Interesting thought - Page 3

Redchic12 · #21 13-01-2024, 06:29 AM

BigJohn. The Vatican have admitted outright that they have them. Do your research like I have.

Miss H. Great comments, thanks a lot.

Sky. Yes you are right. The copyright belongs to the Crown, which in turn is Charles.

I wonder if the Crown are getting Royalties from this? Mmmm maybe another “rabbit hole to go down”. Lol

sky · #22 13-01-2024, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redchic12

So the bottom line for me is that how can people make a value judgement on what they believe in, when they are only given half of the information. And even the information they have been given has been tampered with by the Church scribes. Imo

The Catholic Church (Vatican) removed books which collided with its doctrine, simple.
The masses were not supposed to make a 'judgement' on what to believe , you were expected to believe what the 'Hierarchy' told you to believe, imo....

Miss Hepburn · #23 13-01-2024, 08:58 AM

Oh, I see this is a paperback on Amazon under $14.
''The Complete Apocrypha: Collection of all the 16 Books Rejected from the Bible''

BigJohn · #24 13-01-2024, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Oh, I see this is a paperback on Amazon under $14.
''The Complete Apocrypha: Collection of all the 16 Books Rejected from the Bible''

How come centuries before the King James 1611 Bible right up to now, some people have been able to have Bibles with the apocrypha? One of the distinguishing marks of what version of Christianity a Bible resonated with was if it had or not have the apocrypha.

BigJohn · #25 13-01-2024, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sky

The Catholic Church (Vatican) removed books which collided with its doctrine, simple.
The masses were not supposed to make a 'judgement' on what to believe , you were expected to believe what the 'Hierarchy' told you to believe, imo....

When did the Catholic Church remove the apocrypha from their Bibles?

sky · #26 13-01-2024, 01:09 PM

As I said previously the 'Hierarchy' controlled what was published in the Bible's....

In the century before the creation of the King James Version (officially known as “the Authorized Edition of 1611”), it was actually a crime to translate the Bible into English — moreover, it was a capital crime, and the most influential single translator, a man named William Tyndale, was put to death for it. John Wycliffe, the first man to translate the Bible into English, was condemned by the Church, which dug up his bones and cursed them.

The “problem” with translating the Bible in those days was that the Church wanted to control how the Bible was interpreted. If people were free to do their own translations, they might render texts differently from the way the Church would want them.

Better yet, to the Church, don’t let people read the Bible in their own language at all. That would require most people to rely on what the priests said was in the Bible… and the priests, as part of the hierarchy, could be controlled.

BigJohn · #27 13-01-2024, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redchic12

So the bottom line for me is that how can people make a value judgement on what they believe in, when they are only given half of the information. And even the information they have been given has been tampered with by the Church scribes. Imo

I have had many of those books over the years and I have seen no real reason for most of them. What I have seen is most people have no idea of what I am talking about when referencing some of those books.

Redchic12 · #28 13-01-2024, 01:27 PM

Sky…….all your comments are correct imo judging from what I’ve found in my research.

BigJohn · #29 13-01-2024, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sky

In the century before the creation of the King James Version (officially known as “the Authorized Edition of 1611”), it was actually a crime to translate the Bible into English ........

One bible used for the King James Bible (1611 was the Bishop bible which was published in 1568.

The first authorized Bible in English was the Great Bible, sometimes known as the King's Bible of 1539.

And then, need I forget the famous Geneva bible of 1560.........

It should be noted: all 4 Bible translations I mentioned were not produced by the Catholic Church.

If you want to see a Catholic Bible printed before 1611, then look the Douay–Rheims Bible (1582) which was also in English.

BigJohn · #30 13-01-2024, 01:34 PM

Lets say all of the so called 777 books of the Bible should be printed. Back in the 1500's and 1600's, that would have been an astronomical task considering that printing presses were in their infancy.

As for the King James 1611 edition....... there actually is 2 versions. No one seems to know which version was printed first.