>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
yes, and the words are still preserved 2000 years later, as opposed to the numerous works of Classical Antiquity that have perished over time, or exist only in fragments.
>What Scripture says anything about this? Why do you assume that a later sect founded by Constantine, which is what I'm assuming you are referring to, is the same as the church attested of in the New Testament.
it's there in the OP. and the Roman Church dates back to antiquity.
>And finally, how do you explain the non-adherence to the Bible of this group? They blatantly just go against Scripture, as a Mormon would or some other sectarian group of the same type. Pic related.
certainly the Mormons are a schismatic sect, with their belief in Joseph Smith, a man who lived in the 19th century, and his strange writings. those stories about the Nephites and Lamanites are very unlikely to be true, as opposed to the original Bible which is consistent with secular scholarship.
to get back on topic, I see no conflict between Catholicism and the Bible, unless you're thinking of the deuterocanonical books.
it's debatable what was meant by rock, but the connection with Peter's name, and the context of Jesus telling these words to him, seems convincing to me.
>Again, because the KJV is perfectly translated, there remains no more need for the knowledge of the original languages to “get a deeper and more correct understanding”. God is Almighty and has the ability to perfectly translate and preserve his Word in any language, as he has done with the KJV. He also promised to preserve his Word unto all generations like we read about in Psalm 12:6-7.
as I said, the Word has lived since the ancient world, and it continues to live. the KJV is a masterful translation, but is it perfect? is a Bible not the Word simply because it's not KJV? the original translators said:
>Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; ... No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse.
the whole introduction is good, but for this discussion I included only a couple significant passages, which make it clear: what matters is the essence, not a particular version.
>However, if you want to “study” the original languages in order to twist or pervert what the Bible says by means of the original languages because you feel like it was “not translated correctly” to come up with teachings that are not originally there in the first place, then that is wickedness and frankly witchcraft. There are many warnings in the Bible concerning adding or taking away from the Bible.
I agree that texts should not be distorted, manipulated, intentionally misread, and so on. texts guide us towards the essence of the meaning, as said above, and referring to numerous sources, including the most ancient, is beneficial in this.