>>543460

If you read a the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from 1582 - translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, 'subtraction' is instead written as 'diminish'.

Note the annotation from that version on Verse 18.

It's specifically-against Heretics adding or subtracting from the work to conform it to their beliefs, not God's.

This condemns every non-Roman Catholic Church, including their Biblical Translations of it.

This includes the King James Bible, which came out of the formation of the Church of England, due to Henry VIII's desire to commit adultery, expressly-forbidden by Jesus in the New Testament, (except in once specific case).

When the King James was written, it only involved Scholars from this False Church, and favoured Protestant beliefs.

The enlightenment contained within was not handed down by Jesus as promised to the Disciplines via the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. It lacks the Authority of God and Jesus.

The original Douay-Rheims translations contains books that aren't found in the KJV, copious notes and annotations, and goes into great detail of why the heresies of Luther, Calvin et al ARE heretical thought, which is why possession of it during the 1600's in England resulted in a death sentence.

The Douay-Rheims sold today is the Challoner revision from 1750's, and a much lesser work, since it's softened or removed the criticisms of Protestantism entirely, and loses the enlightening annotations. It's often-considered different enough it should be labelled a new work in itself.

It's almost like there's a cloud of deliberate-obsfucation round the original text, which is why it's interesting it's considered the official Roman-Catholic Bible, and most people don't know of the earlier version.

If you trust the King James, then look at the state of England, its GBLT and Female clergy, and its crisis of declining attendances. If you believe in Protestantism, pay attention to the curses that have befallen Germany, its current state, and how so many of the Satanic Orders currently at work originated there.

And yes, I know the Roman Catholic Church falls. We've been warned both in scriptures and in visions to prepare for its destruction, and that 'we'd know' by 1960.

Here's a good example of how the King James 'diminishes' the word.

I've repeatedly-noticed how often the word 'repent' is used is place of ideas about penance for our sins.

So, where the KJV will say: "Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand," mine says the attached, the goes into deeper detail in the annotations, 'so goes the Latin, word for word', including other references to the need for not only repentance, but good works, alms-giving, and, especially, painful satisfaction for our sins as being necessary for our salvation.

Understanding all this adds greater clarification to the brutality of the Passion of the Christ. His suffering, entered to of his own free will to show obedience to God's Will, was a necessary part of reparation for all of us.

This helps us understand the use of, not only prayer and charity, but fasting and offering up our suffering to the Lord, which strengthens us during life's challenges by calming the storm within us.

See how one Bible enlightens and the other diminishes understanding?

Here's more diminished language in Matthew 6.

The phrase 'vain repetitions' is commonly-used by Protestants as a way to attack the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the DR, it's simply 'speaketh not much, as the heathen'.

In the Lord's Prayer itself, note the use of 'Supersubtatial' bread. In modern spelling, this is Supersubstantial: a bread that is supernatural and spiritual in nature, transcending all substance.

The Protestants, Anglicans and the Episcopal Church disagree with this, hence the translation to 'daily', to match Luke. Also note the Episcopal Church just voted to make all of their bibles Gender-Neutral.

Note also the concept of 'Tentatio'. Whilst this can mean 'temptation', the word is more complex in Latin, and is more about being assaulted, trialed or attacked. Given that I see man's fallen nature as leading himself into temptation by following god's will, the idea of outward attack by 'the wickedness and snares of the devil' resonates more with me.

Even so, if it WAS temptation, I can't see why Pope Francis has such an issue with it. God is incapable of deceit, or leading us to Sin. We know this. I think it's deliberately-trying to obscure the implied meaning I always took from it, as such:

"Lead us not into temptation [as the Devil or our own Desires of our Flesh would ultimately do] but [due to the beauty of your perfect truth and divine mercy, we can always rely that by following your will instead of ours, you will] deliver us from evil."

Francis' arguments seem to be putting temptation heavily in Satan's lap, negating our own awareness of our fallen nature. We have to understand we're complicit in our own choices.