic Bible, but you were not allowed to study it. From a Catholic website:

“Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so.​

Source:

Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

By Msgr. Daniel Kutys Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if a...

www.usccb.org

This is an article by an individual Catholic. Yours is a misunderstanding. Catholic laity have studied Holy Scripture for almost 2000 years. For example, in the writings of Justyn Martyr, who died in 165 A.D., his knowledge from study of Scripture as a member of the Catholic laity is evident in the well known The Dialogue with Trypho, see pages 177 and 178:

https://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/e-books/williams_a-lukyn/dialogue-with-trypho_williams.pdf

This is far different than your statement that "no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2." After Catholic Gutenberg published the Bible, it is very fair to say that in general Protestants "actively embraced" individual study of the Bible far more than Catholics. There have been periods of time, even in the 1960s, when some Catholic priests discouraged individual study and thought that their teachings on the Bible at mass were sufficient.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is an article by an individual Catholic. Yours is a misunderstanding. Catholic laity have studied Holy Scripture for almost 2000 years. For example, in the writings of Justyn Martyr, who died in 165 A.D., his knowledge from study of Scripture as a member of the Catholic laity is evident in the well known The Dialogue with Trypho, see pages 177 and 178:

https://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/e-books/williams_a-lukyn/dialogue-with-trypho_williams.pdf

This is far different than your statement that "no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2." After Catholic Gutenberg published the Bible, it is very fair to say that in general Protestants "actively embraced" individual study of the Bible far more than Catholics. There have been periods of time, even in the 1960s, when some Catholic priests discouraged individual study and thought that their teachings on the Bible at mass were sufficient.

So even when it is by another Catholic, they don’t know what they are talking about. Okay.
But there is also this:

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic men and women are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the bishops of the Church interpret a passage and they are to accept what the bishops teach as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it. (Catechism 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, 2050)

In other words, no personal study and revelation is really allowed. One has to submit to the interpretation of the Bishops.

Side Note:

As for Justin Martyr:

He helped to develop the existence of Purgatory. While there may have been early disjointed practices that would resemble certain Catholic practices, I don’t believe the Catholic Church did not really start to form until the early 300s with Constantine. I know you have your own version of history and so I know you will not accept this narrative.

Source used:

MARY WORSHIP? A Study of Catholic Practice and Doctrine

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The "great schism" over the apocrypha (at least from a Protestant perspective) I'm familiar with because the place in history where the apocrypha should occupy; was also an issue in the Reformation. To my knowledge the RCC didn't canonize the apocrypha until after the Reformation had already started. I know Jerome (who translated the Latin Vulgate) was of the conviction that the apocrypha was not part of the canon of Scripture. Thus when he translated the apocrypha; he left it separate from what you'd call "the Protestant Bible" today.

Now how much of the apocrypha Jerome had access to: I don't know? (The Eastern Orthodox church has more apocrypha books than the Catholic church does.) I know the eastern church was telling Jerome to use the Septuagint, as opposed to the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament translation, because they were stating the Masoretic Text was corrupted.

The Masoretic text is a post 1st century "adaptation" of the Hebrew. It's kind of like the difference between a Bible translation and a paraphrase of the Hebrew text; paraphrased in Hebrew.

Interestingly! Now that we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls; which is the Hebrew that the Septuagint was translated from; we find that the Eastern church was right all along. The consistency between the Dead Sea Scrolls "paleo-Hebrew" and the Septuagint is much stronger than the Septuagint to the Masoretic text.

Which when comparing to the quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament: (which what was commonly thought of as Paul quoting the Septuagint) was probably actually Paul quoting the paleo-Hebrew OT text. (Paul was more likely quoting the Dead Sea Scrolls, than he was quoting the Septuagint.)

It's all very interesting. When talking about how God preserves His word; there's a lot of rabbit holes we could go down there! All translations are based off of not only the Greek and Hebrew, but also the translations that preceded the later translations. Don't know if you are aware of this; but one of the comparison texts used in the translation of the King James was the Latin Vulgate.

Actually, the translators of the KJV criticized the Douay rheims Catholic Bible in their preface. The Douay rheims is simply an English translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. So the KJV translators would not have used Jerome’s work because they would have known it was Catholic. Also, do a Google search with the words “Keith Piper NIV.” On page 22 of his PDF you will see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church in the NIV (when comparing it to the KJV). Now, I looked at the Douay rheims 1800s American edition and there are 5 verses that favor the Catholic Church (by way of comparison to the KJV). So this shows that the Douay rheims (1610) is a Catholic Bible, and the King James Version (1611) is the Received Text or a Reformation Text. So no. They are not the same. One is a Protestant Bible, and the other is a Catholic Bible. Only recent Modern Textual Critics like to invent the crazy story about how the KJV pulls from the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This is simply a lie and there is no actual evidence or hardcore proof showing that this is so.

Side Note:

Also, the 1610 Douay rheims Bible has compass as a description of the Earth in Isaiah 40:22. The KJV says “circle.” (Which can be one side of a sphere). But a compass is clearly flat back in those days. So the old douay rheims incorrectly taught that the earth was flat. Again, not the same texts. The KJV pulled a little from the Latin Italic Bible, but not Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The Catholics actually did not want folks to use Erasmus’ final edition (Which went through a purification with Stephansus, and Beza In the Greek). The KJV translators were to primarily use the Bishops’s Bible. But they also consulted many manuscripts of the original languages. They also looked at the Latin Italic, and the Syriac Peshitta.

Note: The later Douay rheims changed Isaiah 40:22 to say globe. I think it was the version in the 1800s.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Actually, the translators of the KJV criticized the Douay rheims Catholic Bible in their preface. The Douay rheims is simply an English translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. So the KJV translators would not have used Jerome’s work because they would have known it was Catholic. Also, do a Google search with the words “Keith Piper NIV.” On page 22 of his PDF you will see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church in the NIV (when comparing it to the KJV). Now, I looked at the Douay rheims 1800s American edition and there are 5 verses that favor the Catholic Church (by way of comparison to the KJV). So this shows that the Douay rheims (1610) is a Catholic Bible, and the King James Version (1611) is the Received Text or a Reformation Text. So no. They are not the same. One is a Protestant Bible, and the other is a Catholic Bible. Only recent Modern Textual Critics like to invent the crazy story about how the KJV pulls from the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This is simply a lie and there is no actual evidence or hardcore proof showing that this is so.

Side Note:

Also, the 1610 Douay rheims Bible has compass as a description of the Earth in Isaiah 40:22. The KJV says “circle.” (Which can be one side of a sphere). But a compass is clearly flat back in those days. So the old douay rheims incorrectly taught that the earth was flat. Again, not the same texts. The KJV pulled a little from the Latin Italic Bible, but not Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The Catholics actually did not want folks to use Erasmus’ final edition (Which went through a purification with Stephansus, and Beza In the Greek). The KJV translators were to primarily use the Bishops’s Bible. But they also consulted many manuscripts of the original languages. They also looked at the Latin Italic, and the Syriac Peshitta.

Note: The later Douay rheims changed Isaiah 40:22 to say globe. I think it was the version in the 1800s.

There's plenty of evidence that the Latin Vulgate was used as a comparative reference when writing the King James translation. Matter of fact; several people who worked on writing the Douay Rheims Catholic English translation; also worked on the King James.

King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background | Britannica

King James Version, English translation of the Bible, published in 1611 under King James I of England. The translation had a marked influence on English literary style and was generally accepted as the standard English Bible from the mid-17th to the early 20th century.

www.britannica.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's plenty of evidence that the Latin Vulgate was used as a comparative reference when writing the King James translation. Matter of fact; several people who worked on writing the Douay Rheims Catholic English translation; also worked on the King James.

King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background | Britannica

King James Version, English translation of the Bible, published in 1611 under King James I of England. The translation had a marked influence on English literary style and was generally accepted as the standard English Bible from the mid-17th to the early 20th century.

www.britannica.com

The article states:

"English-speaking Roman Catholics used an authorized English Bible, the Douai-Reims(1609), which was produced from the Latin Vulgate by English Catholic exiles in France, who also worked from many of the same English sources used by translators of the King James Version. Yet among English Catholics the King James Version was widely accepted from the 18th century; moreover, when the Douai-Reims Bible was updated in the mid-18th century, the translator, Richard Challoner (1691–1781), a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, largely worked from the King James Version. Both the King James Version and the Douai-Reims Bible were finally supplanted in popularity by the Jerusalem Bible (1966).“​

Source:

King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background | Britannica

King James Version, English translation of the Bible, published in 1611 under King James I of England. The translation had a marked influence on English literary style and was generally accepted as the standard English Bible from the mid-17th to the early 20th century.

www.britannica.com

First, the King James Bible came out in 1611. Richard Chaloner lived AFTER the King James Bible was already finished because it lists the years of his life as being from 1691-1781. So you are imagining something that does not exist. No translator of the Douai-Reims worked on the translation of the King James Bible.

Second, yes, I am aware that this article says that the KJV and the Douai-Reims used the same sources, but not everything in the Britannica has always been true (see note below). Plus, such popular sources are going to favor Modern Textual Criticism (which is respected), and not look at actual Bible history on a deep level. The real history is that the Latin Italic Bible was originally called the Latin Vulgate (Vulgate meaning common), and many of its copies were destroyed and replaced with the Catholic Latin Vulgate (Which I believe is a counterfeit Vulgate). Such tactics are not new. The Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle and Aland text were other such attempts to replace the Received text. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun.

I hope this helps, and…

Happy Thanksgiving.
May Jesus get all the glory.


Side Note:

Here are a list of errors in the Britannica that were later corrected.

Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meaning, they are not an infallible source. So the question is: “What other things can they be corrected on?
Granted, I am not saying we should just outright distrust Britannica on everything, but we should question something if it conflicts with other sources we find in history that are true, which aligns with the faith (i.e., the teachings in the Bible).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's plenty of evidence that the Latin Vulgate was used as a comparative reference when writing the King James translation. Matter of fact; several people who worked on writing the Douay Rheims Catholic English translation; also worked on the King James.

King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background | Britannica

King James Version, English translation of the Bible, published in 1611 under King James I of England. The translation had a marked influence on English literary style and was generally accepted as the standard English Bible from the mid-17th to the early 20th century.

www.britannica.com

In addition, there is a symbiotic relationship between the Living Word (Jesus), and the Communicated Word (Scripture).
Check out this thread here for the biblical examples.

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

The Symbiotic Relationship Between The Living Word, & the Communicated Word: Christ is good (John 10:11, John 10:14), and the word is good (1 Kings 2:42). Christ is the truth (John 14:6), and the word is the truth (John 17:17). Christ is called Faithful and True (Revelation 19:11), and...

www.christianforums.com

So if Jesus came from a more godly genealogical line (and He did), then the true Scriptures also came from a more godly line.
While I believe the Modern bibles are necessary to help update the archaic language of the KJB, the line of the Modern Bibles (which are secretly Vatican bibles) say things that are contradictory to each other. There is no one standard. It’s like the tower of Babel. The line of the Received Text does not have such problems. Printing errors (when the printing process back in the past was an extremely imperfect form of printing) does not count. But this is a topic for another thread.

 

[Buzzard3]

The King James Bible has the proper reading.

Says who? There are recognized experts who disagree with you.
Have you studied the original manuscripts and what are your academic qualifications in the study of ancient biblical texts?



Which Church decided on the canon of the Bible? (Hint: It's led by someone called the Pope)

 

[Buzzard3]

Also, no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2. Again, this is a major red flag to me in that your church sought to keep the Word of God away from you because they obviously did not want to lose control of the power of getting folks to just believe the man made traditions vs. just believing the Bible alone.

Christians are free to invent any "man made traditions" they so desire ... provided those traditions don't conflict with the will and word of God.

As a Catholic, I have something much better than the "Bible alone" to guide me - I have the infallible teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, who gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter (Matt 16:18-19) and his successors - the Popes.

Did Jesus give "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to you?

Because if they read their Bible, they would see that these practices were unbiblical.

... according to those who are sadly disadvantaged by ignorance and error.

Furthermore, the Bible doesn't contain "all the truth" (John 16:13-15) - the Church does:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles."
(Eph 4:11-14)

Notice that that passage contains no mention at all about being guided by the Bible, let alone being guided by the "Bible alone".

 

[Buzzard3]

I am aware that Catholics and the Church of Christ believe in how they hold to a man made tradition that says that you need to first be water baptized to be initially saved.

A "man made tradition"? It was Jesus himself who said it's only thru baptism that one can be "born again":

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode′mus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God ...

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." (John 3:1-22)

 

[Buzzard3]

Okay. Before you reply to this post, I would like for you to read VERY SLOWLY the following pieces of Scripture in the King James Bible.

1 Peter 4:1-2
Galatians 5:24
2 Corinthians 7:1

When you read these verses above, what do they appear to be teaching?
Please keep in mind if you have no biased belief here these verses do appear to teach we can overcome sin in this life.
Well, that is if you believe these verses above.
Forget about what your experience or your thinking says.
Just read these verses with the most plain and child like manner and it is obvious in what they say.


This is true, but Christians CAN overcome this by employing the methods that God has given us.


Proverbs 30:20 says:
“Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.”

What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8 in regards to time; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Why? Well, most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned as a part of their old life before coming to Christ (Regardless of whether they are “OSAS,” a “Sin and still be saved” type believer, or a “Conditional Salvationist”). So this clearly is a “gnostic belief” that John was warning the brethren about (See 1 John 2:26). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,

"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NET).​

In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their future sins are paid for by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

John prescribes that we do not think that sin is an illusion, and we are automatically saved, but John is telling us to "sin not" and go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins so as to be forgiven of sin and to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

You can say that John is talking about a break of fellowship by one's sins and not a loss of salvation, but that would not be consistent with Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

No one is qualified to judge themselves sinless:

"I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God." (1Cor 4:3-5)

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus fulfilled the entirety of the Mosaic law

If so, how did Jesus "fulfill" the Mosaic law, "Thou shalt not steal", for example?

yet morality remains a product of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the believer because God is moral.

How do you know what is "moral"?

 

[Buzzard3]

what you'd call in the RCC "deadly sins".

The Church calls them "mortal" sins. Examples: murder (which includes abortion), adultery, suicide.

Of course this doesn't I'm still getting frustrated unduly. I'm still loosing my temper on occasion. I'm still assuming something someone says as opposed to listening carefully and trying to understand their thought process behind what they are saying. Things like this, are what you as a Roman Catholic might call "non-deadly sins".

The Church calls them "venial" sins.

I commit venial sins when I play golf - hitting a bad shot or missing an easy putt. Hitting a ball into water or out of bounds is not a mortal sin, but must be pretty very close.
(I'm joking, of course)

 

[Buzzard3]

In Romans 4, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. If we read the story back in Genesis, this is exactly what happened. It says his action of believing was accounted to him as righteousness. So this is a parallel of how believers are INITIALLY SAVED.

No, faith is how we're initially justified. No one is saved until Judgement Day, so the term, "initially saved" seems non-sensical to me.

Now, what group of Christians can you think of who are into idolatry? Well, in your view, there really wouldn’t be any. But when I look out into the world, I see Catholics and the Orthodox church violating the sin of idolatry because the Bible condemns idolatry like other sins. Idolatry according to the Bible is bowing down to statues that men make that God did not tell them to make. They are regarding these statues as having some kind of power attached to some being that has deity like power to answer prayers.

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Statues have no power whatsoever and no human - alive or deceased - has the power to "answer prayers".

This is exactly what you have done with the saints in that you make them out to be gods when you pray to them.

You don't understand Caholic teaching.

This is a violation of the command in how you are only to worship the Lord your God and serve Him only. But even Mary is your co-redeemer (Which is heresy).

You don't understand what the Church means by Mary being "Co-Redemptrix". Mary is a creature - she isn't equal to Christ in any way.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach heresy.

People who believe the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that we are to believe that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day can save a person and or along with calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (seeking forgiveness of one’s past life of sin) can save a person (Romans 10:9) (Romans 10:13) (Luke 18:9-14). Meaning, a person who is about to die on their hospital bed can receive Jesus Christ as their Savior before they have a few seconds to live and be saved by faith alone and or by God’s grace alone. This is a process of salvation without works because it is how a believer is first saved (If you believe those pesky verses you say are irrelevant).

Babies who die will also be saved solely by God’s grace.

Babies don't need to know whether or not someone is saved by faith alone or not. It's irrelevant to them.

I see everything the RCC adds to the Bible as man made traditions. However, Jesus warned against the traditions of men. In fact, when you do a Bible search on the key word “traditions” in the Bible, it has more of a negative meaning to that word primarily. Only one time does this word have a positive meaning and this is simply in reference to the teachings of Scripture and not some imaginary oral traditions of the RCC that were later written down.

You've made it clear by now that you don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches. You attack what you don't understand (and don't even want to understand).
You don't even seem to understand that not all traditions are bad and that traditions can be good and holy and edifying to the faith.

Most Christians live out their faith and it is not as common that most simply accept Jesus as their Savior on their death bed.

God doesn't require works from someone who accepts Christ on their deathbed.

Hence, the added emphasis on how we will be judged by our works at the Judgment. It is not contradictory to Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-5, Romans 11:6, etcetera. I mean, you cannot honestly read and believe Romans 11:6 with a straight face in your current belief system.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach anything contrary to those verses ... or any verses.

But then again you said verses like these are just irrelevant, which means you are admitting that only parts of the Bible are true to the way you want to see it.

This is the way I see it - the "saints" are "those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12).

Apart from knowing that salvation begins with faith, debates about faith alone are largely irrelevant and unhelpful to most believers, bcoz sin can destroy whatever grace is obtained thru faith. Good works (aka obedience) increase grace; sin (disobedience) diminishes grace.

Romans 3:24

​

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”​

John 1:12

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:“​

Romans 4:3

”For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”​

So where do we see the example of Abraham being justified by a belief?

Genesis 15:5-6

5 “And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,​

and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,​

So shall thy seed be.​

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.“​

​

So as we can see above in this passage, Abraham believed GOD in regards to the promise in that His seed will be as in number like the stars in the sky. Abraham simply believed here and God accounted this belief to him as righteousness. Simply by a belief alone.

This is a parallel of how we are first saved by God’s grace under the New Covenant.

Romans 4:2

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”​

Again, this has to be in our Initial Salvation. If not, then we would have a contradiction in our Bible.

Ephesians 2:8-9 is in context to Initial Salvation. The same is true for Titus 3:5 is you were to read the context. So this proves that Paul was concerned with how to GET SAVED.

Paul preached that faith is the first necessary step on the road to salvation ... but he also preached that sin can land a believer in hell (Gal 5:19-21, 1Cor 6:9-11). In other words, Paul preached salvation thru faith and works ... as did James ... as did John ... as did Peter.

Salvation thru faith and works is all over the NT, yet Protestants seem to be interested in only the verses that say salvation begins with faith.

 

[Buzzard3]

Okay. Before you reply to this post, I would like for you to read VERY SLOWLY the following pieces of Scripture in the King James Bible.

1 Peter 4:1-2
Galatians 5:24
2 Corinthians 7:1

When you read these verses above, what do they appear to be teaching?
Please keep in mind if you have no biased belief here these verses do appear to teach we can overcome sin in this life.

Sure, but none of those verses say a believer can become perfectly sinless and nor do they say a sinner cannot commit serious sin.

What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8 in regards to time; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense).

Surely "If we say we have no sin" (v.8) is saying the same thing as "If we say we have not sinned" (v.10)? If you "have sin", that means you "have sinned".

This is clearly a gnostic belief.

It doesn't matter if John is referring to a Gnostic belief or not - he's telling believers that they all sin, regardless of what they think.