King James Bible?

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Why would a Catholic want to read a Protestant Bible when Catholic Bibles are readily available?

Please remember, the Bible is a Catholic Book that Protestants altered for the sole purpose of making it less Catholic. For instance, the original Greek presbyterios is translated as elder, senior, etc. but never as priest, it’s transliteration.

The Ten Commandments were altered adding “You shall not make unto you any graven images.” implicating that we are idolaters and omitting “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” Sorry ladies, you get lumped into "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. Where’s the dignity in that?

The 7 deuterocanonical books Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees were removed, I suppose they were too Catholic??? The Jewish canon wasn’t settled at the time of the Apostles and there existed the Sadducees canon which excluded everything but the first five books, the Pharisees had theirs, then there’s the Septuagint (Alexandrian canon) which Jesus and the Apostles used when addressing the Greek-speaking Jewish populations.

Luther chose to use the Jewish Palestinian canon which did not include the aforementioned deuterocanonicals as they existed in the Septuagint. Anyone find it odd that Luther’s Old Testament authority is on the same side of the fence as the Jewish authority that demanded Christ’s death? Apparently, Luther preferred siding with those who had Jesus killed rather than have to defend his flawed theology by the continued inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals.

It got even more bizzare when John Calvin entered the picture and snowballed from there until you end up with the tens of thousands of splintered groups we see today, all reading from whatever altered version of the true Bible they’re selling (JH, Mormons, etc).

The devil is in the details - stick with what the true Church has provided and you will be better off.

 

[InnocentSmith]

I just might add something:

Frederick William Faber (1814-1863), a convert to Catholicism (he was a follower of Cardinal Newman) and the man who composed the well-known hymn Faith of Our Fathers, was actually a firm supporter of the KJV even after his conversion.

I seem to remember Karl Keating stating once that Cardinal Newman was as well after his conversion (assuming I am not misremembering, of course)

 

[patrick457]

Why would a Catholic want to read a Protestant Bible when Catholic Bibles are readily available?

Well, some such as Frederick William Faber (which I mentioned above), were drawn more to the KJV’s style. That’s one reason.

The Ten Commandments were altered adding “You shall not make unto you any graven images.” implicating that we are idolaters and omitting “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” Sorry ladies, you get lumped into "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. Where’s the dignity in that?

Well, the Bible does not divide the Ten Words (that’s how it is called in Hebrew and Greek) clearly. It says that there are ten, but if you count the imperatives in say, Exodus 20, you’d come up with at least fifteen. So no, the Bible itself does not provide an explicit, clear-cut way of how to divide the Ten words.

The division you’re referring to, known as the Philonic Division, existed way before Protestantism was even invented, already being found in the works of Philo and Josephus. And for the record, that’s the way the Eastern Orthodox Church divides the Commandments as well even today, though they’re clearly the ones who suffered under the Iconoclast Controversy (and would also be accused of being idolaters as well by the most staunch Fundamentalist, what with icons and whatnot) - and I believe they respect women as much as we do!

The 7 deuterocanonical books Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees were removed, I suppose they were too Catholic??? The Jewish canon wasn’t settled at the time of the Apostles and there existed the Sadducees canon which excluded everything but the first five books, the Pharisees had theirs, then there’s the Septuagint (Alexandrian canon) which Jesus and the Apostles used when addressing the Greek-speaking Jewish populations.

No, they’re there (including three more books: Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras, aka 3 and 4 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate - books that are considered apocryphal even by Catholics but are included in the Vulgate “lest they utterly perish”), albeit in a different section. That section is, unfortunately, omitted in many modern editions (which I like to call ‘half-KJVs’ ).

Also, just as the canon of Scripture was not fixed at the time of Jesus*, the Septuagint was itself not fixed: i.e. the books were not bound under one cover (if they did have covers, considering that scrolls were more prevalent at the time). In fact, it would seem that the various books of the Greek Septuagint are different independent translations undertaken by different folks at different times - as the varying quality and style of the translation shows - which were only later collated under one volume.

• Albeit there are some issues as to whether the Sadducees really accepted only the Torah - since sources stating the fact date to well after they became extinct, and they seem to confuse the Sadducees with the Samaritans (which do accept only the first five books). Our main source for 1st century Judaea, the historian Josephus, is actually rather vague at this point.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Well, some such as Frederick William Faber (which I mentioned above), were drawn more to the KJV’s style. That’s one reason.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was written in the same style and is authentically Catholic.

Well, the Bible does not divide the Ten Words (that’s how it is called in Hebrew and Greek) clearly. It says that there are ten, but if you count the imperatives in say, Exodus 20, you’d come up with at least fifteen. So no, the Bible itself does not provide an explicit, clear-cut way of how to divide the Ten words.

fair enough

The division you’re referring to, known as the Philonic Division, existed way before Protestantism was even invented, already being found in the works of Philo and Josephus. And for the record, that’s the way the Eastern Orthodox Church divides the Commandments as well even today, though they’re clearly the ones who suffered under the Iconoclast Controversy (and would also be accused of being idolaters as well by the most staunch Fundamentalist, what with icons and whatnot) - and I believe they respect women as much as we do!

and weren’t Philo and Josephus Jews who chose not to accept Jesus Christ as Messiah? The RCC uses Augustine’s Method known as the Augustinian division. I suppose Protestants respect their women until they decide they want a divorce, an institution they accept and are perfectly comfortable with.

No, they’re there (including three more books: Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras, aka 3 and 4 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate - books that are considered apocryphal even by Catholics but are included in the Vulgate “lest they utterly perish”), albeit in a different section. That section is, unfortunately, omitted in many modern editions (which I like to call ‘half-KJVs’ ).

Yes, they are there but, in a separate section as you say either in the middle or back of the Bible generally called apocrypha - the seven deuterocanonicals are not apocrypha and shouldn’t have been separated from their place in the OT or mixed in with actual apocrypha. This could confuse Catholics who do not understand the difference and is another reason why they shouldn’t read protestant Bibles.

Also, just as the canon of Scripture was not fixed at the time of Jesus*, the Septuagint was itself not fixed: i.e. the books were not bound under one cover (if they did have covers, considering that scrolls were more prevalent at the time). In fact, it would seem that the various books of the Greek Septuagint are different independent translations undertaken by different folks at different times - as the varying quality and style of the translation shows - which were only later collated under one volume.

Regardless of how it seems, the fact remains that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint, the same work containing the proper deuterocanonicals less any apocrypha, the deuterocanonical books found in Catholic Bibles today. Speculation as to who or when the Septuagint was compiled is a distraction from the point that they were preferred by Christ and the Apostles. Good enough for them, good enough for me

• Albeit there are some issues as to whether the Sadducees really accepted only the Torah - since sources stating the fact date to well after they became extinct, and they seem to confuse the Sadducees with the Samaritans (which do accept only the first five books). Our main source for 1st century Judaea, the historian Josephus, is actually rather vague at this point.

I’m open to that possibility, however, it is generally believed that the Sadducees stuck to the first five books. The dating issue doesn’t negate anything as far as reliability is concerned because it may have been handed down through oral tradition. The Samaritan acceptance of only the first five books tends to support this notion as they may have acquired the tradition orally themselves.

 

[patrick457]

The Douay-Rheims Bible was written in the same style and is authentically Catholic.

Not exactly. The reason why the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims (1749-1752) - the one that most people refer to when they say ‘Douai-Rheims’ nowadays - is similar in style to the King James Version because Bishop Challoner, himself a convert, borrowed heavily from it. So it goes full circle: the translators of the KJV had themselves borrowed from the original Rheims New Testament of 1582, and now Challoner is borrowing from the KJV. The original 1582 Rheims New Testament and 1609 Douai Old Testament is, to be honest, a very literal (to the point of being wooden and obscure in some places), Latinate translation.

Let’s compare, for example, Ephesians 3:6-12 in the 1582 Rheims NT, the 1611 KJV, and the Challoner NT:

Rheims: † The Gentils to be coheires & concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ IESVS by the Gospel: † vvhereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is giuen me according to the operation of his povver. † To me the least of al the sainctes is giuen this grace, among the Gentils to euangelize the vnsearcheable riches of Christ, † and to illuminate al men vvhat is the dispensatiō of the sacrament hidden from vvorldes in God, vvho created al things: † that the manifold vvisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, † according to the prefinitiō of worldes, vvhich he made in Christ IESVS our Lord. † In vvhom vve haue affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.

KJV (1611): That the Gentiles should be fellow heires, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the Gospel: whereof I was made a Minister, according to the gift of the grace of God giuen vnto mee, by the effectuall working of his power. Unto mee, who am lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace giuen, that I should preach among the Gentiles the vnsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mysterie, which from the beginning of the world, hath bene hid in God, who created all things by Iesus Christ: to the intent that now vnto the principalities and powers in heauenly places, might be knowen by the church, the manifold wisedome of God, according to the eternall purpose which he purposed in Christ Iesus our Lord: in whom we haue boldnesse and accesse, with confidence, by the faith of him.

Challoner: That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power. To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, according to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

and weren’t Philo and Josephus Jews who chose not to accept Jesus Christ as Messiah? The RCC uses Augustine’s Method known as the Augustinian division. I suppose Protestants respect their women until they decide they want a divorce, an institution they accept and are perfectly comfortable with.

We can excuse Philo (20 BC-AD 50), since he lived and died in the Diaspora around the time when Jesus was not still holding His ministry and Christianity was still a minor Jewish sect that was yet to spread over the Empire. Josephus is a bit more tricky because of his little reference to Jesus that apparently later got tampered by a Christian. Then again, I could counter by saying that Origen (Homilies on Exodus, Homily 8 On the Beginning of the Decalogue), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (The Decalogue of Moses) and St. Jerome (Commentary on Ephesians 6), who are full-blooded Christians, also used this reckoning.

 

[patrick457]

I’m open to that possibility, however, it is generally believed that the Sadducees stuck to the first five books. The dating issue doesn’t negate anything as far as reliability is concerned because it may have been handed down through oral tradition. The Samaritan acceptance of only the first five books tends to support this notion as they may have acquired the tradition orally themselves.

It is ‘generally believed’, yes, but this ‘general belief’ has, as I mentioned, gone into some questioning recently. Josephus was once cited as proof for this idea, but what he actually says is (Antiquities 13.297 [10.6]):

περὶ μέντοι τούτων αὖθις ἐροῦμεν. νῦν δὲ δηλῶσαι βούλομαι, ὅτι νόμιμά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωυσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν.

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.

It doesn’t say anything about canons of Scripture, but Sadducees rejecting Pharisaic traditions.

Some later Church Fathers (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9.24; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.49; St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 22:31f.) did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as canonical, but this is a matter contemporary sources - that is, the New Testament or even Josephus - does not say anything (though admittedly, this is an argument from silence), and as a consequence, there are folks who advise against uncritical use of these sources.

I quote from The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation by Stephen B. Chapman:

The evidence that the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books has long rested upon meager references by Origen and Jerome (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.49; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, on 22:31), the nature of which might just as well indicate a later confusion (second or third century A.D.) of the Sadducees with the Samaritans (For references, LeMoyne, Sadducéen, 142-44. Cf. Sundberg, Church 77-78. The confusion may have arisen from the actual fusion of these two groups in this period).
Building on the work of J. Maier (J. Maier, Auseinandersetzung), Carr has concluded that despite this possible confusion, and the complete absence of any confirmatory evidence in the writings of Josephus, early Mishnaic regulations indicate that priestly circles including the Sadducees ‘revered the Torah alone.’ (Carr, Canonization, 36 n. 39. Carr terms this absence ‘conspicuous’, but explains it away as the consequence of Josephus’ own goal of presenting a unified Judaism with a single canon. Contra Carr, it would seem a rather weak point for Josephus to make if it was so patently untrue.)
However, it is clear in Josephus’ work that the issue of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees did not have to do with a different scriptural canon, but with the authority of oral law, which the Pharisees championed. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.16; cf. Antiquities 13.297. Carr admits this point (Canonization, 36 n. 39), which then provides another example of interpreting ‘the law’ too narrowly. Cf. the sound judgments of Beckwith, Formation, 74; and Bruce, Canon, 40-41.)
Thus, to argue that Josephus overlooked the disagreement between the two groups over the scriptural canon is also to argue that he created a controversy over the oral law where none existed, and that he retreated from his effort to present a unified Judaism in one instance, but not in the other. Surely it is more likely that Josephus simply meant what he said.

Jesus’ debated with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection and the afterlife is also cited as proof, since Jesus quotes from the Torah. However, one could argue Jesus using Exodus at this point does not seem to automatically mean they solely rely upon the Torah if we look at the history of Biblical interpretation: after all, later Jewish (Deuteronomy 32:39; cf. Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 68a; DeuteronomySifre 306) and Christian tradition used passages from the Pentateuch in support of the resurrection. Also note Jesus’ words: he does not criticize them for an ignorance of ‘Moses’ or the ‘Law’, but their misunderstanding of “the Scriptures [and] the power of God.” His answer possesses force not because it is from pentateuchal tradition, and therefore authoritative, but because it uses Scripture to ground a belief in resurrection in God’s own self, and thus makes resurrection an essenial tenet of a ‘Scriptural’ faith.

 

[patrick457]

Regardless of how it seems, the fact remains that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint, the same work containing the proper deuterocanonicals less any apocrypha, the deuterocanonical books found in Catholic Bibles today. Speculation as to who or when the Septuagint was compiled is a distraction from the point that they were preferred by Christ and the Apostles. Good enough for them, good enough for me

At least, we know that the Apostles and the early Christians did. As for Jesus, since the Gospels are written in Greek, it would be natural that the Scriptural quotations would be in that language. We don’t really know whether He actually (always) used the LXX or whether the Evangelists just used a preexisting translation for those instances where Jesus quotes Scripture (which I presume He would have done in the Aramaic vernacular spoken by many people in his native region of the Galilee), kind of like how most of us use preexisting translations nowadays when we want to quote from the Bible instead of translating it from scratch ourselves.

 

[Califman831]

The burning of nonapproved books is mentioned in the book of Acts.

Acts 19:19. And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all; and counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver.

the Christians seeking a clean break from their old life chose to burn all temptations and works of sin from the faith much like Moses chose to burn the golden calf in the book of exodus. Not only is the KJV not a word for word it is also not interpretation for interpretation copy of a Catholic Bible as a previous poster has pointed out. It also lacks faithful commentaries. A catholic reader who has not been properly catechized will stand to have his faith damaged by such commentaries.

Hebrews 6:8. But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers, is reprobate, and very near unto a curse, whose end is to be burnt.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Not exactly. The reason why the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims (1749-1752) - the one that most people refer to when they say ‘Douai-Rheims’ nowadays - is similar in style to the King James Version because Bishop Challoner, himself a convert, borrowed heavily from it…

My initial response had in mind the modern reader based on the thread topic question and so speaks to “the one most people refer to when they say ‘Douai-Rheims’ nowadays”. Today’s Catholic has at their disposal an approved Douai-Rheims Bible from which to safely read. Borrowing is ok as long as it doesn’t conflict with Church teachings and in this case it didn’t.

It is ‘generally believed’, yes, but this ‘general belief’ has, as I mentioned, gone into some questioning recently. Josephus was once cited as proof for this idea, but what he actually says is (Antiquities 13.297 [10.6]):

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.
It doesn’t say anything about canons of Scripture, but Sadducees rejecting Pharisaic traditions.

Some later Church Fathers (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9.24; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.49; St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 22:31f.) did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as canonical, but this is a matter contemporary sources - that is, the New Testament or even Josephus - does not say anything (though admittedly, this is an argument from silence), and as a consequence, there are folks who advise against uncritical use of these sources.

I quote from The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation by Stephen B. Chapman:
The evidence that the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books has long rested upon meager references by Origen and Jerome (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.49; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, on 22:31), the nature of which might just as well indicate a later confusion (second or third century A.D.) of the Sadducees with the Samaritans (For references, LeMoyne, Sadducéen, 142-44. Cf. Sundberg, Church 77-78. The confusion may have arisen from the actual fusion of these two groups in this period).
Building on the work of J. Maier (J. Maier, Auseinandersetzung), Carr has concluded that despite this possible confusion, and the complete absence of any confirmatory evidence in the writings of Josephus, early Mishnaic regulations indicate that priestly circles including the Sadducees ‘revered the Torah alone.’ (Carr, Canonization, 36 n. 39. Carr terms this absence ‘conspicuous’, but explains it away as the consequence of Josephus’ own goal of presenting a unified Judaism with a single canon. Contra Carr, it would seem a rather weak point for Josephus to make if it was so patently untrue.)
However, it is clear in Josephus’ work that the issue of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees did not have to do with a different scriptural canon, but with the authority of oral law, which the Pharisees championed. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.16; cf. Antiquities 13.297. Carr admits this point (Canonization, 36 n. 39), which then provides another example of interpreting ‘the law’ too narrowly. Cf. the sound judgments of Beckwith, Formation, 74; and Bruce, Canon, 40-41.)
Thus, to argue that Josephus overlooked the disagreement between the two groups over the scriptural canon is also to argue that he created a controversy over the oral law where none existed, and that he retreated from his effort to present a unified Judaism in one instance, but not in the other. Surely it is more likely that Josephus simply meant what he said.
Jesus’ debated with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection and the afterlife is also cited as proof, since Jesus quotes from the Torah. However, one could argue Jesus using Exodus at this point does not seem to automatically mean they solely rely upon the Torah if we look at the history of Biblical interpretation: after all, later Jewish (Deuteronomy 32:39; cf. Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 68a; Sifre Deuteronomy 306) and Christian tradition used passages from the Pentateuch in support of the resurrection. Also note Jesus’ words: he does not criticize them for an ignorance of ‘Moses’ or the ‘Law’, but their misunderstanding of “the Scriptures [and] the power of God.” His answer possesses force not because it is from pentateuchal tradition, and therefore authoritative, but because it uses Scripture to ground a belief in resurrection in God’s own self, and thus makes resurrection an essenial tenet of a ‘Scriptural’ faith.

Don’t you think that all this speaks even more to the point that the Jews of the day had lost touch with the scriptures? There credibility at this point is shaky at best and Jesus Himself knew it as you demonstrated.

At least, we know that the Apostles and the early Christians did. As for Jesus, since the Gospels are written in Greek, it would be natural that the Scriptural quotations would be in that language. We don’t really know whether He actually (always) used the LXX or whether the Evangelists just used a preexisting translation for those instances where Jesus quotes Scripture (which I presume He would have done in the Aramaic vernacular spoken by many people in his native region of the Galilee), kind of like how most of us use preexisting translations nowadays when we want to quote from the Bible instead of translating it from scratch ourselves.

You bring up an interesting point with language. Would Pilate have spoken to Jesus in Aramaic? Or would Jesus have conversed with Pilate in officious Latin or Koine Greek? Were the Jews demanding His crucifixion in Hebrew?

 

[patrick457]

You bring up an interesting point with language. Would Pilate have spoken to Jesus in Aramaic? Or would Jesus have conversed with Pilate in officious Latin or Koine Greek? Were the Jews demanding His crucifixion in Hebrew?

Well, the possibility of an interpreter involved is not too far out, even if you don’t see one in artworks and films. That said, Jesus was a laborer (tekton, traditionally ‘carpenter’) working in various odd jobs for much of His life, so it’s not too unlikely that He picked up some Greek along the way - whether He was actually fluent or not on the language in His humanity is another question of course. Greek was, as you’ve probably already guessed, the more common language in the eastern half of the Roman Empire (a relic of the days of Alexander the Great’s Macedonian Empire and its successor regimes), in contrast to the Latin more prevalent in the west.

As for Hebrew, we do know that it was still a spoken language in a few places down south in Judaea Province at the time of Jesus, but I think it more likely that the people present would have conversed in either Greek or Aramaic - which were more dominant at the time - or possibly both. Jerusalem was a very urban, cosmopolitan city as the many Greek inscriptions found there suggest, and the people who really wanted to do Jesus in were the higher-ups (the chief priests and the aristocratic elite), who I guess were well-educated enough to know the lingua franca.

A bit off-topic: for the record, many people in Jerusalem, the residents and the pilgrims, I think were too busy with the festival to be even bothered with (yet another) guy being put to death by Rome, and Jesus clearly was popular with the crowds (otherwise the authorities would not see Jesus as a nuisance and a threat to the peace and would not bother trying to find ways how to arrest Him in private - especially in such a dangerous time as Passover!), so I think the priests had to really pick who will go in with them and shout for His death to stack the deck against Jesus’ favor. I don’t think there was a ‘cast of thousands’ in the Praetorium as you see in the movies; it is also equally likely that the numbers were far less - heck, there could even be only a hundred or less people on that fateful day! - but that of course does and would not change the gravity of the matter.

 

[ForChrist]

The New King James is the correct version to read.

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD
The Bible is the word of God. Exodus 20:4 lists the commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” - this has always been the word of God.

DO YOU READ YOUR BIBLE?
In my knowledge of Catholicism, 95% of Catholics that go to church and take part in Catholic traditions never read a bible. Catholics rely on the priest to preach God’s word. If Catholics read a bible they would see the truth that is written. It’s all there!

THE POPE IS PAGAN, NOT CATHOLIC
Did you know that the pope is not even Catholic - he is Pagan. Look it up! You’ll be very surprised with your findings! Look for all the Pagan symbolism everywhere. All you have to do is search online and you’ll see evidence everywhere. The Catholic church once followed the word of God (the bible) but as life develops and changes so did the Catholic church - they started introducing man-made traditions - traditions that God did not approve of, since if you believe the bible is the word of God then you would believe what is written in the bible to be true. If you read the bible you will see that the Catholic church do not teach as the bible says - read it and find out for yourself. It’s easy to do. It’s all there!

THE EXTRA 7 BOOKS
The 7 deuterocanonical books you talk of were written by Jewish authors in the period between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New Testament but were never accepted as scripture by the Jews. These writings contain numerous teachings that contradict authentic Scripture (e.g., praying for the dead, the doctrine of purgatory, the teaching that salvation is available through good works and the giving of alms). These writings contain numerous historical, geographical and chronological errors. Jesus and the apostles cite the Jewish Scriptures nearly three hundred times in the pages of the New Testament but they never quote any of the extra books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. The extra books were never included in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews themselves, from whom these books came, did not accept or regard the writings as divinely inspired, but merely of historic and cultural value. Although part of the RC Bible today, these writings were not formally declared to be authoritative and inspired even by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.

The reason for the Roman Catholic Church’s eventual acceptance of these writings into the canon of Scripture was to counter the teachings of Martin Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation. These men were causing problems by pointing out that many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church came from these disputed writings and NOT from the historic sixty-six books of the Bible. So the RC church countered that by simply increasing their official version of the Bible to 73 books and said “there you are – NOW they ARE in the Bible, so go away and stop complaining that we are teaching unbiblical doctrines and dogmas”

GOD’S LAW

Read: Revelation 22:18-19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

QUOTING WHAT YOU SAID "THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS"

Very, very true.

*Revelation 17:4-5: “The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”

Catholic cardinals frequently wear scarlet.
Catholic priests wear red on Good Friday, Palm Sunday, Pentecost, and other special occasions. They wear purple on Advent, Lent, and at funerals.
Riches are lavished on the icons of Catholicism.
Gold, pearls, and precious stones and pearls deck the statues of Mary and the saints in the Vatican.
The riches and treasures lavished on the stately buildings of the Roman Catholic Church are beyond description.
The official clothing worn by the Pope on special occasions is richer in Gold and jewelry than any earthly crown. The papal tiara on display in the Vatican Museum is valuable beyond comprehension).*

Revelation 13:1: “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy”

Think about it - the seven heads represent the Roman Empire or known world, and the ten horns represent the ten provinces of Rome. The seven crowns represent Satan’s power or total dominion over the world/Roman Empire.

There is no better place for Satan to deceive the masses than in a church - and it is Satan’s wish to have people go against Christ and Christ’s wishes. He can deviously deceive the masses. This is what he’s done.

This was written with love. I want to share this with you. God said himself, to follow what he has written in the bible, and not what man tells you. There is a big difference between the two. I encourage you to read your bible, for you will find everything you need written in it.

 

[patrick457]

Okay, let’s continue with the discussion.

 

[patrick457]

The New King James is the correct version to read.

By whose authority?

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD
The Bible is the word of God. Exodus 20:4 lists the commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” - this has always been the word of God.

The Hebrew word used here is pesel, in the strict sense referring to images carved in wood, hewn in stone or cast in metal: in the Old Testament, the word is almost exclusively used to refer to pagan cultic images. If we take the commandment literalistically here, painted images are not under the prohibition.

But wait! If we look closer, God seems to violate His own commandment and seems to condone those that make likenesses of creatures both in the heavens above or in the land below! Is God contradicting Himself?

“And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.”

====

“You shall make a veil woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim. You shall hang it upon the four pillars of acacia wood overlaid with gold. Their hooks shall be gold, upon four sockets of silver. And you shall hang the veil from the clasps. Then you shall bring the ark of the Testimony in there, behind the veil. The veil shall be a divider for you between the holy place and the Most Holy.”

====

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

====

Inside the inner sanctuary [Solomon] made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub five cubits: ten cubits from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other. And the other cherub was ten cubits; both cherubim were of the same size and shape. The height of one cherub was ten cubits, and so was the other cherub. Then he set the cherubim inside the inner room; and they stretched out the wings of the cherubim so that the wing of the one touched one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall. And their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. Also he overlaid the cherubim with gold.
Then he carved all the walls of the temple all around, both the inner and outer sanctuaries, with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. And the floor of the temple he overlaid with gold, both the inner and outer sanctuaries.
For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood; the lintel and doorposts were one-fifth of the wall. The two doors were of olive wood; and he carved on them figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread gold on the cherubim and on the palm trees. So for the door of the sanctuary he also made doorposts of olive wood, one-fourth of the wall. And the two doors were of cypress wood; two panels comprised one folding door, and two panels comprised the other folding door. Then he carved cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers on them, and overlaid them with gold applied evenly on the carved work.

====

And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
Below its brim were ornamental buds encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The ornamental buds were cast in two rows when it was cast. It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained two thousand baths.

====

He also made ten carts of bronze; four cubits was the length of each cart, four cubits its width, and three cubits its height. And this was the design of the carts: They had panels, and the panels were between frames; on the panels that were between the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. …] On the plates of its flanges and on its panels he engraved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, wherever there was a clear space on each, with wreaths all around. Thus he made the ten carts. All of them were of the same mold, one measure, and one shape.

What is up with the Temple and all its graven images? Surely God would not allow it!

Then the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the temple, to the Most Holy Place, under the wings of the cherubim. …] And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.

No, wait…

 

[patrick457]

THE POPE IS PAGAN, NOT CATHOLIC
Did you know that the pope is not even Catholic - he is Pagan. Look it up! You’ll be very surprised with your findings! Look for all the Pagan symbolism everywhere. All you have to do is search online and you’ll see evidence everywhere.

Big deal; you might as well accuse us of having pagan legs.

THE EXTRA 7 BOOKS
The 7 deuterocanonical books you talk of were written by Jewish authors in the period between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New Testament but were never accepted as scripture by the Jews. These writings contain numerous teachings that contradict authentic Scripture (e.g., praying for the dead, the doctrine of purgatory, the teaching that salvation is available through good works and the giving of alms). These writings contain numerous historical, geographical and chronological errors.

So under this line of reasoning, James contradicts authentic Scripture then?

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

“And the giving of alms.” Whew. I guess that makes Jesus a false teacher.

Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness. Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also? But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you.”

Oh, and while we’re at it, Jews even today also have prayers for the dead. El male rachamim is one good example.

Jesus and the apostles cite the Jewish Scriptures nearly three hundred times in the pages of the New Testament but they never quote any of the extra books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

They never quote or allude to Esther either, nor Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, nor Nahum. Does that mean we should throw these books away from our Bibles?

The extra books were never included in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews themselves, from whom these books came, did not accept or regard the writings as divinely inspired, but merely of historic and cultural value.

Did it never occur to you that during the time of Jesus, there was no canon of Scripture to speak of, and that you’ll probably get different answers depending on who you ask? Everyone accepted the Torah as having some special status, but disagreement came on which books came afterwards. Long story short, the Jews themselves only settled upon which books are canonical long after the split with Christianity occurred (no need to cite the hypothetical Council of Jamnia here). So, since we’ve already gone in separate ways, I don’t see why we need to conform to the Scriptural canon of the other side.

 

[patrick457]

The reason for the Roman Catholic Church’s eventual acceptance of these writings into the canon of Scripture was to counter the teachings of Martin Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation. These men were causing problems by pointing out that many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church came from these disputed writings and NOT from the historic sixty-six books of the Bible. So the RC church countered that by simply increasing their official version of the Bible to 73 books and said “there you are – NOW they ARE in the Bible, so go away and stop complaining that we are teaching unbiblical doctrines and dogmas”

Nope; Protestants are pretty much the odd man out here. All the historical Churches (by which I mean the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church) in the East and the West, even if they do not agree on the exact number of the books in the Bible, all consider the seven books in question to be Scripture. That should be a good proof enough.

Also, I might add that these books were pretty much de facto considered Scripture; it was only during the Council of Trent, in the controversy caused by Luther and his ilk, that the historic belief was ratified (I think you’re mixing up ‘affirmed’ with ‘added’ here).

The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa in AD 393; the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a 6th century compilation.

In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop named Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of the Council of Florence, Pope Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, with a view to restore the Eastern Churches to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The Decretum pro Jacobitis contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity. I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It was the exigencies of controversy that first led Luther to draw a sharp line between the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian writings. In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the book was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther’s Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments. To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defense, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments “with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition”. During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither—and this is remarkable—in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. The Tridentine catalogue has been given above.—(c) In the Vatican Council, 1870.—The great constructive Synod of Trent had put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. By implication it had defined that Bible’s plenary inspiration also. The Vatican Council took occasion of a recent error on inspiration to remove any lingering shadow of uncertainty on this head; it formally ratified the action of Trent and explicitly defined the Divine inspiration of all the books with their parts.
BTW, have you actually read what the council says?

 

[Mark_David]

If you’re going to read the King James (and there are several reasons why you shouldn’t, as already suggested), you may as well pick up the 21st Century Edition (KJ21), as it’s simply a tidy-up of some of the awkward, sometimes bad English. The NKJV radically departs from the original in many places, and does (I believe) use the Westcott-Hort as a guide (and sometimes as a substitute). I never considered it a true update.

How about the Confraternity Edition(s)? Were they the predecessors of the NAB? I haven’t found one online. And the Catholic Public Domain Version? It seems like a mild paraphrase of the Chancellor to me. I’ve actually grown fond of the NAB, despite being too liberal for its own good; I always refer to the Douay-Rheims when in doubt. Ultimately, I would love a modern, conservative translation of the Latin Vulgate, or simply an updating of the Douay-Rheims’ English.

By the way, I don’t recommend burning any Bible for any reason - for the mere fact that it can be physically dangerous; plus the toxic fumes aren’t something that you want to inhale I simply put books in the trash when I no longer want them, or give away those that I’m indifferent to. Moreover, destroying or trashing any translation of God’s word is wrong IMHO, no matter how flawed it is. (Well, The Message - appropriately abbreviated MSG - and other ridiculous “paraphrases”/deviations may be an exception.)

Thanks for that site containing the original Douay-Rheims, Patrick! It also has a parallel option, which is always convenient.

 

[patrick457]

How about the Confraternity Edition(s)? Were they the predecessors of the NAB? I haven’t found one online. And the Catholic Public Domain Version? It seems like a mild paraphrase of the Chancellor to me. I’ve actually grown fond of the NAB, despite being too liberal for its own good; I always refer to the Douay-Rheims when in doubt. Ultimately, I would love a modern, conservative translation of the Latin Vulgate, or simply an updating of the Douay-Rheims’ English.

Not too long ago Ron Conte (who also posts, or at least, posted here in CAF) did a modern translation of the Vulgate, known as the Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV).

By the way, I don’t recommend burning any Bible for any reason - for the mere fact that it can be physically dangerous; plus the toxic fumes aren’t something that you want to inhale I simply put books in the trash when I no longer want them, or give away those that I’m indifferent to. Moreover, destroying or trashing any translation of God’s word is wrong IMHO, no matter how flawed it is. (Well, The Message - appropriately abbreviated MSG - and other ridiculous “paraphrases”/deviations may be an exception.)

Admittedly I’m pretty much of the same opinion as well. I don’t see why we could, say, just bury it in the ground or store it away somewhere (a la Jewish genizoth) or sell it. I really like to imagine archaeologists a couple thousand years from now stumbling into one and finding a lot of copies of, say, the Good News Bible.

Thanks for that site containing the original Douay-Rheims, Patrick! It also has a parallel option, which is always convenient.

If you really want to get hardcore, there’s always the online facsimiles of the original Rheims NT and Douai OT. Or you could always buy one in print.

 

[Mark_David]

Not too long ago Ron Conte (who also posts, or at least, posted here in CAF) did a modern translation of the Vulgate, known as the Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV).

Oh, nice! Just attests to the clarity of the Latin Vulgate itself, as I assumed that this was merely a paraphrased Douay-Rheims, judging by the text. God bless Mr. Conte for insisting that this version remain in the public domain for all times; I shall be reading it more regularly.

If you really want to get hardcore, there’s always the online facsimiles of the original Rheims NT and Douai OT. Or you could always buy one in print.

You da man! Definitely buying myself a copy; this is great. So far I actually prefer the grammar and choice of words in some places (despite the archaic spelling), such as in Psalm 2:4-5 -

*He that dwelleth in the heauens, shal laugh at them: and our Lord shal scorne them. Then shal he speake to them in his wrath, & in his furie he shal truble them. *

As opposed to -

*He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage. *

 

[patrick457]

You da man! Definitely buying myself a copy; this is great. So far I actually prefer the grammar and choice of words in some places (despite the archaic spelling), such as in Psalm 2:4-5 -

*He that dwelleth in the heauens, shal laugh at them: and our Lord shal scorne them. Then shal he speake to them in his wrath, & in his furie he shal truble them. *

As opposed to -

*He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage. *

I have an interesting side trivia. The original translators of the Rheims NT and Douai OT were of the opinion that a translation of the Bible should be slavishly faithful to the point that if one finds an obscure or ambiguous passage in the original text, the translation should never attempt to clarify but must instead keep fidelity to the original and thus be obscure and ambiguous as well, with the various options for understanding the text discussed in a marginal note: “we presume not in hard places to modifie the speaches or phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word, and point for point, for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.”

This was one of their main bones to pick with many Protestant translations (such as the Geneva Bible, the primary Bible of the 16th century English Protestant movement before the KJV came out - in fact, the reason why the KJV was commissioned in the first place was because King James I, as well as other CofE folks, disliked the very Calvinistic and Puritan character of the Geneva Bible so much!), in that they strive to render the original text in clear English at the cost of fidelity to the text. Previous English versions had improperly imputed clear meanings for obscure passages in the Greek, where the Latin Vulgate had often tended to rather render the Greek literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions.

 

[patrick457]

Catholic cardinals frequently wear scarlet.

Which is a false connection. So just because cardinals wear scarlet choir dresses that automatically means the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon? Right.

Catholic priests wear red on Good Friday, Palm Sunday, Pentecost, and other special occasions. They wear purple on Advent, Lent, and at funerals.

Trivia: the whole concept of liturgical colors was only something that developed in the Middle Ages, and even then, there was a great variation between different locales (which follow different liturgical rites and uses). In more ancient times, there was as yet no color coordination: people simply wore vestments, saving the best for special feasts. Even today in fact, the Coptic Church has no concept of liturgical colors - they wear white (gold and silver being considered variations on white) vestments all the time.

In fact, white is the dominant color of vestments! White (with silver and gold liturgically considered ‘white’) is the color used in a good number of feasts as well as the Sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, and Holy Order. If you’ve looked closely at the vestments clergymen wear, you’ll notice that all priests at least wear a white vestment (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so. You have the alb (a descendant of the tunic), which comes from the Latin word albus meaning ‘white’!

Now what the Bible say about white garments? Limiting myself to three passages in Revelation:

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem (19:8). We have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally. Also, the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints”); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning.

The problem is that your interpretation ignores the meaning that these colors have within the Church. Red at once symbolizes fire and blood: it honors the fire of the Holy Spirit, the Blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs (which is the seed of the Church, according to Tertullian). Hence, red is worn during Pentecost, the Sacrament of Confirmation, and during the feastdays of martyrs, and since the revision of the Liturgy, during feasts commemorating the Passion of Jesus. Violet (violaceus) in the Roman Rite symbolizes abasement, fasting, and penance.

But hey! God Himself ordered the sons of Israel that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Leviticus 14:4, 6, 49–52; Numbers 19:6), and commanded that the Tabernacle’s curtains (Exodus 26:1-6, 31-37), as well as priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29).

For the record, the older color in the Roman Rite for Good Friday as well as funerals, is black. In the Ambrosian Rite practiced in Milan, black is not only the colour of mourning but also that of penance and fasting: hence, you see it worn during weekdays in Lent. On Sundays, when penance is partially mitigated and fast is suspended, the liturgical color a dark sort of violet called morello, which is very different form the Roman violaceo. Red is in the Ambrosian Rite the color of the Passion: red of course symbolizing blood.

Riches are lavished on the icons of Catholicism.
Gold, pearls, and precious stones and pearls deck the statues of Mary and the saints in the Vatican.
The riches and treasures lavished on the stately buildings of the Roman Catholic Church are beyond description.
The official clothing worn by the Pope on special occasions is richer in Gold and jewelry than any earthly crown. The papal tiara on display in the Vatican Museum is valuable beyond comprehension).

Again, a logical fallacy.