Replying to Avatar OgFOMK ArTS

The testimony of those put under torture regarding Christ was many. No one changed their testimony.

Today, Christians are willing to change everything for ecumenical, apostasy. So many deep and dark levels.

No Kings.

No Kings James.

November 5th, 1605

1611 King James Bible Published

Tyndale Bible

Tyndale Executed

Spanish Armada 1587

Second, Third, Fourth... 1601

Who wanted the English not to have a Bible?

The same people who sponsor every translation that is meant to discredit the King James Bible.

Make no mistake. A works based faux religion with idols and icons and men worshipping everything but the one who shed his blood. The final sin offering. The ultimate gift of salvation based upon the work of the High Priest and The Lamb.
Avatar
The COG Catholic 1mo ago 💬 2

I was a "King James Only" guy until I read the Protestant writer James R. White's book entitled "The King James Only Controversy" in the mid-1990s. It changed my whole view in one weekend. Really good.

Another helpful book is "Where We Got the Bible" by Rev. Henry Graham. It dispels the common Protestant fiction of how the Catholic Church opposed the translation of the Scriptures into the common tongue.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
OgFOMK ArTS 1mo ago

I guess Tyndale killed himself, then.

Avatar
The COG Catholic 1mo ago

The Catholic Church has no problem with translating Scripture into different languages as long as they aren't heretical translations.

Translating into the common tongue is a good thing. There have always been Catholic translations of the Bible in many languages.

Remember that even the KJV came out *after* the Douay-Rheims

(Catholic English Bible) was published.

But even today I would condemn the Jehovah's Witness Bible (New World Translation), for example, and even stop its publication if I could -- not because I hate the Bible (quite the opposite), but because it is a bad and heretical translation of something holy.