Do you really believe Jehovas Witness and Catholics are Christian?
Don't think they are simular? Compair their Bibles. Acts 8:37 is missing in both, so are hundreds of other words and verses.
If you want to read the real Bible, get a King James Version 1611.
2007-10-09 01:41:33 · 16 answers · asked by Rudy P 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The King James Bible of 1611 was written from the Majority Text manuscript in Antioch.
The Catholic Bible was written from the Alexandrian text, from egypt. This was a good Translation, but of the wrong transcript. The Alexandrians were a cult, much like the Jehoava's witnesses.
There is nothing missing from the King James Bible, it is complete. There are 66 Books in the Bible. Anyone who adds anything to the Bible, the plagues in revelations are for you. There are no missing books in the King James Bible of 1611, it is the same books that were competed by 70AD.
The catholic church makes the outragous claim there should be more books. Books THEY wrote themselves. It is a fact that the Catholic Church was not formed until 300AD by a man named Cornielious, and not by God.
2007-10-09 01:51:26 · update #1
translation is not the issue here, there are 2 totally different manuscripts.
Majority Text
Alexandrian Text
The real Bible is Majority Text, sadly many use Bibles translated from the Alexandrian Text. The Alexandrian Text is the one that has hundreds of verses and words missing!!!
You are making things up, saying they were missing in the Majority Text. If it wasnt on this manuscript, then it is not from God.
2007-10-09 01:54:35 · update #2
The New American (Catholic) Bible states about Acts 8:37:
The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm#foot10
With love in Christ.
2007-10-09 07:57:36 · answer #1 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Acts 8:37, Douay-Rheims translation, 1899 edition:
And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
The verse is not in the RSV (Catholic edition) nor in the NAB because the oldest and best manuscripts omit it; in other words, it was a late addition (what was that about adding to or taking away from Scripture?). In each of the above translations, there are footnotes to that effect.
The same notation is made in "non-Catholic" Bibles: NASB, Amplified Bible, and most significantly the NIV which is by far the most widely used Bible among evangelicals.
In other words, your attempt to lay this at the feet of the big bad Catholic Church as something sinister is baseless. Douay-Rheims was translated in the same time period as the 1611 KJV (1582 for the NT and 1609 for the OT) and did include the verse.
And so your point is ...?
2007-10-09 02:55:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are they christian, yes. However, the King James version 1611, is no more real than the bibles that they use. The original was written back around 300 AD, read it instead (if you can convince the vatican to let you see it). It has many books and verses that have since been removed.
2007-10-09 01:52:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the reason everyone doesn't like Christianity is because of stubborn Christians that cant get past their own problems.
We judge and don't expect any consequences!
A King James 1611? That was four hundred years ago! You don't have to speak Old English to be Biblically accurate. Wake up and smell the NASB my friend!
2007-10-09 10:31:36 · answer #4 · answered by itchy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, get a kjv that is a dynamic translation that was targeted to the common speech in the 1600's, and that has it's own set of translation errors. The last thing you want to do is to use a translation that was done for accuracy and has been verified against multiple Greek codexs.
It's always good to blindly accept the traditional with out understanding. (heavy sarcasm).
2007-10-09 01:49:22 · answer #5 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The King James Version is missing several Books (Deuterocanonicals).
2007-10-09 01:45:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Being antagonistic and condescending just gives the athiests more fuel for the fire they spew at us constantly. Although Christianity has been distorted over many centuries, positive words might work a little better.
2007-10-09 01:56:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, indeed. Revelations 11 tells us all about KJV in 1611. Nowdays, though what part of God's Kingdom is "hidden"?
2007-10-09 01:47:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, I checked Biblegateway.com and they have almost every Bible there and in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (Catholic Bible) they do have this scripture. I am not sure what Bible the JW use. I think you are reaching in thin air to make yourself feel justified in not liking them.
2007-10-09 01:52:15 · answer #9 · answered by idaho gal 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did you know the whole section about the virgin mother was cut out of all of the bibles? Did you also know that Jesus killed his best friend? I bet not, why? because they were taken out of the bible. How can you really believe your own religion when they go and do something like that?
2007-10-09 01:49:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋