The first Bible I started to read when I began to investigate Christianity was a small portable KJV. I was travelling a lot for work, between London in UK, Venice in Italy and Astana in Kazakhstan. The small Bible was convenient as it fit in my pocket and I could read it on the planes.
But at the same time I had begin to investigate Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, as well as the various claims from one group against the other. It became clear early on that the DR Bible was a far superior version, though it needs a little help from the Septuagint too.
The KJV on the other hand was a Bible ordered by a flamingly homosexual King who literally started the freemasonic temples in their current Satanic worship mode.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of “mistranslation” all designed to reduce both Jesus, the truth of the magisterium of the Catholic Church and especially to sideline Mary to a secularised version of events that, in die course, would inevitably lead to the Joel Osteen version of the “gospel”.
With thanks to one Mark Wilkinson for posting it Faceborg.
WHY DOESN’T THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SANCTION THE KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE?
Some Examples of Subtle Differences Between the Douay-Rheims [DR] Holy Bible and the King James Version [KJV] that Make a Real Difference!
(Edited by Mark Wilkinson, B.A., M.Th.S.)
Briefly, the Catholic Church does not accept the King James Version/Authorized Version for the same reason that it does not accept as authoritative any Bible containing only the protocanon [only 66 books in total], or containing the deuterocanon only in a separate appendix under the description of the term “Apocrypha” [meaning “hidden” or “obscure” books].
Bibles fitting this description display an understanding of Sacred Scripture very different from the Catholic understanding. This makes it likely that the translation will not be in accord with Catholic teachings. Since this could result in misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, the Church does not use them for liturgical functions, and does not endorse them for devotional use. They may, however, be studied as literary works, or as exercises in comparative translation.
In order for a Bible translation, or any other book, to be considered acceptable or to be considered “Catholic,” it needs to have an imprimatur from the local bishop. The website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops contains a list of Bible translations approved for devotional use; it recommends any translation with an imprimatur. Other Bibles are all “Un-Authorized,” because the Catholic Church is not interested in approving Protestant translations of an abridged [reduced] Bible.
During the Reformation Era, King Henry VIII of England decided (for seemingly illicit reasons) that he was going to leave the Catholic Church and appoint himself as the head of the Church of England.
The history of England’s monarchy gets pretty messy here, but King Henry VIII died ~1547 and King James I came to power in ~1603.
Now that the Church of England was officially separated from the Catholic Church, and King James of England was the “head” of the Church of England, he was the one who “authorized” requests for new Bible translations.
The King gave his approval and then they made the King James Version (KJV), also known as the “Authorized” translation.
The whole point of this history is that the Catholic Church did not really accept the King James Version, because it was never their Bible and it was translated against their wishes, under an opposing King.
Below are some comparisons of the Douay-Rheims Bible with the King James Bible, and a summary of their significance. In each case, I have put the Douay-Rheims (DR) verse first, followed by the King James Version (KJV). Many of the differences are very subtle.
The words of significant difference between the two parallel verses have been capitalized for emphasis.
The point of making the differences subtle is always the same. A small divergence from truth is all you need to lead souls to hell. Imagine what math would become like is you only accept a “small” change like agreeing that 2+2 = 4.00001. I mean… how could it possibly matter, right? Well, accept such nonsense and in a few decades you can say goodbye to civilisation, including everything from satellites to air travel. Same thing here. Give it 500 years and now the Protties have transgender “bishops” and abortion on demand.
THE HOLY MASS AND THE PRIESTHOOD
*Genesis 14:18
[DR] “But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, FOR he was the priest of the most high God.”
[KJV] “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine: AND he was the priest of the most high God.”
Here, the DRV shows bread and wine as intrinsic to Melchisedech’s priesthood, whereas the KJV suggests the fact Melchisedech was a priest, and the fact he brought forth bread and wine, are two possibly unrelated facts.
*1 Corinthians 11:27
[DR] “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
[KJV] “Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
The difference here is that Protestants receive both the bread and wine, whereas Catholics generally receive only the bread (communion in one kind only). The different translations of this verse seem to reflect this difference in practice.
*Jeremiah 11:19
[DR] “And I was as a meek LAMB, that is carried to be a VICTIM: and I knew not that they had devised counsels against me, saying: Let us put WOOD on his BREAD, and cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more.”
[KJV] “But I was like a LAMB or an OX that is brought to the SLAUGHTER; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the TREE with the FRUIT thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.”
This verse was interpreted by Jerome as a Eucharistic prophecy of the Crucifixion in which Christ’s body is referred to as “bread.” The Protestant translation, by referring to “fruit” rather than “bread,” negates this interpretation.
This also puts the lie to the “Orthodox” position that if you only take the bread it is not a “proper” mass. But then, like the protestants, we know the “orthodox” also don’t read their Bible. Not the correctly translated versions anyway.
PENANCE
*Luke 3:3
[DR] “…preaching the baptism of PENANCE for the remission of sins.”
[KJV] “…preaching the baptism of REPENTANCE for the remission of sins.”
*Acts 2:38
[DR] “Peter said to them: Do PENANCE, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”
[KJV] “Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”
In these two verses, one referring to the message of John the Baptist and the other to the events of the first Whitsun, the Catholic Bible has penance while the Protestant one only has repentance.
This also plays into the retarded Prottie idea that not only “once saved always saved”, but also, “no works!” It is, of course, idiotic to think you can just say a nominal “I’m a Jesus follower!” And literally need do nothing more to secure your place in Heaven. You have this kind of secularisation of principles to thank for the perennial slide to hell that protestantism inevitably leads to.
MARY
*Luke 1:28
[DR] “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, FULL OF GRACE, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
[KJV] “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art HIGHLY FAVOURED, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
There is at least a difference in degree between being full of grace and being highly favored.
This of course also goes to the Hail Mary prayer, which, unlike the Prottie lies about “worshipping Mary” is simply asking for Mary’s intercession and prayer for us sinners, and where being “full of Grace” is not just a set of meaningless words. And of course, the difference between “full of (God’s) Grace” and being “highly favoured” is absolutely massive.
LIMBUS PATRUM (Limbo of the Fathers)
*Genesis 42:38
[DR] “You will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to HELL [Sheol].”
[KJV] “Then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the GRAVE.”
Here, Jacob is fretting about what will happen to him if he allows Benjamin to travel to Egypt and he does not come back. According to the DRV, he expects, on death, his soul will go to hell, whereas according to the KJV, he is talking about the burial of his body. There are several other verses similar to this one.
Prottie secular semi-denial of Hell and how and why you can end up there being very much glossed over is a recurring theme.
PAPACY
*Malachi 2:7
[DR] “For the lips of the priest SHALL keep knowledge, and they SHALL seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel [messenger] of the Lord of hosts.
[KJV] For the priest’s lips SHOULD keep knowledge, and they SHOULD seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”
An interpretation of this verse is that it is a prophecy of the Papacy. The DRV says what “shall” happen, a definite statement about the future. The KJV says what “should” happen, but with no guarantee that it will.
Hot take: Prottie conmen approved by KJV under their general theology of: “eh… it happens.”
ROYAL SUPREMACY
*1 Peter 2:13
[DR] “Be ye subject therefore to every human CREATURE for God’s sake: whether it be to the king as EXCELLING; Or to governors.…”
[KJV] “Submit yourselves to every ORDINANCE of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as SUPREME; Or unto governors.…”
Here, the DRV describes the king as “excelling,” but the KJV asserts that he is “supreme.” Not all Protestants believe in Royal Supremacy, but the Church of England does, and King James certainly did (as, indeed, so did several Catholic monarchs). The Catholic Church regarded the Pope as supreme.
This is another very important distinction that most will not grasp the extent of.
In Catholic thought, it is assumed if a man is King it is because God ordained it so to some extent or other, however, and this is important, the onus to be a GOOD and CATHOLIC king is on the man himself, and his subjects are to generally give him his due and even the benefit of the doubt when possible, but are absolutely under no obligation to do so when he reveals himself to act improperly. And should he act as a public heretic, then all bets are off.
Instead, in obvious fashion, flaming king Jimmy, wanted everyone to bow to his wishes no matter what. Reminds you of the LGBT-Pedo lobby today, doesn’t it?
PRIESTS
*1 Timothy 4:14
[DR] “Neglect not the GRACE that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the PRIESTHOOD.”
[KJV] “Neglect not the GIFT that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the PRESBYTERY.”
*Acts 14:23
[DR] “And when they had ordained to them PRIESTS in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.”
[KJV] “And when they had ordained them ELDERS in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
The DRV refers to Christian priests being ordained by Paul and Barnabas, whereas the KJV calls them elders. The DRV refers specifically to ordination conferring grace, which the KJV terms a gift, which may reflect a more sacramental understanding of ordination in the Catholic Church. There are several other verses where the DRV says “priest” and the KJV has “elder.” The KJV also has “overseer” in some of the places where the DRV has “bishop,” although the KJV does also refer to bishops (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:1).
Obviously if you’re setting things up so any old Tom, Dick and Harry can set himself up as a “pastor” and earn his living preaching whatever interpretation he wants of the Bible, then, having a sacramental process to authorise priests and Bishops would cramp your style.
SALVATION BY FAITH
*Luke 18:42
[DR] “And Jesus said to him: Receive thy sight: thy FAITH hath MADE thee WHOLE.”
[KJV] “And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy FAITH hath SAVED thee.”
The DRV has Jesus talking of physical healing, whereas the KJV suggests salvation, as a result of faith. The KJV translation of this verse is an obvious example of Protestant bias, based on their belief in the false doctrine of salvation through “sola fide” (faith alone).
Self-explanatory false teaching of Protties.
So… while I still have my copy of the portable KJV, it has laid unopened for years. And it will remain so.
Keep in mind the examples above are just a few of the 33,000 “mistranslations” the KJV is replete with.
Of course, the KJV zealots will continue to “defend” their LGBT Bible that is also literally known as the Freemason Bible, but anyone rational should at this point understand it is a Satanic piece of misinformation and to be avoided at all costs.
This is the way. These are the conversations you can have with prots to convert them. Just this weekend I invited my neighbors (uber prots, in the most grotesque way… rock band church) over for some drinks. They asked about my antique (1883) DR Bible, and 2 hours later after pretty much us discussing these points and maybe a little empassioned ranting about Martin Luther, Henry VIII, the French revolution, and the freemasons, they now want to be baptized.
Anyone we meet who is slightly red-pilled about the institutions that control the west can be convinced by this Truth. We all just give them a shove in the right direction.
Rodney Stark, an honest historian who is NOT Catholic, has demonstrated in his book How the West Won, that the spread of a religion is accomplished best and fastest not by statal decree, but precisely as you said, by friends and family of those who are convinced zealots converting.
Sedevacantists are sedevacantists because they took the time to look for the truth with autistic level of obsessive effort. As such, we are not swayed by nonsensical Prottie or false “Orthodox” teachings. Which means, in the long run, even if it might appear absurd initially, sedevacantism will ultimately win.
There are, of course, also precise Biblical indicators to suggest this too.
I wasn’t particularly impressed by your list but found one that surprised me elsewhere.
Last verse of Romans 1:
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (DRA)
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (KJV, and virtually all others)
I always found this puzzling, “who not only do them but approve or take pleasure in others doing them” as if those two are opposed to each other when in reality of course people approve others doing whatever they do. The DRA makes so much more sense here, i.e. not only are homos deserving of death but so are those who approve of them.
If you are not “particularly impressed” by the list, then you likely have not considered the consequences in time of a tiny divergence.
And given what we have seen in the last three years it may be you don’t have the capacity to. But as long as you end up on the right track, I don’t care how you get there. I suggest you try to take up the DR and read that instead and see if over the next year or so you don’t begin to realise the importance at a deeper level than we sometimes can at first glance.
[…] have explained the stupidity, ignorance, and complete lack of any logic of the Protestant position many, many, many times. With never a single valid point in response. It’s like talking to stones. […]