Is the King James Bible really worth reading if I want to both understand Christianity and to appreciate its literary...

Is the King James Bible really worth reading if I want to both understand Christianity and to appreciate its literary merits? Will it just be a waste of time unless one reads it purely for literary purposes? What parts can one skip/What parts are important?

Other urls found in this thread:

die-bibel.de
youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8
newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/King-James-in-America-5306
youtube.com/watch?v=bieEyc9bJm0
youtube.com/watch?v=T25WVBO5ouw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is it the most accurate translation? No. Will it give you a pretty good idea of what Christianity is about? Yeah.

>is the central text of a religion worth reading to understand said religion

I really, really hope that this is bait. Otherwise here's your (You)

He could just get an annotated version so he can get two birds stoned at once.

get the Jerusalem Bible or RCSV
not proddy shit

This. /thread

>proddy
what does proddy mean

Protestant, a branch of Christianity which is most commonly found in Northern Europe: Scandinavia, Germany, and Great Britian. Protestants reject Papal supremacy and reject the notion that the Catholic Church is sole authority of the Christian religion. Protestants generally believe any man can be a proper Christian, without the need for a hierarchy

You'd probably be better off reading about the history of different branches of Christianity. Knowing the source material will deepen your understanding of the religious canon that governs the branches but without understanding the social histories you won't have a sufficient awareness of the modern branches precursors to understand where they're coming from.

aka: heretics

Vatican II abrogated this.

Here you go OP

You can get annotated or study versions of most bibles as well. New Oxford Annotated Bible is the most recommended one, it uses the NRSV for the main text. The NABRE comes with annotations included.

He shouldn't use the NRSV if he wants to learn about Christianity. It is a decidedly liberal, non-Christian translation.

Almost all the NRSV translators were Christian

It deliberately translates parts of the Old Testament so that they will contradict with the New Testament and orthodox Christian interpretations. There is also the issue of its strict gender neutrality, which is a deliberate mistranslation for political reasons.

The KJV crowd are very cultish. There is no tangible benefit to reading an archaic translation that is riddled with errors. You could read the Iliad or the Odyssey in Old English but why the fuck would you? You would just be making it harder to understand what you're reading.

>history of different branches of Christianity

any recommendations ion books about the many branches

I am currently reading the Kings James Bible and it's great, a bit difficult to understand at times but the prose is amazing. I have tried reading the CSB before but the prose is written for your typical double digits IQ american.

What is the best german translation of The Bible?

Read it in English

Pleb, the KJV is written in early modern English, and if you are going to put your faith into any of the translations, that's the best bet. Many different translations contradict each other and have changes made for the sake of copyrighting their translation. Some of these may even be intentional errors, similar to how cartographers used to use fake towns and trap streets as a countermeasure against copyright violators. God made a promise to preserve His word, and the KJV is the version that's been accessible to the majority of humans for the longest time.
To assume that the absolute oldest known copies of a text are the most accurate is a mistake.

>To assume that the absolute oldest known copies of a text are the most accurate is a mistake.
Yes, a 17th century English translation is more accurate than the earliest manuscripts in the original languages, of course.

The way you knuckledraggers defend this translation you'd think Jesus himself wrote the damn thing, unicorns and cockatrices included.

The Luther 1984 translation is meant to be pretty good.

There's this website to compare several translations here:

die-bibel.de

not an argument, most christians believe the bible is divinely inspired, and if the translation is perfect it's just as good as the origina
>historical definition of unicorn
>In various Bible translations, used to render the Latin unicornis or rhinoceros (representing Hebrew רְאֵם); a reem or wild ox.
but continue to be ignorant
You make two assumptions with your post. 1.) a translation can't be perfect and 2.) an earlier translation is always better, or same-language transcriptions don't produce errors.
Suppose something like the dead sea scrolls were written by a radical reformer and aren't actually representative of the original text. There's no way to know if that's the case or not because the original text is lost.

The Hebrew word the KJV translates as "unicorn" is re'em, which modern scholars have identified with an auroch, or a large horned cow that is now extinct. This is why modern translators render the word as "wild ox" instead.

The KJV translates Jeremiah 8:17 as "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bight you, saith the lord." and Isaiah 11:8 as "and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the ask, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den."

However, the cockatrice, a mythical creature that can kill its victim with a casual glance, is a product of the medieval imagination and would have been unknown to prophets like Jeremiah or Isaiah. Allusions of the creature can be traced back to Pliny the Elder, the dissident Catholic John Wycliffe first used the term "cockatrice" in 1382 in his popular translation of the bible. It was later used in the 1535 Coverdale Bible, which may have been the source for the KJV's use of the word.

Although Isaiah and Jeremiah would have been unaware of the cockatrice, they would have known what a tsepha' was. This is the Hebrew word used in passages like Isaiah 11:8, and it simply means "poisonous serpent." Today, most modern translations use the word "adder" in these passages.

The KJV is garbage. We're not even scratching the surface of inaccurate renderings.

NRSV is very literal

pic related is good too

jesuz was black! I knew it!!

The bible also mentions dragons and a talking snake and other oddities in nearly all its translations. How should they be treated?

The Bible is a series of books written, edited and assembled over thousands of years. It contains the most influential stories of mankind. Knowledge of those stories is essential to a deep understanding of Western culture, which is in turn vital to proper psychological health (as human beings are cultural animals) and societal stability. These stories are neither history, as we commonly conceive it, nor empirical science. Instead, they are investigations into the structure of Being itself and calls to action within that Being. They have deep psychological significance.

I'm currently reading the King James Version on gutenberg.org. I just read it for about 10 minutes and mark my place in a notepad document.

Some reasons why you should read KJV...

Whenever a reference is made to the Bible in English literature, it's usually the KJV. That's because generations of Anglo-Christians have been and are still raised on the KJV. The only exception to this rule is writing from Shakespeare's generation which was raised on the Geneva Bible.

Speaking of Shakespeare, it was his generation that translated the KJV, therefore it is a great pleasure to read.

The KJV is far more important than any other book in the English language. Not only did it increase Biblical literacy in the general populace, it has had a profound impact on the English language much in the same manner you'll see critics write about in defense of Shakespeare. Rarely do secular critics make the same defense of the KJV, however, it is equally as important as Shakespeare if not more important.

Some reasons why you shouldn't read KJV...

If you're a Jehovah's Witness or some other Biblical literalist, then perhaps you might prefer a modern translation. However, the received tradition of the KJV far outweighs concerns with literalness.

Catholics, don't get too butthurt about the KJV being an Anglican achievement. Many Catholics in the US were raised on the KJV because of how readily available it was. No one's going to hell over a translation.

My vicar said that the king James Bible is rubbish and recommended the Oxford study Bible instead.

so you're a heathen then
good to know

Other biblical creatures that could fall under the category of "mythical snakes" are the so-called fiery serpents found in passages like Numbers 21:6. This verse says, "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many sons of Israel died." So what is a fiery serpent?

The Hebrew phrase is hasseraphim hannekhasim and, according to one commentary, the fire probably refers not to the snake itself but the "burning sensation and pain brought about by lethal injection of the venom through the serpents fangs."

In other parts of the bible the word dragon is used metaphorically to refer to the devil (Rev. 20:2) or even to humans like the Pharoah (Ezek. 29:3). But in other passages the word dragon appears to refer to an actual animal. In the KJV, Jeremiah 10:22 says, "Behold, the noise out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons." Psalm 91:13 of the KJV says, Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt trample under feet."

In these passages, the Hebrew word that is translated as "dragon" is tannin, which can mean "serpent" or "dragon." The word tannin comes from the root word tan, which means "jackal." Modern translations usually render the text based on the root word because it better fits the context of these passages. Consider the RSV's rendering of Jeremiah 10:22 "Behold, it comes!--a great commotion out of the north country to make the cities of Judah a desolation, a lair of jackals." If an ancient city were destroyed we would expect scavenging animals like jackals to inhabit it and feast on the dead bodies left amidst the desolation.

In other instances, the word dragon seems to refer to a mythical creature and not a real animal like a jackal. Psalm 74:13 says of God, "You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons on the waters." I would put in the same category as the leviathan in Job. That's a whole other conversation but suffice to say it's like poetry.

>reading for referential value

this isn't really needed. You can read any translation and when you see the reference you'll know it's a reference to the bible...you could do it without reading the bible.

If you're not a Christian its definitely the one to study, the modern versions are almost comical.

His point about manuscripts is correct, though. It is simply an assumption that an earlier date means greater accuracy. If an earlier manuscript was from a textual stream that corrupted earlier, it may be less accurate than a much later manuscript from a textual stream that was more accurately preserved. Textual critics examine more than just the date, but much of their analysis is based on further assumptions, such as trying to judge the psychological state or goals of scribes when changes are made within a manuscript family. You're continually working with an incomplete data set and there is no way to reach a final conclusion. The (now minority) Christian belief that the text has been passed down providentially through the manuscripts actually used by Christians corrects for this. The argument normally made in favor of the KJV is not that it itself is a perfect translation, far from it, but rather that the underlying Greek and Hebrew text is a more accurate textual base due to providential preservation.

The whole thing is worth watching but Anderson chimps out at the end. King James cultists don't have a leg to stand on.

youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8

>Rarely do secular critics make the same defense of the KJV
They make that point all the time. Even Richard Dawkins said everyone should read the KJV

Why are you lying.

Of course Richard Dawkins would because he's an advocate for atheism. The KJV makes Christianity look very stupid to a reader who may not be motivated to resolve the plethora of apparent contradictions that are found in the KJV but resolved with modern translations.

Not really. Considering the quotes from KJV compared to modern translations cited throughout this thread, you can see how the KJV is significantly different from many modern texts. Here's a modern translation of part of Psalm 23:

The Lord is my shepherd;
there is nothing I lack.
In green pastures he makes me lie down;
to still waters he leads me;
he restores my soul.
He guides me along right paths
for the sake of his name.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me;
your rod and your staff comfort me.

Now most of us would sooner recognize the following:

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Obviously the KJV would be better for referential reasons since that is the one everyone else has already read. The scholarly modern editions are better for scholars.

Even besides the referential reason for the litterateurs, what's most important of all is the cultural TRADITION which the English-speaking people share in the King James Version. In fact, I would sooner tell any native speakers of English on this board to start with KJV and Shakespeare rather than the Greeks. Shakespeare and the KJV are more important to the Anglo world than Socrates in terms of influence.

No, you're wrong. See the following: newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/King-James-in-America-5306

If you read the modern translation and then found a quote in a book from KJV you would still recognize it. It is not so different that it is unrecognizable. The thing about translations is that they can be good or bad, but at the very least it still communicates roughly the same thing.

>I would sooner tell any native speakers of English on this board to start with KJV and Shakespeare rather than the Greeks.

This is very good advice imo...

>If you read the modern translation and then found a quote in a book from KJV you would still recognize it. It is not so different that it is unrecognizable.

I agree with this. A weird thing I noticed with protestants is that they seem to prefer remembering verses of bible over remember the stories or meaning or the books. I focus on the stories and meaning so this idea that people should read the KJV for referential reasons so bizarre to me.

Can you not even acknowledge that the KJV is better poetry than any modern, literal translation? This is a literature board, after all.

I'm actually a recusant Catholic who prefers reading the KJV for its richness in language and the shared tradition English speakers have with it. More people have gotten to know God with this translation than with any other.

My argument to read it for referential reasons is made solely because we are writing on Veeky Forums.

More importantly, the KJV is embedded in our language and is worth reading to understand the Anglo mind.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that literal translations are a worthy pursuit. But they're better for scholars rather than lay readers.

I can't stand modern bible translations, they read like they thought Buddy Christ was a good idea.

I'm not wrong, Dawkins literally said that

youtube.com/watch?v=bieEyc9bJm0

I don't care what Dawk says, however, it is a fact that the majority of literary critics with tenured university jobs don't know their KJV as they should considering its profound influence on English literature.

Also, Dawkins is not a literary critic. When I wrote "secular critics," maybe I should have been more precise for the hairsplitters and have written "secular literary critics."

If you're not a protestant why would you prefer the KJV over the Douay-Rheims?

It's beautifully written and from my understanding most accurate.

When your understanding of what's most accurate is rejected by actual bible scholars and relies on a conspiracy theory, you might need to re-evaluate where that information is coming from.

The KJV is definitely the most poetic and had a huge impact on English lit. That doesn't have any bearing on how accurate it is.

Look at the smugness of this one. 'Actual' bible scholars support a variety of views.

There is broad consensus that the textual basis for the KJV is sub-par. For the NT, the Textus Receptus has been roundly rejected and scholars use the Novum Testamentum Graecae as the standard synthesis of greek manuscripts, which uses critical criteria like taking the earliest manuscripts into account.

In any case, it's never as simple as "earlier = automatically accepted", every manuscript is evaluated and studied. We now have more, and earlier, manuscripts than were available in the 1600s. Unlike the flawed methodology for the Textus Receptus which relied on what happened to be more common regardless of age, modern evaluations assess other possible factors for reliability, which include age.

>Can you not even acknowledge that the KJV is better poetry than any modern, literal translation?

I could, but that's besides the point isn't it?

KJV is good, but there are other translations I prefer for literary/poetic enjoyment

Because the KJV is more important than the Douay-Rheims. Besides, I'm sure the Bible I grew up hearing at Mass was the Jerusalem Bible.

However, at home, we've always read the King James Version because my dad converted from the Anglican church to marry my mom.

Every. fucking. thread.

Any of you guys know about any good spanish translation?

Are there any modern printings of the original KJV text? I'm talking about blackletter font, original spellings such as V/U and I/J being represented as one letter, other symbols/letters no longer used in English, etc.

wtf I hate KJV now

>Shakespeare was good because of the period he lived in

Is this the power of the Anglican Communion?

He was Catholic anyways

The closest commonly available one is the Oxford World Classics version which uses the 1611 version, but it doesn't keep the original typesetting.

It really is the meme translation.

What do you mean by this?

>What do you mean by this?
He means he's an illiterate troll with bargain-bin bait.

Yes you should

youtube.com/watch?v=T25WVBO5ouw

you will know which parts you can skip when you start reading. after genesis and exodus some gigantic lists of families and tutorials of how to sacrifice creatures, and which creatures to sacrifice, how to build temples or the ark of the covenant with pages of detailed description. sure, some of it its very interesting to understand that society's culture and costumes, but most of it is a bit irrelevant unless you are a scholar

It's really important to understand the historic contexts as the setting tells us why an action would be important.

yeah, I know, thats why I read it all. I can't really skip parts of a book, otherwise I will feel like I could potentially miss a important piece of it, but the lists of families, for instance, I just skimmed through, didn't even try to save the names

>infallibility of the pope
explain this?

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/3

Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

2/3

Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

3/3

>And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

There better be a continuation of this, or your wall of text doesn't explain anything

What specifically is your question?

How do you defend the infallibility of the pope?

I just gave you a biblical basis for papal infallibility.

>Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles

That's a tall jump in logic there. Jesus might have said that to the apostles, but that doesn't necessarily hold through for their successors. Nobody even knows how popes are chosen. Especially with the bullshit the current pope has been spreading lately, "papal infallibility" is getting pretty sketchy.

Jesus confirmed Peter alone in an office as the first of the Apostles. He intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors because Jesus' kingdom will last until the end of time. This office of shepherding the Church is passed on through the sacred office of the bishops. Therefore, the church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution take place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such a way's that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.

Peter's succession is already intimated when Jesus connected the promise of the keys he will give to Peter with the prime ministerial office in David's kingdom in Isaiah 22. Jesus affirmed that Peter will be given the dynastic office of chief shepherd in Jesus' kingdom.

Apostolic succession is also clearly evident when Peter determined that a successor must be chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas' betrayal and suicide:

Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share of this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and, 'His office let another take" (Acts 1:16-17, 20).

Apostolic succession is evident in the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23).

In his second letter to Timothy St. Paul laid out the generational program for apostolic succession that was practiced by the Apostles and their successors, and is continued to the present time: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you [Timothy was a second generation of Christians] have heard from me [Paul was of the first generation] before many witnesses entrust to the faithful men [the third generation] who will be able to teach others [the fourth generation] also (2 Tim 2:1-2).

By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. St. Irenaeus of Lions, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180, affirmed "the tradition of the Apostles," was safeguarded in the unbroken line of succession of those men who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. He placed the greatest importance on the successors of St. Peter in Rome.

>Jesus confirmed Peter alone in an office as the first of the Apostles. He intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors because Jesus' kingdom will last until the end of time.
>He intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors

Haha oh wow but where's your proof?

The proof is in Isaiah 22. Let me elaborate,

In the Davidic kingdom, the king appointed a cabinet of ministers (1 Kgs 4:1-6; 2Kgs 18:37). Of these ministers, one was elevated to a unique status. His authority was second only to that of the king, who gave him the authority over all other minsters and everyone else in the kingdom. This was a common practice in the Near East. For example, when Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, Pharaoh said, "You shall be over my house [dynasty and kingdom], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you ... I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen 41:40,44). The Symbol of Joseph's office was the signet ring that Pharaoh took from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand (Gen 41:42)

Now let's fast forward to David's kingdom. David ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. However, his dynasty continued after his death. Hezekiah became the king of Judah at the age of 25 approximately 265 years after King David's death. Hezekiah's rule from 715 to 687 was marked by a great religious reform. It was during his reign that Shebna, the prime minister or royal steward (Is 22:15) was removed from his office:

Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man ... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station" (Is 22:17, 19).

Eliakim will be installed in his place as prime minister (Is 22:20-22). The symbol of that office is "the key of the house of David" (Is 22:22).

The point of Jesus' reference to Isaiah 22 is to indicate that Peter will also be given an office in Jesus' kingdom, which is his Church. That office will continue as long as Jesus' kingdom on earth continues. Jesus is the new Moses. Like the first Moses, Jesus established a priestly hierarchy in his kingdom. Peter and his successors are the chief ministers in that kingdom, the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church.

But how does that make them infallible? Genuinely curious, it's kind of opposite to the whole "no human is without error" teaching of the bible.

I've explained this here when Jesus said " I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven":

1. The key imagery indicates that Peter will be given the office of prime minister in Jesus' Church,

2. The power to bind and loose gives Peter and his successors the power to absolve sins and to make definitive judgement in matters of faith and morals.

3. Therefore Peter and his successors are protected from teaching error, because God who is truth binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth.

4. During the last supper, at the very time Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial, Jesus also reminded Peter to fulfill his office by strengthening his brothers after he repented (Lk 22:31-32).

5. After the resurrection, Jesus confirmed Peter as the head of the church when he commanded Peter three times, "feed my lambs ... Tend my sheep ... Feed my sheep," then Jesus added "follow me" (Jn 21:15, 16, 17, 19).

>4. During the last supper, at the very time Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial, Jesus also reminded Peter to fulfill his office by strengthening his brothers after he repented (Lk 22:31-32).

I should add that this denial, among other things, indicates clearly that Peter and the successors are not infallible in other aspects of life. It's a common misconception that popes are supposedly infallible in everything or can't sin when this couldn't be further from the truth. Some popes were monumental fuckups. Infallibility is limited to faith and morals, see #3.

Came here to post this

It means you're an orange, soup taking, hun bastard

>Will [a Protestant Bible] give you a pretty good idea of what Christianity is about?

No.

more like protestants believe that any barely literate fool can read and interpret the bible without the need for learned men.

Catholics who know their scripture are like Kryptonite to protestants. Look at them scatter.

There are facsimiles of the 1611 all over the place.

Not really. A lot of stuff genealogies and things like that are there just for the sake of record keeping. I guess if you're the sort of person that enjoys reading local government laws and legislation you might enjoy Leviticus but for everyone else it's good enough to skim and reference as needed.

Not religious, but raised Catholic: A coworker was complaining how Catholics didn't like his (baptist) focus on Jesus Dying to save us all. My mention was how Catholics like to focus on the teachings of Christ, not his death: His Death ensures his promise, but is not the focal point. I really do think this current Pope is the most Prescient in this regard.

When Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the wall, the primary problem was with the Church swaying from scripture, not about allowing some asshole in Texas to take people's money.