'Replies from Roman Catholics'

Matt Wykoff - 50

6th February, 2012

(Continued from page 327)

Circular reasoning chooses to abandon logic and is often all Papists have in their attempts to avoid the truth! 

You write:  Because the Papacy is the Supreme Office, assuming this office is not according to the manner of the lower ranks of the Clergy - it is purely an Office of Dignity. Nor is it according to what protestant heretics dictate, because they belong to false religion. It would be as if a protestant went to a Moslem and told him to read 5 chapters out of the false 'scriptures' of the protestants, in order for the Moslem to be a Moslem. The Moslem would immediately look at you and say where did you get your authority to dictate to him. The protestants don't have Apostolic Succession with its accompanying Ordinations and Consecrations. They have no link to Apostolicity and thus no claim to Christianity. That automatically makes you a false religion without going into anything else. The only 2 sides left in the discussion would of course be the Church and the Eastern 'Orthodox' because they both have valid Priests and Bishops who can trace their lineage all the way back to the 12 original Apostles. Both sides profess to recognize the importance of the Priesthood and Bishopric. Apostolicity is one of the Four Marks of the One True Church.  Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.

TCE:  we have already written extensively on these topics, thoroughly refuting all the claims of Papal Rome on the 'Papacy', 'Popes', 'Apostolic Succession' etc. - see Full Menu

Amusing though it is to read your other illogical and irrelevant nonsense, especially your mad delusion about how to get a '
Moslem to be a Moslem', that we thought to take some time before bothering to reply!  Truly hilarious!  Did you ask yourself why a 'Moslem' would do this, or a 'Protestant' would want to do this - to help a 'Moslem to be a Moslem' - and not a 'Protestant'?  What came over you when you composed this nonsense?  Scripture always has the answer (1 Timothy 4:1-3):

'... the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.'

It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the self-deceiving method of 'circular reasoning' which is all you attempt and which requires no logic at all except the supposed argument: 
'Follow the popes because they are infallible because of 'Apostolic Succession'.  How do I know that 'Apostolic Succession' is true? - because the popes say so!'

When men such as Döllinger examined the evidence and declared that there was no support for 'papal infallibility' we know how Papal Rome reacted - they were just as predictable as all cults who always attack the one who points out that their 'Emperor has no clothes!' (and even if they are a child!).

You write:  The protestants do not have Scripture. You heretics utilized The Bible (a Catholic Document) as a blueprint in forming your counterfeit construct of Holy Writ. In your 'bible' the (Arch-heretic Martin Luther) threw out 7 books and changed the wording to match his whims. Their so called 'bibles' are riddled with so many errors that there are embarrassing contradictions and missing verses as is befitting a protestant heretic so called 'bible.'  The much touted 'king James bible' is plagued with over 33,000 errors that it drove over 50 cooperating denominations to assemble and revise their man corrupted plagiarized 'scriptures.' The errors and mistranslations are so many that the revisions have to be revised continually by caprice. Since they have corrupted 'scriptures' a Christian does not hold them as possessing Scripture. The wording and meanings in their fake 'bibles' is far different from what is contained in The Bible. Consequently what you mentioned regarding what you perceive to be the word of God is what you read in the fake 'scriptures.' I've perused and read the fake 'scriptures' of you heretics and I too found some things unsettling, for instance, missing verses and contradictions. Your so called and self-styled 'biblical scholars' battle among themselves on which 'versions' of their so called 'scriptures' are accurate - and the heretic denominations follow suit.

You also claim: the KJV is the 'word of 'god' in English.' King James an Anglican, made the KJV and ordered that it be made in accordance to his belief of an apostolic Priesthood established and especially instituted by Christ. They also claim to be part of the Catholic Church and profess to have valid Apostolic Succession as the Church and the Eastern 'Orthodox.' Why don't you follow Anglican beliefs? It seems utterly illogical if you don't, because they made your dear 'bible' a copycat version of the Roman Church original, but never the less under direction of a man, not God (man inspired).

TCE:  we have already written extensively and refuted all of your foolish claims - examine the subject on this page under the headings given earlier.

Your attempts to reject historical Papal Rome are so you can escape their many foolish contradictions that continue to this day - as well as the world-wide exposure of the filthy paedophilia of your un-Scriptural 'priesthood'. 
One of the most embarrassing, to Papal Roman Catholics like you, who continue to rant at the 'evil Protestant, Martin Luther', is that your 'popes' signed 'The Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration' on October 31, 1999, in Augsburg, Germany.  Representatives of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman Catholic Church (ROMAN CATHOLIC CULT) signed a Joint Declaration of Justification (JD), disclaiming previous differences. Headlines such as 'JOINT DECLARATION VIRTUALLY ENDS REFORMATION ARGUMENT' appeared around the world and, it would seem, they agreed that Martin Luther had been deceived into thinking he had discovered 'justification by faith,' when, in fact, the Catholic Church believed it all along and were also admitting that 'The Reformation' had been a blunder fought over a semantic misunderstanding and Catholic/Lutheran differences had been put behind them and peace and unity had been restored at last!

But, regarding your foolish rant about the accuracy and origins of the Bible(s) used by 'Protestants', you are clearly ignorant about a multitude of things which we have already explained and refuted - as shown at the link given above!

Additional evidence against your claims is found in the admission in the 'Fireside New American Bible Revised Edition' which was translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources,
authorized by the board of trustees of the confraternity of Christian Doctrine and approved by the Administrative Board of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference - in accord with canon 825 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law (approving for publication The New American Bible, Revised Old Testament, a translation of the Sacred Scriptures authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. in November 2008 and September 2010) and includes the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error).

TCE:  we have already written extensively on the problems found for Papal Rome in the 'Fireside NAB' on this page under the heading given above.

Just to re-visit the 'Fireside NAB' briefly, under the heading 'Determination of the Bible Canon' we read:

'At the time the books of the New Testament were written, many other pious stories and legends relating to Christ and His times were also widely circulated.
As a result, in the early centuries of the Church, there was some confusion and doubt as to which books were inspired and biblical, and which were not. As far as is known, it was the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393 which first determined which books were inspired and were to be included in the Bible canon, a canon in every respect identical with the canon of the Council of Trent.  Subsequent Councils confirmed this decision, and the Council of Trent, in 1546, formally canonized all the traditional books of the Bible. These books comprise the Old and the New Testaments, and it is a matter of faith for Catholics to believe that all passages of all books are equally inspired.'

Here we also note how Papal Rome can use their 'Fireside NAB' to point out the difference between 'protocanonical' and 'deuterocanonical' books and admit a difference between them yet, as we have shown in the reference above, it wasn't until 1546 that the Council of Trent '
formally canonized all the traditional books of the Bible' - but they fail to point out that these 'traditional books' did not have any such background and had not been accepted by all of Papal Rome!

TCE:  we have already written extensively on this matter - see early headings on this page.

'Fireside NAB' also states: 
Those books which were rejected by the Council of Hippo as being non-biblical belong to what is called The Apocrypha. These books treat largely of the incidents [sic]  and events during the life of Christ, not related in the books of the Bible. They are often well worth reading, as they offer much historical information not otherwise available. However, some of these stories have slightly heretical tendencies.  The Catholic use of the word 'Apocrypha,' as defined above, should be distinguished from the incorrect Protestant use of the word.

TCE:  we have already written extensively on this matter as explained earlier.

From the earliest times, the Christian Church recognized the Jewish canon of the Greek-Roman tradition, or Alexandrine canon, as being the true Bible.  Jesus Himself quoted from this Bible, and not until the Reformation was this canon seriously challenged. These seven disputed books are also called the deuterocanonical books, while the rest of the books of the Old Testament comprise the protocanonical books. 'By protocanonical books is meant the 'books of the first canon,' books of the Old Testament accepted by both Christians and Jews. The deuterocanonical books, 'books of the second canon,' are those seven books found only in the Catholic canonLuther rejected the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. At one time he also eliminated Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse from the New Testament, but later Protestants reinserted them. Today the Catholic and Protestant New Testament books are identical.

TCE:  we have already written extensively on this matter - see early headings on this page.

and have proven that these underlined in red claims above are ALL particularly false.

The claims against Luther are the usual casual lies perpetuated by Papal Rome.  Luther expressed doubts about some books in the Scripture but he did not '
eliminate Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse from the New Testament' so that 'later Protestants reinserted them'.  Luther translated the New Testament from Koine Greek into German in order to make it more accessible to all the people of the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.'  He translated from the Greek text, using Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus and not from the Jerome's inaccurate Latin Vulgate translation.  His translation was published in September 1522, and 19th century theologian and church historian, Philip Schaff, considers 'the most important and useful work of his [Luther's] whole life, is the translation of the New Testament, by which he brought the teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles to the mind and heart of the Germans in life-like reproduction. It was a republication of the gospel. He made the Bible the people's book in church, school, and house'.  As we have already proven in our previous refutations, Luther's hard work for the Lord Jesus Christ contrasts dramatically with Papal Rome's long history of depriving the people of the world of the Word of God.

The translation of the entire Bible into German was published in a six-part edition in 1534, a collaborative effort of Luther and many others such as Johannes Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Caspar Creuziger, Philipp Melanchthon, Matthäus Aurogallus, and Georg Rörer.  Luther worked on refining the translation up to his death in 1546 and had worked on the edition that was printed that year.

Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James 'an epistle of straw,' finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could 'in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.'  (
Martin Luther - Questions and Answers, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)


When he first translated the New Testament, Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered 'the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation'. This view is consistent with those expressed by the 'Church Fathers' who are still held in such high regard by Papal Rome!  His views on some of these books changed over the years, and became more positive [Montgomery, John Warwick (1974).
God's Inerrant Word. Chapter 3: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy, Inc. pp. 79-80].  Luther correctly chose to place the Biblical apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments making them addenda to the true Biblical canon of the Old Testament for, while they are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint, they were not in the Hebrew Masoretic text.  Luther left the translating of the Apocrypha largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas [Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, James L. Schaaf, trans., 3 vols., Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985-1993, 3:98].  They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, but in the 1534 Bible they were given the reasonable title: 'Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read'.

While the Luther Bible was not the first German Bible translation, it was the most influential and its widespread circulation facilitated the emergence of a standard, modern German language for the German-speaking peoples throughout the Holy Roman Empire, an empire extending through and beyond present-day Germany.  It is still considered a landmark in German literature, with Luther's vernacular style often praised by modern German sources for the forceful vigour.  Although Luther was not the first to attempt a translation that would put the Word of God in the hands of every man, woman, and child, his translation was superior to all predecessors and clearly achieved the desired purpose!

By contrast, Papal Rome kept Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries by hindering the production of vernacular translations, bitterly persecuting and executing any Christians that even attempted such a task, hiding Biblical truth with its own traditions and false translations, and by placing its false priesthood between the Bible and the people.

Hans Lufft, the Bible printer in Wittenberg, printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574, which went on to be read by millions and Luther's vernacular Bible was present in virtually every German-speaking Protestant's home; he even had large-print Bibles made for those who had failing eyesight and sought to use the most commonly spoken German dialect so that as many of the people as possible could familiarise themselves with the Word of God.  Luther's Bible has been hailed as the first German 'classic', comparable to the English King James Version of the Bible, which became one of the first English classics.

In short, the evidence for Luther's acceptance of the true Biblical canon and his expertise in translation and choosing of fellow translators is irrefutable and was a major influence in setting the German nation free from the Cult of Papal Rome! 

The 'Fireside' statement '
Today the Catholic and Protestant New Testament books are identical' is true only of the named books but, as we have just demonstrated, works such as the Douay Rheims Bible wrest the Word of God by falsely translating to try and force the false beliefs of Papal Rome into the Word of God.  Thus your cult reveals that it still believes it can alter the Word of God to suit its false teachings rather than give glory and honour to the Triune God of the Bible by following the New Covenant of the Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ!

We could spend a lot of time analysing the many false statements of Papal Rome's 'Fireside Bible' but we have already analysed the subjects of Papal Rome's damaging handling of the Word of God, from Jerome's translation and their claim for the Septuagint (LXX) to the way in which 'the canon' came about and the flaws in the process.

Among the devastating things admitted by the 'Fireside Bible' is the analysis of Jerome's Vulgate - so
we have high-lighted in red and underlined their more seriously false and damaging [to Papal Rome!] comments:

'As St. Jerome's work on the Old Testament was
a work of private enterprise, it met great opposition. He was accused of changing the text of the Bible, which was familiar to the people in the Itala or Old Latin. However, as time went on the great merits of his work were recognized. By the 9th Century, Jerome's version was universally accepted. In view of its general adoption, it gradually assumed the name of 'Vulgate,' the 'disseminated' or people's Bible. ... On April 8, 1546, the Church, in the Council of Trent, designated the Vulgate as the official Church translation. To this day the Vulgate remains the official version of the Church, and translations of it are found in practically every language in the world. However, it does not mean that it is to be preferred over the Septuagint or over original manuscripts, or that it was entirely free from error.  On the contrary, the Church recognized certain limitations in the translation from the beginning, and ordered a revision.  This revised version was published in 1592 under Pope Clement VIII. ... Jerome's text suffered many vicissitudes throughout the ages. In assembling a complete Bible, copyists would take some of their readings, by misadventure, from the old Latin texts and some from the Vulgate; both texts were in circulation. A monk might have memorized several passages from the old version in school, then, in writing a copy of the Vulgate, subconsciously lapse into the old phrasing so familiar to him.  Some of the transcribers were not exercising a critical sense and would incorporate texts from other manuscripts, parallel passages, and texts from the liturgy. The invention of printing only multiplied these problems for a time, but eventually scholars were able to print a text near to the text as it came from the hands of St. Jerome. ... The first complete and printed Catholic English translation that is definitely known appeared rather late, at the turn of the 16th Century. This is known as the Douay-Rheims version. It was a translation of the Latin Vulgate and was produced in France by English scholars who had fled the Catholic persecutions in England. The New Testament was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament in Douay in 1610.'

When you wrote that the Anglicans '
made your dear 'bible' a copycat version of the Roman Church original, but never the less under direction of a man, not God (man inspired)' you were obviously unaware, or ignored, the serious failings of Papal Rome when it comes to every aspect of the Word of God - which we have already elucidated fully.

You write:  It would be as if I professed to be a Hindu, and then got a Koran and injected my own brand of underlying Hindu belief, while preaching the Koran 'justifies' my Hindu beliefs.

TCE:  We have proven that Papal Rome is guilty of a plethora of serious errors and its unique doctrines are not even found in Scripture while, in utter contrast, we have repeatedly proven that all the doctrines we follow are based 100% on the Word of God, so you would be better served by partaking in serious Bible study rather than attempting 'as if' theology!

You write:  (You also said adherents to your 'religion' were killed by the Protestants. The fact of the matter is that Protestants killed each other, in the name of what they deemed to be heretics. They even established state religions, even here in the U.S). They even put aside their differences and ganged up on the Irish Catholics, killed them, and outlawed their Clergy. They feared immigrant allegiance to the King of Rome. Even the protestant heretics Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin recognized the principle that if you claim to have the One True Religion and the One True God, and thus the Only Truth, then the state should and must reflect the truth and the laws of that one true God and that One True Religion. That is why in their theocracies they put to death what they deemed to be heretics frequently, and even had a secret police going in to invade people's homes and foisting their beliefs upon them by the sword, and terrorizing them. Christians were put to death by protestants mercilessly and tortured, in waves of Anti-Catholic hysteria and animosity, especially in the united states; protestant theocracies decreed the death penalty to any Catholic Priest in their state. The Irish were frequently burned and tortured by Anti-Catholic bigots of Protestantism, atheism, and Satanism - and called them 'the Papist.'I [sic] have to admit; the term is funny and causes me laughter every time I read it. It just demonstrates your boiling rage towards the beautiful and wondrous mark of unity instituted by Christ in the One and Only True Religion. It is a compliment.

TCE: If you spent less time on pointless laughter and false accusations you would have realised that we have already written extensively and devastatingly on these matters!

There we showed how the 'Protestants' who escaped Papal Rome were so thoroughly indoctrinated that they failed to thoroughly shake off the death-dealing traits of your cult - yet they still did not come even close to matching the murderous popes who ordered the deaths of millions!

You write:  The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface: 'Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision.' 'This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations' The Standard KJV has a substantive amount of blatant contradictions with the RSV and all the other versions. The 32 scholars of the 'highest eminence' and their back up 50+ denominations determined the KJV is riddled with severe errors. There you have it, the 32 scholars of the 'highest esteem' declaring the 300+ year old KJV, to be plagued with serious errors and thus fallible. Well, this is proof that it isn't the word of 'God.'They were even funded by 50 cooperating denominations in your false protestant religion.

TCE:   anyone desiring to check the original source of your first quotation can view it at:


The article - written by Professor Bruce M. Metzger - states first:

'In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as 'the Authorized Version.' With good reason it has been termed 'the noblest monument of English prose,' and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples.
We owe to it an incalculable debt'.

Then he writes the section you quoted:

Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision.

What you would not know is that we have analysed the facts about critics such as Metzger and the connection with Papal Rome and the '
many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based' and our conclusions can be found by using our 'Search This Site' function on the Home Page.

For those who may not want to follow this link, you will find part of our article concludes:

  • Even Bruce Metzger, a supporter of the Alexandrian Text, is compelled to catalogue the vast amount of religious corruption which came from Alexandria:  'Among Christians which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses.

The section dealing with the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts was concluded with this statement:

  • Let it be said again: Alexandria was the worst possible place to go for a Bible! Yet it is precisely the place that our present-day translators have gone in gathering the major sources of the modern Bible.(ibid., Moorman, Modern Bible Versions: The Dark Secret, Part 7 - ANTIOCH OR ALEXANDRIA - ref. http://www.truthquest.free-online.co.uk/jm_tds07.htm ).

We then examined the painful truth about the source of many Bibles translated today:

  • The first Bible society, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), was formed in 1804 and 'The American Bible Society' in 1814.  Similar societies multiplied throughout the world over the last two centuries and 'The United Bible Societies' (UBS), formed in 1946, now co-ordinates the work of most of the world's Bible societies (Andrew Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p124).  'The United Bible Societies' or an affiliate is to be found at the forefront of any ecumenical activity, particularly involving Bible translation and distribution activities, and responsible for the world's most commonly used Greek New Testament which has been used for the majority of the new Bible translations produced this century.  While many Bible organizations are not a part of 'The United Bible Societies', such as the 'Trinitarian Bible Society', and are relatively free of the influence of Papal Rome, others, such as 'Wycliffe Bible Translators', are extremely ecumenical and have close ties with the Roman Catholic Church, using the corrupt UBS Greek text in their translations and working closely them in many projects.
  • The first Bible Society (British & Foreign Bible Society, BFBS), formed in 1804 in England, was a founding member of the UBS in 1946 but contaminated by heretics from its inception: 
  • 'Roman Catholics also enjoyed the support of the BFBS. Soon after its founding, the BFBS sent funds to Bishop Michael Wittmann [Roman Catholic] of Regensburg. When the Bavarian priest, Johannes Gossner prepared a German translation of the New Testament, he too was supported by the BFBS. The main Catholic agent of the BFBS was, however, Leander van Ess, a priest and professor of [Catholic] theology at Marburg' (The History of Christianity, p558).
  • 'The policy of the United Bible Societies regarding the Apocrypha and inter-confessional co-operation with Roman Catholic scholars on Bible translations was outlined in a booklet published by the American Bible Society in 1970 ... Referring to the interdenominational character of the Bible societies, [the booklet] states that Roman Catholics participated in the founding of some Bible societies in Europe, and that 'the British and Foreign Bible Society from the beginning co-operated with Roman Catholic groups.' It is also acknowledged that Roman Catholic churchmen were invited to participate in the founding of the American Bible Society in 1816' ('The Bible Societies,' Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Jan.-Mar., 1979, p13-14).
  • Learning that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree in thousands of places with the vast majority of other Greek manuscripts and also disagree with one another in as many or more places, should we really place great confidence in them?  There are 3,036 differences between the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone, not counting minor errors such as spelling (Herman Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. II, p1).  In spite of these facts, Vaticanus (B) or Sinaiticus (Aleph), either individually or together, are the source of most of the omissions and glaring changes in the many modern versions which have multiplied serious errors in major doctrines, such as the Deity of Christ and the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead.

This was one conclusion we came to from the facts revealed in this study:

  • As already shown, Papal Rome has no claims to have preserved the Canon of the Word accurately, yet continues to deceive the world that her doctrines alone are true while the very opposite is the truth.  That 'Protestant' apostates have been inveigled into co-operating with Papal Rome in the production of Bibles tailored to lead the unwary to Rome does not alter the historical truth regarding this deception - but it clearly reveals how the Vatican's claims of consistent holy protection of the Word are a colossal lie for, while claiming that 'Protestants' were led by the Devil, how could the popes then allow these 'deceivers' to spread His Word?

Sadly for you, if you had only read the rest of your source you would have found the following facts and admissions by Metzger:

The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry concerning the need for further revision. After studying the questions whether or not revision should be undertaken, and if so, what its nature and extent should be, in 1937 the Council authorized a revision.  The scholars who served as members of the Committee worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. In 1946 the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, took place on September 30, 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151).
Thereafter the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, comprising about thirty members, both men and women.  Ecumenical in representation, it includes scholars affiliated with various Protestant denominations, as well as several Roman Catholic members, an Eastern Orthodox member, and a Jewish member who serves in the Old Testament section. For a period of time the Committee included several members from Canada and from England.

Because no translation of the Bible is perfect or is acceptable to all groups of readers, and because discoveries of older manuscripts and further investigation of linguistic features of the text continue to become available, renderings of the Bible have proliferated. During the years following the publication of the Revised Standard Version, twenty-six other English translations and revisions of the Bible were produced by committees and by individual scholars - not to mention twenty-five other translations and revisions of the New Testament alone. One of the latter was the second edition of the RSV New Testament, issued in 1971, twenty-five years after its initial publication.

Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such reconstructions are indicated in footnotes by the abbreviation Cn ('Correction'), and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.

For the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament the Committee has made use of a number of texts. For most of these books the basic Greek text from which the present translation was made is the edition of the Septuagint prepared by Alfred Rahlfs and published by the Württemberg Bible Society (Stuttgart, 1935). For several of the books the more recently published individual volumes of the Göttingen Septuagint project were utilized.
For the book of Tobit it was decided to follow the form of the Greek text found in codex Sinaiticus (supported as it is by evidence from Qumran); where this text is defective, it was supplemented and corrected by other Greek manuscripts. For the three Additions to Daniel (namely, Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, and Bel and the Dragon) the Committee continued to use the Greek version attributed to Theodotion (the so-called 'Theodotion-Daniel'). In translating Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), while constant reference was made to the Hebrew fragments of a large portion of this book (those discovered at Qumran and Masada as well as those recovered from the Cairo Geniza), the Committee generally followed the Greek text (including verse numbers) published by Joseph Ziegler in the Göttingen Septuagint (1965). But in many places the Committee has translated the Hebrew text when this provides a reading that is clearly superior to the Greek; the Syriac and Latin versions were also consulted throughout and occasionally adopted. The basic text adopted in rendering 2 Esdras is the Latin version given in Biblia Sacra, edited by Robert Weber (Stuttgart, 1971). This was supplemented by consulting the Latin text as edited by R. L. Bensly (1895) and by Bruno Violet (1910), as well as by taking into account the several Oriental versions of 2 Esdras, namely, the Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two forms, referred to as Arabic 1 and Arabic 2), Armenian, and Georgian versions.  Finally, since the Additions to the Book of Esther are disjointed and quite unintelligible as they stand in most editions of the Apocrypha, we have provided them with their original context by translating the whole of the Greek version of Esther from Robert Hanhart's Göttingen edition (1983).

For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee).  As in that edition, double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text, but which we have retained because of their evident antiquity and their importance in the textual tradition.
Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies' edition by an alternative that seemed to us to be superior. Here and there in the footnotes the phrase, 'Other ancient authorities read,' identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and early versions. In both Testaments, alternative renderings of the text are indicated by the word 'Or.'

As for the style of English adopted for the present revision, among the mandates given to the Committee in 1980 by the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ (which now holds the copyright of the RSV Bible) was the directive to continue in the tradition of the King James Bible, but to introduce such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage. Within the constraints set by the original texts and by the mandates of the Division, the Committee has followed the maxim, 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary.' As a consequence, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) remains essentially a literal translation. Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language - the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun.

During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of
linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English. Only very occasionally has the pronoun 'he' or 'him' been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original. In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.

For the Committee,
Bruce M. Metzger

TCE:   So you have helped to advertise the facts that:

1.  Papal Rome is yoked with the 'Protestants' you reveal such hatred for and they have been producing supposedly superior Bibles together for over 200 years!
2.  The manuscripts they have used to produce Bibles and Apocryphal books are from a source that is widely accepted to be seriously flawed!
3.  These Bibles are deliberately slanted to appease the 'god of modernism' where imagined '
linguistic sexism' is to be eliminated rather than ensuring accuracy to the original manuscripts containing the Word of God!
4.  Your desire to sneer '
There you have it, the 32 scholars of the 'highest esteem' declaring the 300+ year old KJV, to be plagued with serious errors and thus fallible. Well, this is proof that it isn't the word of 'God.'They were even funded by 50 cooperating denominations in your false protestant religion' proves nothing detrimental to the KJV but, instead, exposes the fact that Papal Rome approves of the work you hate so much!
And, most embarrassing of all for you, your final quote high-lighted in red (in point 4 - above) was also taken by you directly from this Islamic anti-Christ website:


By locating this (well known to us) Satanic Islamic 'apologetics' site we find that all of your quotes were taken from here!  We have deleted all the nonsense that is dishonouring to the One True God of the Bible and move straight to the subject you wished to attack with your Muslim 'brothers':

Where did our modern Bibles come from?

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

'Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision.'

'This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations'

'A completely fresh translation by
scholars of the highest eminence' - (Times literary supplement)

thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the 'most ancient manuscripts.'

TCE:   the Muslim site finishes with a link under this high-lighted title:

See:  The Creep Show Bible - this link by 'failing-to-answer-christianity.com' is equally embarrassing for these Muslims because they use an atheist site to rubbish people who believe in 'God/god/gods - and Allah'!  Is this still called 'popping your OWN sneer' in the USA?

TCE:   since you are so fond of making 'It would be as if a protestant went to a Moslem ... in order for the Moslem to be a Moslem ... It would be as if I professed to be a Hindu ... etc.  etc.' 'analogies' you can now add:

It would be as if a Papal Roman Catholic went to an Islamic site which linked to an Atheist site in order to prove the inaccuracy of the 'Protestants' Bible, but he was too ignorant to know that his own cult (which barely believes in the Bible) had long been constructing Bibles with these 'Protestants' and, while producing Bibles together that are still much more accurate than the Koran or the Vulgate, then tried to use them to prove genuine Bible believers are wrong - but failed miserably!

You write:  I guess the top scholars in your protestant false religion have declared the KJV is not inspired. I think that causes a lot of dilemmas for Fundamentalist KJV only idolaters. One look between the Bible and the protestant fake 'bibles' one knows that they have counterfeited their apostate 'scriptures' using the Bible. With the exception of the (the removed 7 books from protestant 'scripture') and the way the Psalms are numbered - they are numbered a verse forward -, all the verses and chapters of the Bible match exactly with those of the counterfeit protestant 'scriptures.' Some verses even begin in the middle of sentences, demonstrating that you heretics had to use the true Bible the Catholic Bible as a blueprint, in faking your own apocryphal 'scriptures.'  It wasn't until the 13th century that chapters, verses, and punctuations were added to the Bible by a Catholic Prelate.  The Anglicans even admitted using the Bible (which they called the Vulgate) as a point of reference for their KJV apocrypha. St. Jerome (AD. 347-420) was the biblical scholar of the ancient Church. Even the protestant translators of the 1611 king James apocryphal 'bible' called St. Jerome 'a most learned Father and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him.' (From the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV)

TCE:   As usual you have committed a multitude of errors in fact and judgement - and we could have high-lighted almost every word above, such is your ability to multiply error.

No genuine, orthodox Christian is surprised at the errors of those who have 'fallen away' (Galatians 5:4) and are part of the Great Apostasy, but you need to distinguish between the fact that the original manuscripts supplied by the inspired writers are without error (2 Timothy 3v16ff.; 2 Peter 1v21) but translators are not infallible and are capable of making mistakes - as Jerome did in his error-ridden 'Vulgate' and the very few (none that could be called 'serious') by the KJV translators who certainly did not remove any books from the Word of God.  If you read our analysis of Jerome and his Vulgate and the history of the acceptance of Apocryphal (pseudepigraphical) books on
this page under the headings given earlier. You will find the history of the Bible is far from that portrayed by Papal Rome.

The simple truth regarding the verses in the King James Version of the New Testament that 'are not found in more recent Bible translations' is that the latter are based on so-called 'modern critical texts' and we have discussed the difference in detail at the reference given above.

You will find that critical Papal Roman Catholics give too much credit to Jerome and his Vulgate and almost none to the many highly qualified translators who worked on the KJV and translated using the whole range of Bible translations and commentaries from multiple languages and not just from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

Regarding your other criticisms, you will find that chapter divisions, with titles, were first found in the 9th century Tours manuscript,
Paris Bibliothèque Nationale MANUSCRIPT Lat. 3, the so-called Bible of Rorigo.  The first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was Italian Dominican biblical scholar Santi Pagnini (1470-1541) but, although his verse divisions were far longer than those known today, his system was never widely adopted.  Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is often given credit for first dividing the Latin Vulgate into chapters in the real sense, while others believe the KJV translators followed chapter divisions made by his contemporary and fellow cardinal (later Archbishop) Stephen Langton in 1205 and the verse divisions of Robert Estienne (aka Robert Stephanus - 16th-century printer and classical Parisian scholar in Paris and a former Catholic who became a Protestant and was the first to print the Bible divided into standard numbered verses).  Estienne's alternate numbering system of division was increasingly adopted and remains in use to this day.  Although, in 1539, Estienne received the distinguishing title of 'Printer in Greek to the King' this official recognition and approval of the crown did not save him from the censure and ceaseless violent opposition of Papal Rome and he emigrated to Geneva (in 1550) to escape the persecution and to set up his printing house.  In 1532, he had published the Thesaurus linguae latinae, and twice he published the entire Hebrew Bible (one with the Commentary of Kimchi on the minor prophets, in 13 volumes) and four editions of the Greek New Testament (1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551) - the last in Geneva. These works were exceptional masterpieces and the 1551 edition contained the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate and it was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was introduced for the first time.  He also produced a number of editions of the Vulgate (principal being in 1528, 1532, 1540, and 1546) but the latter contained a new translation at the side of the Vulgate and became the subject of extreme criticism from Papal Rome.  But he was able to publish a defence against the attacks of the Sorbonne (the stronghold of Papal Rome's persecuting clergy) and also the French Bible (in 1553), many of John Calvin's writings (e.g. Calvin's Institutes - in 1553) as well as the Latin Bible (1556 - from the translation of the Old Testament by Santes Pagninus), and the first edition of Theodore Beza's Latin edition of the New Testament.  The first English New Testament to use the verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham (1524-1579). The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published shortly afterwards in 1560.

All but the shortest books of the Bible were divided into chapters, generally a page or so in length, since the early 13th century.  Then, since the works of Estienne, each chapter was further divided into 'verses' of a few short lines or sentences. 
Anyone attempting to take credit for the work of Langton, or attempting to criticise the divisions in 'Protestant' Bibles, should consider that Jewish divisions of the Hebrew text appeared at a much earlier date and differ at various points from those used by Christians.  The number of words in 'Protestant' Bibles can vary depending upon varying aspects, such as whether the Hebrew alphabet in Psalm 119, the superscriptions listed in some of the Psalms, and the subscripts traditionally found at the end of the Pauline epistles, are included.  In Jewish tradition, the ascriptions to many Psalms are regarded as independent verses or parts of the subsequent verses, making 116 more verses, whereas the established Christian practice is to treat each Psalm ascription as independent and unnumbered.  Thus, some chapter divisions also occur in different places.  The original manuscripts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar in contemporary printed works for, in antiquity, Hebrew texts were divided into paragraphs (parashot) that were identified by two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Pe indicated an 'open' paragraph that began on a new line, while Samekh indicated a 'closed' paragraph that began on the same line after a small space.  The earliest known copies of the Book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls use these two Hebrew letters for their paragraph divisions, although they differ slightly from the Masoretic divisions.

The Hebrew Bible was also divided into some larger sections and, in Israel, the Torah (its first five books) were divided into 154 sections so that they could be read through aloud in weekly worship over the course of three years. In Babylonia it was divided into 53 or 54 sections (
Parashat ha-Shavua) so it could be read through in one year and the New Testament was divided into topical sections known as kephalaia by the fourth century.  Eusebius of Caesarea also divided the gospels into parts that he listed in tables or canons, so other systems existed before the chapter and verse divisions came into being in 'the West'.

Since at least 916 BC the Tanakh contained an extensive system of multiple levels of section, paragraph, and phrasal divisions that were indicated in Masoretic vocalization and cantillation markings. One of the most frequent of these was a special type of punctuation, the
sof passuq, symbol for a full stop or sentence break, resembling the colon (:) of English and Latin orthography. With the advent of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into English, Old Testament versifications were made that correspond predominantly with the existing Hebrew full stops, with a few isolated exceptions. Most attribute these to Rabbi Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus's work for the first Hebrew Bible concordance around 1440.

The KJV translators used the Latin Vulgate only as a secondary reference alongside more recent scholarly Latin versions and two books of the Apocrypha translated from a Latin source.  They were even careful to indicate a difference between the original language reading and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions: that of Immanuel Tremellius (aka Giovanni Emmanuele Tremellio; 1510-1580), an Italian Jewish convert to 'Protestant' Christianity and a leading Hebraist and Bible translator, for the Old Testament, Junius for the Apocrypha, and Beza for the New Testament.  They also made about 9,000 scriptural cross-references, in which one text was related to another after the long tradition common in Latin Bibles.  Because they carefully copied these references unaltered from the Latin tradition the early editions of the KJV retain many Vulgate verse references - e.g. in the numbering of the Psalms.

The Old Testament was carefully compiled by the translators using a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible (which relied primarily upon ben Hayyim's edition of the ben Asher text) by Daniel Bomberg (1524-5), and adjusting this to conform to the Septuagint (LXX) or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.  The KJV remained closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation by making careful use of rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text
and thus avoiding many of the flaws which came out of adopting the Septuagint (LXX) or Vulgate readings in such places.

The New Testament found the translators chiefly using the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, while also referring to a bilingual Greek-and-Latin text of the sixth century, found by Beza.  Both of these versions were extensively referred to because the translators conducted discussions amongst themselves in Latin.  F.H.A. Scrivener (a talented but somewhat liberal translator who was a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee which produced the Revised Version of the Bible) identified 190 readings where the KJV translators departed from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations, particularly the Geneva Bible (the New Testament being a revision of Tyndale, and the Old Testament revised, based upon the Hebrew and the first English Bible with verse divisions, albeit with strongly Calvinistic footnotes),
but in about 50% of the readings appearing to follow the earlier Greek Textus Receptus (1550) of Stephanus.  For the remainder, Scrivener claimed to have mainly located corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot but, after noting that no printed Greek text corresponded to the English of the Authorized Version in about a dozen places, concluded that these were derived from the Vulgate.  It appears that the New Testament of the KJV owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament but, even so, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.

In contrast to their translation of the genuine Biblical books, the KJV translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes which reveal that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint - primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573 - but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to the Latin translation of Reformed scholar and theologian Franciscus Junius the Elder (1545-1602).  The translators record references to the Sixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of Aldus Manutius.  Since they had no Greek texts for 2 Esdras, or for the Prayer of Manasses, Scrivener concluded that they used an unidentified Latin manuscript for these works (although the failure to identify the manuscript means that we cannot be 100% certain of this claim).  The translators appear to have also made wide and eclectic use of many printed editions in the original languages then available, and also acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.  They also discussed readings derived from a wide variety of sources and versions including, explicitly, both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom, and also the Rheims New Testament, which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.

Regarding your jibe about 'The King James Only Movement' advocating the superiority of the King James Version over all other English translations, while many adherents of the movement believe that the Textus Receptus is very close, if not identical, to the original autographs thereby making it the ideal Greek source for the translation and argue, with strong justification, that most modern English translations are based on a corrupted New Testament text that relies primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts, it is true that a small group of adherents go too far in believing that the translation process itself was also inspired by God in some way.  Considering the Mariolatry of Papal Roman Catholics and their numerous claims that Latin is the 'holy language' of that cult, we can see the error of the KJVO group in perspective - and a mistake that orthodox (which means 'right, straight, true'!) Christians never make.

It was as the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close that a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible stated:

'An act for the reducing of diversities of Bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original.'

The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivalled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.  One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 to resolve problems amiss in the church.  At that Conference the assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan 'divines', considered the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, 'moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.'  The king rejoined that he:

'Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.'

Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

'That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.'

Thus it came about that an unparalleled group of talented translators with far more ability in their combined talents set about producing the KJV.

Despite the delusions some live under regarding the Bible in its original manuscripts, hand-written copies, and printed versions, the Authorized Version is in the public domain in most countries of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown subsequently licenses publishers to reproduce it under patent.  The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.  All provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but because the Authorized Version is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright, it will remain protected, as specified in CDPA s171(1)(b).

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

'THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.'

The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

'THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.'

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that 'there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue.'
The translators expressed that they were 'poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known' while at the same time recognizing that 'Popish persons' sought to keep the people 'in ignorance and darkness.'

The Authorized Version was recognised as having eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible and has even been recognized as such by those who might have been thought to be detractors, such as Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first volume of his own translation of the Bible, and paid this tribute to the KJV:

'The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both
by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.'

Those who question the quality of the Authorized Version should consider the fact that a man (who many admirers of the KJV consider to be a dangerous opponent because of his shared work and views on the Alexandrian manuscripts) Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century,
the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.


In case any Papal Roman Catholic believes high things of Stephen Langton, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and is credited by some with adding the chapter divisions to the Bible, they should weigh this achievement against his anti-Semitism.  A regular feature of Papal Rome's history, none of the regulations the cult employed to harm God's chosen people was more humiliating than the one requiring the Jew to wear a distinguishing costume or a distinguishing patch upon his garments. This patch was ordered to be placed on the chest, or on both chest and back, so that the wearer might be distinguished from afar (in a manner reminiscent of lepers of old who were commanded to warn the unwary by crying 'unclean' whilst still at a distance) so Christians might be prevented from 'ignorantly having carnal connection with the despised people'. At the command of this creature Langton, the synod of Oxford, 1222, prescribed a woollen patch, and Edward I, 1275, ordered the yellow patch to be worn by all Jews over seven years of age!  Louis IX ordered that the colour of the patch should be red or saffron, the king of England that it should be yellow. Even the size and shape of the patch were decreed in minute detail and the Fourth Council of the Lateran convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull Vineam domini Sabaoth of 19 April 1213 gave the weight of its great authority to this regulation about dress, and decreed that it should be enforced everywhere.  Thus, in the eyes of the chosen people of God (Genesis 12v1-3; Zechariah 2v8), the wonderfully misnamed 'Innocent III' was responsible for bringing more misery upon the Jews - as all their enemies had done before - and God will deal severely with this evil pope who turned the inhuman severity of Papal Rome against His people.

You write:  And you said the Bible had error. I guess your own top scholars disagree with you and even call St. Jerome the best and greatest linguist there ever was.

TCE:  As usual you deliberately write carelessly so that the 'the ignorant and unstable' (2 Peter 3v16) might read your words quickly and think we actually wrote these words.  We have made it clear on all of our pages that the inspired Word of God is without error in its original manuscripts but the evidence of history reveals that Jerome's Vulgate was not translated without error in the first case and the copyists of Papal Rome made matters worse - as we have shown on the pages high-lighted above.

The KJV translators made a superior translation, but it still was not faultless and the legendary (infamous!) errors of the printers made the early editions look bad - as any number of references on the Internet reveal.  But the original work by these very talented men was almost faultless - more than can be said of Jerome's Vulgate!  Did the considerable number of translators who worked on the KJV insist on 'proof-reading' the first printed copies - as they obviously should have?  Did the supposedly infallible 'popes' receive instruction from God to make sure the Vulgate was thoroughly checked by other gifted men in the cult of Papal Rome - after Jerome's initial translation and after every subsequent copy was made?  Clearly not!  The same failure is found in the claims of other cults (e.g. The Mormons, aka 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' as we have already shown on our pages dealing with those deceivers) and false religions (e.g. Islam - who used Caliph Uthman, their Third Caliph, to try and destroy all the copies of the Qur'an which were clearly different from the copy that the Islamic leaders desired to perpetuate as the Word of Allah that had come straight from heaven to Muhammad!) - while the truth is easily shown to be otherwise.

You write:  Not only that, your own top scholars even say your protestants bibles are always filled with error and need constant changes.  You submit to an earthy 'hierarchy' for you corrupt beliefs and corrupt scriptures; but Christians submit to a Heavenly Hierarchy instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. There is no such thing as Popes making mistakes. Such phenomenons occur and are only found in the protestant false religion where you all disagree because obviously you are immersed in protestant fundamentalist errors. Your rants are nonsensical protestant myths.

TCE:   Again, you can only supply blind accusations and deliberately deceptive phrases - revealing that you have no interest in the truth.  Fortunately we have already refuted your claims and written the truth about the accuracy of Scripture, errors in translation, and the mistakes of your 'popes' (see our earlier references)!

You write:  It is interesting that you asked me the proof for the Apostolic Succession of the Bishopric and the Priesthood, I provide the evidence which you specifically requested, then you pretend as if it is of no consequence that you are so totally and thoroughly refuted.

TCE:   You clearly have no idea what the word 'refuted' means and believe that bluster and hurling accusations around is 'evidence'!  We had already refuted both 'Apostolic Succession' and the false priesthood of Papal Rome (as shown above) and you have utterly failed to overturn our arguments.

You write:  This is why protestants are a prime example of obstinate hypocrisy, dishonesty and lying. That is why you can't make converts out of the greater portion of atheists. They recognize the inherent contradictions in your false religion.

TCE:   Are you going to supply some fantastic statistics revealing Papal Rome's incredible record of converting atheists?  Or in some other endeavour at which your priesthood excels - vile paedophilia?

You write:   The belief that one can keep on committing sins as long as they 'believe' they shall be saved is protestant mythology meant to justify your sinful lives.

TCE:   Yet again, in your ignorance, you have attacked a doctrine that only rabid 'Once Saved Always Saved' heretics believe in.  It is obvious to any believer familiar with the Bible that those who wilfully 'keep on committing sins' have never truly believed (1 John 1:6-10):

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Indulgences and the myth of the 'vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of the Church'!

The truth is clear from Scripture - the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses us from every sin - if we walk in the light!  Only false, heretical, 'Protestant' groups believe the false doctrine as you have stated - i.e. that a Christian can claim to believe and then carry on wilfully sinning.  This is, of course, every bit as false as Papal Rome's  doctrine of purgatory which fools people into believing that the Lord Jesus Christ did not wash away all their sins with His Precious blood but requires 'help' from the Cult of Rome's 'treasury of the Church'!

Papal Rome tries to replace the simple Biblical truth of full and free salvation in Christ Jesus with a myriad of rules and regulations which leaves her people in the dark about the doctrines that would truly set them free.  Anyone unaware of the enormous number of un-Biblical doctrines that Papal Rome uses to deceive her people and rob them of salvation, will be surprised to find that her 'catechism' has added the following to Biblical truth, for Papal Rome claims [numbers in brackets refers to the respective paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church]:

that the living can help the dead by acquiring special credits, called indulgences, that cancel out temporal punishment [1032, 1471];
that the Church has the power to dispense indulgences from a vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of the Church [1476-1477];

According to Papal Rome:

the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value term, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ the Redeemer the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.
This treasury also includes the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.  -  Second Vatican Council

Catholics can earn an indulgence from the Church by doing specific acts of piety such as praying the Rosary [1478];
A plenary indulgence, the cancellation of all current temporal punishment, can be obtained by performing special acts with a perfect disposition [1471]. This must be accompanied by reception of the sacrament of confession, holy communion, and prayer for the Pope's intentions - that is, his personal prayer requests.

Once a Catholic has acquired an indulgence, he is free to decide how to use it. He can apply it to his own temporal punishment, or by prayer he can apply it to the account of a deceased loved one in purgatory [1479].

According to Papal Rome, whenever a person who is in a state of grace does a good work, he earns a reward [2010-2011, 2016]. The right to a reward is called merit and merit accumulates during a person's life.  If the Catholic commits a mortal sin all merit is forfeited but, should the Catholic repent and receive the sacrament of penance, lost merit is once again restored [cf.  Merit and 'the General Judgment' [678-679, 682, 2006-2011, 2025-2027].

The Biblical truth of Salvation by the FREE gift of grace shows the clear Satanic source of Rome's doctrines!

Thus it is that Papal Roman Catholics are utterly unable to express their faith Biblically in terms of justification, sanctifying grace, temporal punishment, or final perseverance - as we have already revealed on our pages.  While, contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Bible teaches that eternal life is a free gift, not a merited reward, salvation is secure and not probational, all but the most ignorant 'Protestant' knows that payment for sin is through the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, not the false doctrine of Papal Rome's purgatory.

Eternal life is not a reward, but the unmerited gift of God. Jesus, speaking of His sheep, said, 'I give eternal life to them' (John 10:28). He promised, 'I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost' (Revelation 21:6, cf. John 4:14; 6:40; 6:47; 17:2; Romans 5:17; 6:23).

Nevertheless, Papal Rome insists that eternal life is a merited reward earned by doing good [1036, 1051, 2010, 2027].  Papal Rome teaches that, just as a Catholic can earn an increase of grace and an increase of glory, he can earn eternal life and the Cult denounces anyone who teaches otherwise - as this ancient curse of theirs makes clear:

If anyone says that the good deeds of a justified person are the gifts of God, in the sense that they are not also the good merits of the one justified; or that the justified person, by the good deeds done by him through the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ (of whom he is a living member), does not truly merit an increase in grace, eternal life, and (so long as he dies in grace) the obtaining of his own eternal life, and even an increase of glory: let him be
anathema (cursed!).  - Council of Trent (Session 6, 'Decree on Justification,' Canon 32)

Papal Rome's 'doctrines of demons' (1 Timothy 4:1-3) are easily identified and one of the clearest signs is seen in the cults' ability to complicate the simple matter of eternal life being a free gift from God and not earned by men in any way whatsoever - as Ephesians 2:8-10 makes clear:

... by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

When the Council of Trent stated that Catholics can truly merit eternal life, it meant that there is an equality between the work performed and the reward received.  Thomas Aquinas 'explained' this relationship by writing that, by the mercy of God, good works which proceed from the grace of the Holy Spirit merit everlasting life
condignly (deserved or appropriate) and that eternal life is 'granted in accordance with a fair judgment.' (Summa Theologica, Pts. 1-11, Q. 114, Art. 3).  Thus Papal Rome's  theologians contrast condign or well-deserved merit with congruous merit - a kind of merit which applies to cases in which the reward 'results from a certain graciousness in the light of God's liberality.'  (Adolphe Tanquerery, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, NY, Desclee Company, 1959, Volume 2, p174).

Eternal life, according to Papal Rome, is a truly merited reward and merited condignly, not congruously. It is not a free gift which God graciously gives apart from anything man has done to earn it. It is the result of a fair judgment. 
This is, of course, in total opposition to a mass of Scriptural verses, including Ephesians 2:8-10 which we quoted above!

To try and substantiate their claim that eternal life is a merited reward, Papal Rome cites Paul's Letter to the Romans:

[God] ... will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life;  but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation (Romans 2:6-8)

Papal Rome interprets this passage to mean that if a person dies with sanctifying grace in his soul, he deserves to go to heaven because of his good deeds [55]:
... it must be believed that nothing more is needed for the justified to be considered to have fully satisfied God's law, according to this state of life, by the deeds they have wrought in him and to have truly deserved to gain eternal life in their time (provided they die in a state of grace)  - Council of Trent (Session 6, 'Decree on Justification,' Chapter 16)

In contrast, the Bible teaches that every man and woman truly deserves eternal punishment, for their own good deeds can never save them!  But the Good News of Jesus Christ is that God is willing to graciously give those who trust Christ eternal life - which is a gift that is not earned in any way and no one deserves! In order that these two truths should not be confused, the Holy Spirit included both of them in one verse:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23)

With this clear statement occurring in the same Book of Romans - that eternal life is a free gift - Romans 2:6-8 cannot possibly be interpreted as teaching the direct opposite - that eternal life is a merited reward.

Papal Rome fails to see that, in Romans 2:6-8, Paul is addressing the kind of person who considers himself morally superior to others in character and conduct. This moralist, however, is himself practicing the very sins he condemns in others. Paul warns this hypocrite that he will not escape the judgment of God, for a day is coming when God 'will render to every man according to His deeds' (Romans 2:6). Those who do good - the Biblical evidence of new life (John 15:8) - will receive honour and eternal life, but those who do evil - the Biblical evidence of an unregenerated heart (1 John 3:7-10) - will receive wrath and indignation.

Paul does not say God will render to every man honour or wrath because of his deeds. That would make good works the cause of eternal life, as taught by Papal Rome.  Rather, Paul says that God will render judgment according to how a man has lived. This means that there will be a relationship of correspondence between how a person lives and the outcome of his judgment. Those who practice good - evidence of true spiritual life - will receive good from the Lord. Those who practice evil, such as the hypocritical moralist Paul is addressing, will receive wrath and indignation.  Anyone reading this should recognise that they are in one of only two camps - and the things they say, and do, and write, reveal this clearly!

Papal Rome, on the other hand, teaches that God gives eternal life to people because of their good works, to those who deserve it:

It is a universally accepted dogma of the Catholic Church that man, in union with the grace of the Holy Spirit must merit heaven by his good works....
we can actually merit heaven as our reward.... Heaven must be fought for; we have to earn heaven. - Dogmatic Theology for the Laity

In utter contrast, Ephesians 2:8-10 informs us that:

... by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

You have to be saved by faith
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.

After we are saved - and because we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works we can then do good works 'which God afore prepared that we should walk in them'.

But the good works we do as Christians have absolutely nothing to do with 'earning' us heaven in any way at all - they merely prove that we are saved and want to please our Loving Saviour God!

(Continued on page 313)

Full Menu

Topics discussed on pages responding to Roman Catholics
Section 45-52

Is it extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved?

The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope?

Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history?

'Traditional Roman Catholic' Matt Wykoff makes the following THREE claims:

What most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist himself?

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?

J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger and the Papal claim to infallibility!

The Church Fathers and Rome's claims for 'apostolic succession'!

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation!

Salvation is not based on any organisation but in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!

The inaccuracy of Jerome's 'Vulgate' and the sloppiness of Papal Rome's copyists!

James, Peter, and John - described as 'pillars' - but Paul had to oppose one 'pillar' - Peter! 

A myriad of Papal heresies!

What does 1 Corinthians 11:19 clearly mean?

In the time of the 'triple popes' who was to be believed?

Impossible to determine whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes!

Not even once did Augustine suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted at all!

How many popes 'self ex-communicated' by becoming Freemasons?

Three 'popes' - but only Gregory XII is now an official pope - the other two are now 'anti-popes'!

Scripture warns not to 'lord it over others' while Popes have been 'lording it over' their sheep for centuries!

Find kissing the foot of the 'pope' in Scripture if you can!

Papal Rome insults Jesus, the Everlasting High-priest, by installing a fake priesthood!

Did Peter ever claim to be 'The Rock'?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist?!

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?!

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) originated in St. Cyprian

Papal Rome declared Döllinger 'a heretic' - after he exposed the heretic Pope Pius IX

newadvent.org can only use the ad hominem method of Papal Rome to try and smear Döllinger 

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

That Christ passed on to Peter such pomp and luxuries, which neither of them knew, is both ludicrous and blasphemous!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do the writings of the 'Church Fathers' and 'St. Augustine' prove?

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

Early councils were not called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor!

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

Why should anyone believe that Christ - the Servant King -  passed pomp and luxuries to Peter!

Questions on Matthew 16:16-18 that Rome never answers!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

More truth about the so-called 'Church Fathers'!

More false Papal views on 'Protestants'!

Origin of the claim of 'No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church'?

Why call them 'Church Fathers' in rebellion against Jesus?!

Serious flaws in the work of C.S. Lewis - an apologist for Papal Rome!

No early council of Papal Rome can be found to have ruled on what was canonical!

Jesus, Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, proves Rome's priesthood is blasphemous!

Circular reasoning chooses to abandon logic and is often all Papists have in their attempts to avoid the truth!

Indulgences and the myth of the 'vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of the Church'!

The Biblical truth of Salvation by the FREE gift of grace shows the clear Satanic source of Rome's doctrines!

Pope Honorius declared a heretic by Councils and Popes!

More on Fallible Popes and their blatant heresies!

'Popes' insist that they should be followed - even when they teach heresy and evil!

'Papal infallibility' stands or falls by a single official error and the principle: Is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

'Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible'?

'At the commands of Mary all obey - even God'?!

What brought about the worshipful adoration of Mary?

Why do Papal Roman Catholics appeal to heretics rather than to the truth?

The Bible clearly reveals many autonomous ekklesia - and not 'one Church (of Rome!)'

Only fully Scriptural and irrefutable historical support for a doctrine can enable anyone to make a point!


Know the reality of eternity in heaven by believing on Jesus Christ as your Lord & Saviour!

Go to the following link to discover eternal life is
A Free Gift for You

Home Page   |   Expositor History   |   'Orthodox' Heretics   |   Other Religions   |   Cults  |   Occult   |   New Age Movement  |   Rome & Ecumenism