Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024
  • If you would like to contact me, you can e-mail me at DanielFontenot46 at gmail dot com
    #churchhistory #earlychristianity #textusreceptus #constantine #rcc #catholic #catholicchurch #catholicism #kjvbible #romancatholic #romancatholicchurch #history #papacy #waldenses #catholicbible

Комментарии • 29

  • @keithwhitlock726
    @keithwhitlock726 3 месяца назад +2

    Thank you for this presentation. Important history which is seldom discussed.

  • @peterj2226
    @peterj2226 3 месяца назад +1

    It's Waldensian not Waldesian.

  • @brucedavenport7016
    @brucedavenport7016 3 месяца назад

    Short answer = NO!

  • @TheElizabethashby
    @TheElizabethashby 3 месяца назад +5

    GOD GAVE US THE BIBLE NOT THE RCC THEY NEVER WANTED US TO KNOW THE WORD OF THE LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST

    • @JewelsofTruth
      @JewelsofTruth  3 месяца назад +1

      Amen!

    • @georgekustner3440
      @georgekustner3440 3 месяца назад

      ​@JewelsofTruth what a nonsense. God did not give the bible. It was written by men as a narrative about the life and the expressions of Jesus. When you say "God Gave the bible" then that is a lie and therefor of Satan. You may say, the writing of the Bible was inspired by God.

  • @downenout8705
    @downenout8705 3 месяца назад

    Any version of the Bible translated from Latin is demonstrably not authentic. The Bible was originally written in Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. The LSB translates into modern English from these languages.

  • @jomerorobia4140
    @jomerorobia4140 3 месяца назад

    we can say they collect the bible, but the sign of anti-Christ teaching is in their God. The Trinity.

  • @francoisplaniol1489
    @francoisplaniol1489 3 месяца назад

    That is so simple: the catholic church began to exist - depending on what you set for a starting point - either in the 6th century (after the non-trinitarian tribes had been killed), or rather in 1056, when the pope separated from the rest of the church and created his own worldwide organization. Catholic means universal; before 1056 he was not universal but "only" one of the patriarchs. Roman means the head is in Rom. No way around, their name condemn them. The earliest recognized canon is from Origenes and its faaaaar before any of these dates. BTW: the RCC can not claim to be the church before these dates. It was not. RCC says the name: Roman. Before 1056, there was no worldwide roman church. Do not get fooled, RCC is a sect, a cult, a chism from the church before 1056. The great schism, there is a reason for this name.

    • @francoisplaniol1489
      @francoisplaniol1489 3 месяца назад

      @@mikecrawford8394 I guess this would give some happiness hormones, but this is quite a mess of misinformation, what you present here. You just repeat what "some" said to you, without having verified nothing. At pentecost the church of the Most High started. The church is only universal before God. Forcing for earthly universality (catholicism) is only possible through dictature, which Popes never missed to use and abuse. Peter was never a pope and he never considered himself such. Also not James, who should have been lost for eternity (according to non-sense roman canon law) for having opposed fiercely against Peter. No, this was NOT the roman catholic church. And the bishops of Rom were NOT roman catholic, and knowing your definition of Roman catholic, they would have refused the title, exactly as Gregory the great accused anyone wanting to have universal power over the whole earth as antichrist - yes he did, with right. The council of Nicea organized the church in five INDEPENDENT Patriarchs and had no problem with churches refusing the authority of these patriarchs. The Roman catholic church was born from a faulty interpretation of Peter AND a bellicose wish of being the first. Till the great schism, the RC church was NOT organized as a world-wide organization, this could it become only after having intentionally provoked and separated from the other four patriarchs. RC is just a miserable, poor, stupid, awful cult.

  • @billygoat5468
    @billygoat5468 3 месяца назад +1

    K.J.V perfect Word of GOD baby no errors in the K.J.V BIBLE PERFECT

  • @snoopy3587
    @snoopy3587 3 месяца назад +3

    Calvanist, I see, so the original was corrupt, and the altered copies 1,600 years later are the correct ones????? Whaooo 😂

  • @diosdadosasil1559
    @diosdadosasil1559 3 месяца назад

    Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Prophets were the writers of the Bible. THEY WERE NOT CATHOLICS, THEY WERE ALL JEWS.

  • @thejerichoconnection3473
    @thejerichoconnection3473 3 месяца назад

    Could you please give some concrete examples of books or passages that were added/altered in this supposedly corrupted stream of Bible? Is the KJV corrupted or pure?

    • @JewelsofTruth
      @JewelsofTruth  3 месяца назад

      One example is that whereas Isaiah 7:14 in the King James Bible states that, "a VIRGIN shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel", some of the modern versions state that, "a YOUNG WOMAN shall conceive and bear a Son, etc." In this way, the modern versions deny the virgin birth of Christ." In light of this, it is very interesting that the NRSV Catholic Edition denies the virgin birth of Christ as stated in Isaiah 7:14 and yet they deify the "VirginMary".
      It doesn't make sense.
      The King James Bible comes from the pure line of Bibles.

    • @thejerichoconnection3473
      @thejerichoconnection3473 3 месяца назад

      @@JewelsofTruth but then you are talking about different English translations. That has nothing to do with Bible text corruption.
      Regarding your specific example, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is ALMAH and literally means “young woman”. Obviously, from the context it is clear that that young woman would also be a virgin (otherwise it wouldn’t be a great sign). Some translations prefer to maintain the literal meaning, some others to emphasize the obvious implications.
      In fact, the NRSV has even a footnote noting that the Greek Septuagint has “virgin”. Another historical Catholic translation (comparable to the Protestant KJV), the Douay-Rheims also has “virgin”.
      How could anyone in his right mind even imagine that Catholics would deny the virgin birth?
      Again: can you please provide concrete examples of biblical passages that were either added or altered by the Catholic Church?

    • @billygoat5468
      @billygoat5468 3 месяца назад

      Watch Robert Breaker why the K.J.V ONLY. ​@@thejerichoconnection3473

    • @brucedavenport7016
      @brucedavenport7016 3 месяца назад

      @@thejerichoconnection3473 The catholic church "alters" scripture via tradition.
      The words remain the same but the ancient theologians decided XY and Z
      Thus you can make claims while saying you never altered the text!
      The "veneration" of mary...you didn't alter the script just added catholic "tradition" to it.
      Praying to dead people...your argument is that the Bible doesn't say you can't!
      The rosary...idol worship, but you explain it away saying you are giving thanks to God.
      On and on and on it goes!

    • @aadschram5877
      @aadschram5877 3 месяца назад

      @@thejerichoconnection3473 Amen!

  • @bekangreppachuau4561
    @bekangreppachuau4561 3 месяца назад

    No they don't...the Bible is from GOD through the apostle and deciple of God...RCC has different book

  • @TheElizabethashby
    @TheElizabethashby 3 месяца назад +1

    THE RCC HATE THE KJV BIBLE