New Bible Versions Promote Catholic Doctrine - Excerpt from Gail Riplinger's book

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#1
New Bible Versions Promote Catholic Doctrine


By Gail Riplinger
An Excerpt from Which Bible Is God's Word?




Editor: Small changes in the wording of the Scriptures can often result in major changes in meaning. Christians who claim that all Bible Versions are equally good have usually not bothered to check the facts.

The following is a small excerpt from
Which Bible Is God's Word?by Gail Riplinger, in which she shows how the identity of Mystery Babylon is hidden in many new version and it's done oh, so simply.

"Renewal" is a word that was introduced into the New American Standard Version; there is no such word in any Greek text, so the NASB had to put it in italics.
This is just one example of the Roman Catholic vocabulary that has been introduced into the new versions.

In the Roman Catholic Church, a "renewal" is merely a time when a member renews their baptismal vows and enthusiasm for God. The bible, however, says we "must" be born again (John 3:7).

Roman Catholics believe that at infant baptism one is saved and they merely renew their enthusiasm periodically.

Just as Jesus Christ has a bride, his church, so Satan, the great counterfeiter, has a whore, his church. She is described in Revelation 17:5 as "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH."

Revelation 17:9 says she sits on seven hills ("seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth"). To hide the identity of this harlots church, the NIV and NASB make changes in the new bibles.

1. They omit the word "city" from Revelation 14:8 so you will not know it is a city.

2. In Revelation 17:9-10, they change something very serious, and this had directly affected the exegesis on Revelation 17 throughout the body of Christ today. The King James Version says, "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." Period.

A new sentence starts in verse ten, "And there are seven kings." Verse nine and ten are about different things. New versions change it and say, "The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits and they are seven kings."

They are trying to make a connection between the hills and the kings so you will not notice that the seven hills are the city of Rome.

During the Dark Ages (A.D. 500-1500), Rome burned Bibles along with their owners. Revelation 19:2 says that God will avenge "The blood of his servants at her hand."

The words "at her hand" have been omitted in the NIV so the harlot will not be caught red-handed.

The pope put the Textus Receptus, that is, the traditional Greek text, on the Index of Forbidden Books.

It was so different from the Catholic Church's Vulgate Bible, which is based on the Vaticanus manuscript.

Protestants have reworked their Greek text to match Roman's Vaticanus Manuscript. Roman Catholic cardinal Carlo Martini is even on the Protestant Greek New Testament committee.

The prefaces to the Roman Catholic New American Bible, the NASB, and the NIV, all tell the reader that they are based on the same Nestle/UBS Greek text. It is no wonder, after twenty years of reading Roman Catholic Bibles with NIV/NASB covers, that evangelical leaders signed a pact with Rome (March 1994).
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#2
as usual this excerpt is ridiculously misinformed...

the textus receptus that the king james version was translated from was compiled by a roman catholic scholar...it was even dedicated to pope leo x...

if anyone is using a 'catholic bible version'...it would be the king james only cult...
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,325
2,416
113
#4
as usual this excerpt is ridiculously misinformed...

the textus receptus that the king james version was translated from was compiled by a roman catholic scholar...it was even dedicated to pope leo x...

if anyone is using a 'catholic bible version'...it would be the king james only cult...
Some of this stuff is actually pretty complicated,
and I believe the KJV actually used a number of Greek manuscripts, including those from Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

Just because Chosen likes to copy and paste a lot of inflammatory things, doesn't mean we should all just dig into delicate issues of manuscript evidence like construction workers with a backhoe.

God Bless
 
B

Bippie71

Guest
#5
Y r so many things refferf to as a cult on here?
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people dislike Catholics, in general. My mom's family is Catholic. Baptist on my dad's. I don't think the majority of Catholics are even aware of the changes that the Vatican approves to Bibles. To be quite honest, in the Catholic Churches I've been to, many of the Catholics had 'protestant' Bibles. The priest said it was okay.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#6

During the Dark Ages (A.D. 500-1500), Rome burned Bibles along with their owners. Revelation 19:2 says that God will avenge "The blood of his servants at her hand."

Uh no they couldn't have burned Bibles because according to you, the one true bible wasnt written yet. 1500 AD is before 1611...

Nice theories though. Picking apart semantics that any person with common sense would understand contrary to what this quackjob says.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#7
Rome used the same greek and Hebrew texts for their bible as the protestants. The divergence started when they translated them into latin instead of commonly spoken languages. For a very long time roman masses were done in latin and here in the USA nobody really knew what was being said.
The problem is not the newest version of the bible but the people who are reading it. Let's remember that even in the most watered down version the bible is still Gods word and God can use it to bring a soul to Christ. Just for clarity I do not recommend a lot of the newest versions on the market. I do however recommend that you read which ever version you possess. The best version, the most accurate translation will never do anything if left on the nightstand.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#8
as usual this excerpt is ridiculously misinformed...

the textus receptus that the king james version was translated from was compiled by a roman catholic scholar...it was even dedicated to pope leo x...

if anyone is using a 'catholic bible version'...it would be the king james only cult...
Desiderius Erasmus the so-called "roman catholic scholar" to whom you are referring was only catholic in name but not in practice, when he compiled the Textus Receptus. And he cleverly dedicated it to the Pope so that he unwittingly approved its publication. A very shrewd move on his part. Erasmus believed in the teachings of the Reformation.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,325
2,416
113
#9
Bippie71;1069246[B said:
]I'm still trying to figure out why so many people dislike Catholics[/B], in general. My mom's family is Catholic. Baptist on my dad's. I don't think the majority of Catholics are even aware of the changes that the Vatican approves to Bibles. To be quite honest, in the Catholic Churches I've been to, many of the Catholics had 'protestant' Bibles. The priest said it was okay.
I have to agree... I like Catholics just fine.

I do think a lot of protestants have real issues with doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
In my mind, having issues with doctrines of a church is a very different thing than having issues with the individual members at a personal level.

I like Catholic folks just fine.
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#10
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people dislike Catholics, in general. My mom's family is Catholic. Baptist on my dad's. I don't think the majority of Catholics are even aware of the changes that the Vatican approves to Bibles. To be quite honest, in the Catholic Churches I've been to, many of the Catholics had 'protestant' Bibles. The priest said it was okay.
Personally I have no hatred for Catholics. Why? Because God loves Catholics. That's why I hate Catholicism, it's teachings are sending millions of people who God loves to hell.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#11
Desiderius Erasmus the so-called "roman catholic scholar" to whom you are referring was only catholic in name but not in practice, when he compiled the Textus Receptus. And he cleverly dedicated it to the Pope so that he unwittingly approved its publication. A very shrewd move on his part. Erasmus believed in the teachings of the Reformation.
actually erasmus was so devoted to the roman catholic church that he said he would agree with history's most infamous heretics if the roman catholic church approved them...

erasmus was not a reformationist...as can be seen from his exchanges with luther...
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#12
actually erasmus was so devoted to the roman catholic church that he said he would agree with history's most infamous heretics if the roman catholic church approved them...

erasmus was not a reformationist...as can be seen from his exchanges with luther...
Actually near the end of his life he held beliefs akin to the ana-baptists he is quoted as writing:

"After you have taught them these things, and they believe what you have taught them, have repented their previous lives, and are ready to embrace the doctrine of the gospel (in their life), then immerse them in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"

Thus he taught repentance and believers baptism. Not catholic dogmas by any stretch of the imagination. It appears he his views had gradually been changing over the years.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#13
Actually near the end of his life he held beliefs akin to the ana-baptists he is quoted as writing:

"After you have taught them these things, and they believe what you have taught them, have repented their previous lives, and are ready to embrace the doctrine of the gospel (in their life), then immerse them in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"

Thus he taught repentance and believers baptism. Not catholic dogmas by any stretch of the imagination. It appears he his views had gradually been changing over the years.
actually the opposite is the case...whereas in his youth erasmus was more 'open minded' about doctrine...near the end of his life he adhered much more closely to official roman catholic doctrine...he withdrew some of his earlier statements and attacked the reformers...and he accused them of misusing his statements to further their agenda...

your example does not prove that erasmus agreed with the anabaptist teaching on baptism...it is clear from his words that he was talking about adults who are being discipled...that doesn't mean that he didn't approve of infant baptism...it just means he wasn't talking about it in this quotation...

in 1526 erasmus wrote this to luther..."Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers...?"

and here is what erasmus wrote in a letter in 1527..."What weight the authority of the church may have with others, I know not; but with me it weighs so much, that I could be of the opinion of the Arians and Pelagians, if the church had approved their doctrines."

in 1529 he wrote this to one of the early lutherans..."Show me any one person who by that Gospel has been reclaimed from drunkenness to sobriety, from fury and passion to meekness, from avarice to liberality, from reviling to well-speaking, from wantonness to modesty. I will show you a great many who have become worse through following it."

it is important to note that he made these comments only a few years after 1522 when he published the third edition of the textus receptus...which became the basis of the king james version...

it is just plain hypocritical for those who adhere to the king james version and the textus receptus to condemn modern bible translations for being influenced by roman catholicism...
 
M

MaggieMye

Guest
#14
Post #7 by Notuptome: "Let's remember that even in the most watered down version the bible is still Gods" Ahhh no. A watered down version is NOT Gods. A watered-down version is a DECEPTION. God does not mince words! Changes done TO the word of God are far to many and far too often and most often done to make it palletable (sp) to the reader.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
#15
I would just like for once to see ChosenByHim post something in his own words, and not a video or a cut and paste of someone else's opinions.

It is like a parrot, and after a while, you realize the parrot really doesn't think or know anything, just says the words. I know CBH is NOT like that - please post something that is scriptural and in your own words the reasons you picked it.

I hope I don't sound too much like the teacher I am!

As for Catholics, I think many find their way to believing in Christ, in spite of doctrines or bad Bible translations. It is God who saves, not the translation of the Bible.
 
Aug 17, 2007
496
4
18
#16
I Think It Is Very Sad How There Are Some People Who Would Pass Judgement Tobother People Who Are Of A Different Religion. Did The Bible Say Not To Judge Others In Matthew 7:1? There Is A Lot Of Disregard To This Scripture Going On Here And That Is The Reason Why I Myself Refuse To Donate To This Site. Whether Other People Donate Here Is Their Own Business And I Respect Their Right To Donate But I Would Rather Donate My Money To The Roman Catholic Church Than To Donate It To Christianchat.Com.
 
Aug 17, 2007
496
4
18
#17
Oh And By The Way, Did God Command Us All To Love Thy Neighbor. Well By Hating The Catholics And Others Who Are Of A Different Religion As Yourself Is Violating God's commandments. If You Hate Your Neighbor, then You Hate God.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#18
I would just like for once to see ChosenByHim post something in his own words, and not a video or a cut and paste of someone else's opinions.
you aren't allowed to have your own opinions in a cult...