CVS Meta - 2022-11-19 - The PPC and the Bible Militant

Author Recorded Saturday November 19th, 2022

There are 27 episodes in the Meta:Rants series.


I want to hash out some ideas about my pet theory that we here below, in the Church Militant, do not have full access to the Bible but rather see that one true Mystical Bible in a glass darkly.


Under Construction

Under Construction

These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
okay I am live I'm here on my own just doing a little meta episode it's been a while since I've done one of these but uh I'm a little bit cold I've been vulnerable this week almost got sick a few times I think I got food poisoning so just uh bundled up all warm for the winter start snowing here in Montreal this week I don't deal too well with the cold but I'm going to jump right into this meta episode I'm going to talk about the mystical Bible and the principle of proportionate causality and the Bible militant which is uh sort of how we see the mystical body through a glass Darkly in a fragmented shattered distorted way that is not perfect that is not ignorant it's not complete there are additions there are errors there are emissions that's what I call the Bible militant and the reason I call it that is it's a sort of parallel to the church militant where it's kind of hard to see who's a weed who's a wheat who's the Sheep who's a wolf it's just a hot mess and um the true church is in heaven the true church triumphant and the mystical Body of Christ is that church and the mystical Bible is the corresponding element in this analogy so we do have a perfect infallible inerrant scripture um with no additions no subtractions no errors no typological and type graphical errors and no translation errors and all these sorts of things we have the original autographs up in heaven but we don't have access to them here so I'm just going to start by talking about this passage which struck me strikes me every time I listen to the Bible or when I read the Bible from cover to cover which I've done more than a dozen times now I was in the habit at one point of listening to the entire Bible 73 books and when I'm saying Bible I'm speaking colloquially I'm speaking of the Bible militant obviously I was in the habit of listening to it once a month in its entirety takes vote 80 hours I think to listen to the whole thing I was doing that once a month for a little while and then I got a traffic ticket for wearing my headphones when I was biking around so I stopped doing that haven't been listening to it ever since that was in the summer last summer yeah more than a year ago but this passage first Samuel 13 1 it always struck me as strange because of her different uh versions of it and uh some just leave the number of years blank Saul was blank years old when he became king and we can see in this version here it says he ruled over Israel 42 years says he was 30 years old when he became a king 30 years old reigned for 42 years Saul lived for one year and then became king and when he had reigned for two years over Israel so we have one year and two years instead of 30 years and 42 years here we have Saul was 30 years old when he became king and he reigned over Israel for 42 years it's all rained one year and when he had reigned two years over Israel Saul reigned one year and when he had reigned two years over Israel Saul was 30 years old when he began to Reign and he reigned for 42 years over Israel Saul was 32 years 30 years old range for 42 Saul was 40 years old and he reigned for 32 years Saul was 30 years old reigned for 42 years he was 30 years old Raiden for 42 years he was 30 years old reigned for 42 years he was 40 years old reigned for two years when Saul reigned one or two years in his Kingdom of Israel that's another translation Saul was a young man when he became king and he ruled Israel for two years Saul was a child of one year when he began to Reign and he reigned for two years over Israel Saul was 30 years old when he began to Reign and he ruled for 42 years that seems to be the most popular uh wave glossing it or putting it putting their interpretation on the manuscripts faulty manuscript Saul was blank years old when he began to Reign and two years he reigned over Israel Saul is a son of 30 years in his reigning and he has reigned over Israel 42 years Saul was blank years old when he became king and he reigned blank two years Saul was 30 years old when he painted terrain he ruled over Israel for 40 years it's always blank years old and he reigned for blank and two years so it was blank years old he reigned for 40 years so I was 40 years old and he reigned for two years a son of a year is Saul in his reigning yea two years he hath reigned over Israel and we have additional translations but I think you get the idea and uh this has been treated many times by Scholars theologians uh this is called thirdmill.org I looked at several translations of the Old Testament regarding first Samuel 13 1. there are two sets of numbers representing a number of years the number of years appears different in many of them when looking at the first several numbers the years what's that Dash or a blank 30 in the NIV and LTL and one year in the ESV and the new King James version the second number of years has a similar Distortion of numbers what is going on CE Samuel 13 1 NIV Saul was 30 years old when he became king and he reigned over Israel 42 years and then another example in the king the new King James version Saul reigned one year and when he had reigned two years over Israel the Hebrew text does not include the number 30 or 40. these have been supplied by the translators the Hebrew actually reads Saul was literally son of a year when he became king and reigned over Israel literally and two years these years cannot be speaking about Saul's physical age the spirit of the Reformation Study Bible States one possibility is that there was a year between Saul's anointing when he was changed into a different person Soul was not regenerated but rather was temporarily changed from his former self in order that this signs could be fulfilled and his confirmation as king the two years then may then refer to the length of Saul's Reign up to his definitive rejection by God in chapter 15. it is possible that the and before two indicated that another number such as 20 had been lost through textual textual transmission after chapter 15 Saul remained on the throne but was no longer the rightful King in God's eyes as to the actual length of Saul's Reign the only biblical statements statement comes in at acts 13 21. there however the 40 years May well refer to the administrations of Samuel and Saul just as 450 years in Acts 1320 seems to refer to the time in Egypt the Wilderness wandering and at least the start of the conquest of Canaan or according to another textual tradition to the period of Judges up to but not including Samuel the word biblical commentary States the number has dropped out a few manuscripts like I said Septuagint manuscripts have 30 though this seems to be a secondary calculation since Jonathan was old enough to have a thousand troops under his command in verse 2 and since Saul had a grandson before his death an age of 40 or more is plausible the whole verse is lacking in most Septuagint manuscripts Joseph Josephus and acts 13 21 read 40 and modern commentaries have suggested a wide range of numbers the difficulties with the number two involve its particular spelling and whether it allows enough time for the various events that are reported about Saul in the Bible to take place Noth argues that the number two was appropriate both for the deuteronomistic historians chronology and for the historical circumstances the USB the UBS handbook States this verse follows the standard formula for introducing Kings of Israel and also of Judah later in the book in the books of Samuel Kings and Chronicles but this verse contains one of the most difficult textual problems in the book of First Samuel if not the whole Bible the Mt literally says Saul was a son of a year in his reigning and two years he reigned over Israel obviously there are two errors in the Hebrew text as we have it today number one Saul was not one year old when he became king and number two he reigned more than two years interpreters and translators have followed many solutions to this textual problem some transl some translations following the example of the Septuagint omit the entire verse B some translate the verse but leave blank spaces as in rrsp and other versions see others leave only the first number blank compare the Tob uh so was blank years old when he became king and ruled for two years over Israel Tob however includes a note saying that two years is certainly not correct and other translations do the same D some follow the first century Jewish historian Josephus and acts 1321 and claim that Saul ruled for about 40 years compare NIV Saul was 30 years old when he became king and ran over Israel 42 years the 30 years is based on a few late Septuagint manuscripts e Reb follows the Greek manuscripts which say this all began to Reign when he was 30 and then conjectures that the number of years he ruled was 22. Saul was 30 years old when he became king and he reigned over Israel for 22 years solution F nbe leaves the first number blank stating in a note that the original lacked the number but then nbe says that Saul reigned for 22 years however it has no note indicating that the number 22 is a guess solution D above may seem at seem the best at first glance but a major problem with this is that early in his rule Saul already had a grown son able to command troops see verse 2. therefore Saul must have been older than 30 when he became king CTA T gives an a rating to the Mt as for the first number CT suggests that the author left a blank space not knowing the exact age or Soul when he became when he began to rule and as for the second number CT defends the number two suggesting that Saul reign two years with God's blessing that is he reigned two years before David was anointed if translators follow the recommendation of CTA T it may be helpful to indicate in a note the possible sense of the words that Saul reigned over Israel for two years okay so I read that in its entirety not because I agree with it but just to highlight the sorts of difficulties that we have with the corrupted Bible in this corrupted sick falling world it's just a fact many many difficulties that's a good example of difficulties and that's a it's a very powerful example there are many more and I will talk about these some of these other more recent blunders in terms of translation and even sabotage that takes place when enemies of Christ and his church insert blasphemous stuff into the Bible just to uh confuse the laity or to just disrupt the church generally and but I want to focus uh before looking at some of those Curiosities in the Bible in the recent uh translations and Publications Editions I want to talk about the principle of proportionate to causality and how it applies to the mystical Bible it's up in heaven and the authority we have in the church in the living magisterium of the church to teach and to guide the faithful and to interpret the mystical Bible when we don't actually have the mystical Bible in our possession we don't have it physically we have it mystically we have the spirit the Holy Spirit the soul of the church is the holy spirit it was God Almighty we have this infallible infallibility which is a charism given to us by God in the church to protect the uh the church and to protect the essential saving truths of faith and morals and so they can be a garden protected and handed down to the faithful so that we can be assured of our salvation and have the fullness of the means of salvation in the Holy Roman Catholic Church and so how does the proportionate causality the principle of proportionate causality how does that figure in to this image that I'm trying to that I'm playing with and that I'm exploring today this image that there's there is an infallible inherent Bible but no one's ever seen it here below well an effect cannot be more perfect than its cause this is the principle of proportionate causality you can't give what you don't have so often when you're talking with a non-catholic Christian we'll talk about the Canon well how did the infallible Cannon get defined by a church that is less than infallible it can't we we have the principle of proportionate causality that we use every day in this argument from the Canon when we're speaking with non-catholic Christians but I want to borrow that technique and just take it back one level to the actual autographs of the scriptures themselves we do not have them in our possession no one's ever seen them no one's seen them in their entirety all put together in one place much less bound together that's my contention if anyone disagrees and they want to come up with the historical argument that at one point uh Saint John had at his disposal or one of the Saints of the New Testament had at his disposal a bound copy of all the writings including their own writings and I'd be interested to uh to explore that fantasy I think it's just a fantasy but if you have some evidence to support that would be fun to hear about that so we don't have the autographs and no one's ever seen the complete collection of autographs obviously human beings here in this Fallen World have laid eyes on and have possibly even touched the autographs because God the primary author of The Sacred Scriptures used human instruments to write the words on the Vellum or the parchment or whatever they used I don't know what implements they used but they used something some writing Implement and some sort of support I don't think they had paper as such but whatever they use skins of animals or whatever it was um there were humans that had the privilege of seeing that these uh not all of them but some of them some small portion of them seeing those with their own eyes these autographs and uh possibly even even touching them so the the the basis of my thesis here is that we've never had them all together in one place and no one's ever seen that and so to have the dogmas of the Catholic Church be 100 certain infallibly defined by the church by mother Church we cannot base that on something that's less than 100 percent infallible and the physical documents that we have in this world in this sick Fallen World the documents we have are less than 100 percent certain so you cannot give what you do not have something that's 99.999 accurate will not cut the mustard I'm sorry so all those who make the argument and it's a good argument for um the reliability of for example The Vulgate and when I spoke with militant Thomas I interviewed him he reminded me that it's dangerous to talk about the errors in our translations in the manuscripts that we have available to us it's a dangerous idea because it would tend to undermine the authority of the church by undermining the sources upon which mother Church draws but I disagree I do disagree because we are drawing on an infallible Source we're drawing on the mystical Bible up in heaven that's what we're drawing on it's not a natural process we're not engaging in a natural process when we mystically are Guided by the Holy Spirit to understand what is contained in the Sacred Scriptures infallibly to understand what they contain not in their entirety because we don't we do not have that here Below in the in the church militant but in part there are very few dogmas I think they're you know under a thousand dogmas I would say that are defined infallibly by the church um and there are obviously many many writings contained in the 73 books of the Holy scriptures and there are many verses I don't know how many that's that's the point we don't know how many verses and even the verse divisions are not protected they're not infallible the divisions that we've made subsequent to the composition of the scriptures those divisions are just a man-made convenience so we don't know exactly how big the Bible is we don't know how many characters are in the Bible when I say characters I mean alphanumeric characters and signs and signals and different symbols that are contained in all the writings we don't know we don't know exactly how many languages um uh we don't know for certain because there's some books in the New Testament that there's some speculation well I think we may okay I I won't commit fully to this but um we may not know all of the languages that are involved is it ancient Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic biblical Greek how many dialects of Greek I don't know um and are there any other candidates for languages that might be in the original autographs that may be it we may know that with a reasonable degree of certain certainty but uh it may be Beyond Reasonable Doubt but to are we justified in saying that we have 100 certainty about even the number of languages used in the original autographs are we able to say that we have and absolute certainty 100 with no error whatsoever uh possible that we know how many languages much less how many characters are contained in the Corpus that we call the Bible this collection of writings I would say no we don't have that we don't have that 100 certainty there is doubt there is always going to be doubt here below so we cannot if we don't know what's in the Bible we certainly can't have 100 certainty about the meaning of it because the interpretation is based on if we're going to do a human interpretation not uh protected by the charism of infallibility if if just you and I sit down with a text and we're going to interpret the texts of any work but if in this case the Bible we have to take into consideration the entire context the context of that paragraph the sentence that paragraph that chapter and um that book and that book within the context of the whole set of writings right this is the Catholic teaching about hermeneutics and how to interpret the Sacred Scriptures and it's very sound it's very reasonable but this is a human approach and when it comes to actually doing all the reasoning all the explanations all the argumentation and the logic and the use of natural reason and the historical criticism and the textual criticism and all the things we can bring to bear academically and intellectually on interpreting a certain Passage that's all human and it's not protected none of that is protected and it says as much in the documents of the church where the church talks about her infallibility the charism of infallibility and where that line is the definitions are infallible the definitions are infallible but the way that we came up with the definitions is not infallible it's not protected it may be it may be 99.9 percent Rock Solid reasoning and historical research and our study of the languages may be very very very very very very good very impressive and God has helped the scholars and the theologians the good ones to have whatever light that they have that they're working with and that's all very laudable that's all very good it's all very encouraging that we can get very close to the truth using the light of natural reason that's all very good but it's it's a completely different category from the doctrines that are defined dogmatically and that are protected as infallible and they are irreformable they cannot change it's a completely different category so you may have a nice uh argument for this or that Dogma but it's the dogma and the Dogma alone that enjoys that protection from error 100 percent we can be 100 certain and there is zero error and zero possibility of error in the dogmas so that's where the the principle of proportionality for the principle of proportionate causality is so essential to understand when it comes to looking at our very imperfect copies of the original autographs of the books of the Bible we know with certainty that the church is not only human but Divine we know that because of her dogmas we know that because of her infallibility and we know that because this is my point the whole point of this meta episode the point is that we know that the church is protected and infallible because of the imperfections and omissions and additions that appear in the various Bibles what I would call the Bible militant a fractured shattered and imperfect reflection of the beauty that is up above in the church triumphant okay there's a purification that needs to take place when we in the church militant die and most of us if we need purification we're going to go to purgatory and that purification takes place but even the saints were purified here below the saints were purified here below so there is in my analogy there is a purification and this is where the Vulgate comes in where the church has said this is safe it's safe for the faithful the truths the essential saving truths this is the important distinction that I'd like to emphasize the essential saving truths those truths that you need to know and you need to believe in order to be saved they're all contained within they're safely preserved within that Latin translation that's called The Vulgate it was defined at Trent that it is safe it's it's a safe path to those saving truth and it contains and it protects and it uh it embodies those saving truths now are there other errors that have crept in that are less significant they're not dangerous per se to our Salvation I would say yes but like I said with the Saints there are Saints who did not need to go to Purgatory they were purified here on Earth in this Fallen World and in the church militant so is it possible which candidate would I uh think is most likely the saint in this analogy that which one is the most pure in this analogy I would say probably the Latin Vulgate that was approved at Trent okay so uh the reason that this is exciting to me the reason I'm excited about the the Bible militant and understanding and admitting that there are errors emissions and additions in our flawed versions of the Bible here below the reason it's exciting for me is because of church Unity I want all the Christians to come together to come back into the fullness of Christianity where all the means of Salvation exist it's the safest place to be within the ark within the walls of the Ark that black but beautiful Arc painted within and without with black pitch it's the safest place to be I want all my separated brethren to come back into the safety of the Ark and I think I truly believe that understanding the difference between the fragmented imperfect scriptures that we have to work with here in this church militant and comparing that with the infallible inerrant scriptures which are complete and there are no additions and no emissions so comparing those two the Bible militant with the mystical Bible up in heaven comparing these two and being aware of what we have access to and what we do not have access to we do have access to the Holy Spirit God almighty to inspire us the great Saints and theologians to come up with the work that goes into defining a dogma and then ultimately the Dogma itself which alone is protected and that has that 100 certainty so if we can understand that what we do have is the holy spirit we have that direct mystical connection to the mystical Bible and what we don't have is a perfect copy of that here below and this will really help with ecumenism bringing people into the one true faith and um taking a lot of emphasis away from private judgment which is I think uh one of the most tragic consequences of the so-called Reformation the Protestant Revolution this whole knee-jerk reaction which says that well I'm Christian I have the Holy Spirit and I'm going to interpret this book this set of writings this Christian set of writings called the Bible I'm going to interpret it and because I'm Christian I have the Holy Spirit indwelling In Me by the grace of God and so I have the infallible interpretation at least for the essential saving truth and the Protestants many Protestants do admit that it is limited to the essential saving truths and of course we can bicker among the different Protestant denominations about what's essential what's not essential and we can all agree on the core essential teachings which are very few and far between they even even the Protestants many of them most of them will admit that because to uh to not admit that is to condemn protesters and protestantism completely because the whole notion of private judgment is uh leading everyone down a different Garden Path and they can't all be right because truth does not contradict truth and God does not contradict himself so it's interesting to think about this principle of proportionate causality and how we can know with certainty that uh we do not depend on the physical Bibles that we have here Below in the translations and the manuscripts we do depend 100 on God Almighty and God Almighty is the primary author of The Sacred Scriptures which reside up in heaven and they're inaccessible to us as natural creatures they're accessible to the good and holy Children of the church in the hierarchy especially who are tapping in to that wealth of knowledge the essential saving truths that are contained in scripture and tradition and so there's limited access to that and it's a mystical Supernatural access it's not a natural academic study of this flawed book that will give us a Dogma okay so I don't know if this is clear I'm just emphasizing it over and over again but uh the question of you know the difference between like I said earlier the difference between 99.99 pure and 100 pure that is an infinite difference it's an infinite difference because when we get to heaven God will know how what that passage was in first Samuel God will know how old Saul was when he began to Reign and how long he reigned okay and it is manifestly obvious that that is not essential to know that in this Fallen World it's essential it's not essential to know that we can go to heaven without knowing how old Saul was okay when he began to train and how long he reigned in Israel We Can I 100 guarantee you that we can go to heaven without knowing that how can I be that confident because it's not a Dogma it's not a dogma of the church that Saul was X years old and he reigned for why a number of years it's not a Dogma so it's not essential to our Salvation now could a controversy arise where it becomes a big conundrum and everything hinges on the age at which Saul became king and how many years he reigned could that arrive because some Protestant sect discover some archaeological dig and they build a story and they start concocting a lie about the Old Testament times in King Saul and King David and all of the lineage of Jesus and Mary and Joseph and everything's called into question because of these details about the life of Saul that could arise and the church could take a dogmatic position about the these details how old was Seoul and how long did he write that is conceivable but as it stands right now that's not the case we don't have to worry about that we can go to heaven without knowing those details so when I say I'm 100 confident that we don't need to know that I mean right now if this hypothetical controversy were to be stirred up by Satan then the church would have to make it an essential saving truth and have to Define it dogmatically but that's such an extreme circumstance such as a wild scenario I really don't Envision it happening I'm not worried about it really not worried about it but it is fascinating to think about the the idea that there's a certain confidence we have in the Vulgate Edition that was approved by Trent the Council of Trent it's fascinating thinking even about that when we know that it's only the essential saving truths of faith and morals that are protected and that we're ensured that we can go to the Vulgate and we can have access to those truths and we're not going to be subject to confusion or error when it comes to Faith and moral these Central saving truths okay even in that case it's funny to think about the fact that we don't know exactly which verses which words which accents which jots and tittles of a particular letter are Red Letters that's that that's what they used to say with the Bible the words of Jesus were put in red you had this red letter Edition so you could uh immediately see when our Lord spoke uh it was flashing jumping off the page because the text instead of being black was red it just like a crimson Flash and you can't you can't miss it it's a good way to emphasize the important words of our Lord and all of his words are important so all of his words were highlighted in Red so I'm envisioning now with the Vulgate putting in red those parts that the church deems um essential in terms of faith and morals those essential saving truths and I know mother Church doesn't do that and I know mother church is not interested in doing that that's not the way the church works we are not going to dissect even the church excuse me even the Bible militant even the Vulgate we are not going to dissect it and we're not going to categorize it these parts are safe these parts are plausible but we're not sure or they're uncertain or have a certain grading system where we know this is absolutely true this might be true and this is probably not true like we saw when I read the some of those notes on first Samuel 13 1 right we saw that there was a footnote in one of those Bible editions that said this is certainly not true we include it in our Bible but it's certainly not true so we have all kinds of grades that we could apply to different things when I read in the Bible that God is good or that God is uh Eternal or God is pure Spirit God is not a man when I read these things I'm able to know with 100 certainty because based on the dogmas that the church gives me and based on natural reason for many of these teachings I'm able to know with 100 certainty that these verses as they are presented to me are 100 true I don't know if they correspond to the autographs of the authors but I'm pretty sure they are we're going to see now I'm going to go through and show you some examples of errors that have crept into recent editions of the Bible and it's funny to me because uh the King James only people uh uh would not really enjoy this part of my video because there are a lot of blunders inserted into the different versions The many many many many many many different versions of the King James version so I wonder what my friend um Kent hovint would say about some of these errors that have crept in so let's go through some of them just for a bit of comic relief and I'm not laughing at God I'm not laughing I'm not laughing at the uh sacred deposit of Faith far from it God forbid um just making light of the fact that here in this Fallen World we have Bibles militant and we see through a glass Darkly and there are many errors missions and additions so let's just go through some of them for fun and they're not all going to be funny so I think these are years that are given here the year 1534. the clan the so-called cleansed outside Bible where they said uh cleanse first the outside and then the inside will be clean a complete inversion of what the church tells us that the Bible actually says right it's a complete inversion it's a complete inversion of what traditionally most manuscripts have told us right complete inversion wash the outside to make the inside clean wow the Pharisees would love that all right that's what they want to hear we have another one in 1551 the wife beater Bible and if she be not obedient and helpful unto him and Deborah to beat her beat the fear of God into her head this is just a commentary that was written um in the Bible so it's not really not that relevant to my point but they just found it they included it because it was a funny little note on First Peter 3 7 just saying you know beat the fear of God into your wife if she's giving you trouble the 1551 bugs Bible and so we have a uh they do not be afraid for any bugs at night okay not sure what that means other versions read do not be afraid for the terror by night but here they say bugs I'm not exactly sure what that means in 1560 we have this breaches Bible which describes instead of aprons it says breeches 1562 we have the placemakers this one's funny blessed are the placemakers instead of the peacemakers the placemakers 1598 we have one here the Jesus church I like this one a Geneva Bible reads in first John 5 20. in his son Jesus church instead of Jesus Christ I love that because I always say Christ and his church so this kind of simplifies it for me I could just say Jesus church that's what I'm going to start calling Jesus from now on Jesus church because the church is Christ so I love that one in the 1600s we had the full Bible this one's nasty I hope it's not a Blasphemous sabotage it might just be an innocent error it says the fool hath said in his heart there is a God and again I'm not laughing at God or his one true religion or his Sacred Scriptures of which he is the primary author I'm laughing at the errors that have crept into the Bible militant the fool I said in his heart there is a God the printers were fined three thousand pounds for this error and all copies were suppressed oh boy three thousand pounds that was probably a lot of money back then in the 1600s in 1605 the Third River Bible just confused a guy Hans said it was the third Riverside the second river 1608 the Judas Bible oh this one's pretty heavy then said Judas instead of Jesus that's pretty big error I hope that wasn't sabotage but it is the neighbor of the Beast 667 you can see that here John 667 neighbor of the Beast then said Judas so I think that creeps up into a few additions here we have 1609 Rosen rossin instead of red I guess that's kind of like resin instead of balm not a big deal for me 1611. here we go for the first misgendering in history I think they call it the he Bible the first issue of the first edition of the King James version mind you the King James version reads and he went into the city speaking of Ruth and uh or one of the other female characters in this might have been Naomi whatever you should have read she went into the city just one letter right if you take all of the characters in the entire Bible one letter percentage-wise is not much it's zero percent error zero point something percent error kind of a big deal and then what they call the basketball Bible where the King James version again says the Hoops of the pillars instead of the hooks of the pillars 1612 we have another King James version uh this is called The Printers Bible and it reads printers instead of princes so print printers have persecuted me without cause I'm sure the Bible printers themselves didn't intend to say that another 16-12 Bible another King James version they call it Pilot's tile because it says and pilate wrote a tile instead of a title he wrote a tile not a big deal 1613 the praise Bible the King James version again reads I praise you instead of I praise you not three letters out of how many tens of thousands of letters not a big percentage but a pretty big difference it's a complete inversion of what tradition tells us and more importantly what holy mother Church tells us I praise you I praise you not kind of a big deal here's another 1613 King James version with that Judas inversion where it says then cometh Judith Judas with them instead of Jesus with them so that's a big deal not funny 1631 Wicked Bible so the knot is left out of the seventh commandment and when they say seventh I think they mean the sixth in the Catholic tradition because that's the adultery now shalt commit adultery is what it says I've read it I've seen the images of that uh and I think that's suspected to be a sabotage the wicked Bible it's got lots of nasty stuff in it that's they've just slipped in I think it was done on purpose I don't know but who knows God knows in 1632 there's another King James version which says there is no blame in Gilead instead of no balm kind of a big deal a 1637 version of the King James says she hath been religious against me instead of rebellious against me a complete inversion probably done by accident 16 30 we hope 1638 version of the King James says her sins which were many are forgotten instead of saying forgiven not a huge deal for me but still a significant difference very significant difference and it would have implications for the theologians that study that if something like that has crept into our Bibles and had been accepted by the theologians and that would have implications there'd be a lot of nonsense floating around uh the human hermeneutics of the faulty text right in 1638 we have another King James Version which says for they Vex you with their wives instead of vexing you with their Wiles so wives instead of Wiles oh boy that's a funny one 1640 a subtle servant so another King James version reads now the servant was more subtle instead of the serpent that seems like an inversion the serpent is now portrayed as a servant of how we would have a different religion if that were if that mistake was included in our tradition right but it's not 1641 well I mean Satan is the the servant of God he's just that's part of his punishment right he's serving God unwillingly Satan is giving glory to God yes but not on purpose so that's maybe not such a big deal the servant instead of the serpent maybe I'll start calling Satan the servant of God that could be dangerous here's a 1641 version which says instead of saying there was no mercy it says and there was more C so that's a complete inversion of the traditional meaning that we ascribed to that based on the majority of the manuscripts and they are abundant I do it like that I admit that a 68 1648 version of the King James is called the flesh killer Bible because it says slew their flesh instead of slew their fish that makes quite an interesting reading of that Psalm 1658 1653 version is called the unrighteous or the fields Bible and it's another King James Version and it contains numerous errors sorry Kanto event and the error reads no ye not at the unrighteous know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God complete inversion complete inversion leaving out the word not which is kind of a big deal and then Matthew 6 24 reads you cannot serve and Mammon leaving out the word god kind of important that word god Romans 6 13 reads instruments of righteousness instead of instruments of unrighteousness a complete inversion whenever I see inversions I think of Satan trying to mess with God's creation and his truth another King James version from 58 says no miracle will he do no Miracles instead of do more miracles so another inversion an 82 version says Canon it's called the Cannibal's Bible it's a King James version because it reads if the latter husband ate her instead of hate her if the latter husband ate her hmm the cannibal Bible interesting a 98 version says uh you were not the Servants of sin instead of saying you were the Servants of sin so that's a complete inversion they call that the not servants Bible 1711 version of the Oxford King James version edition reads I will declare thy righteousness and thy works for they shall profit thee instead of not to profit the complete inversion 1716 sin on Bible this is uh this is a rock and roll Bible it says instead of uh sin no more it says sin on more which is just an inversion of the two letters in the word no to become on sin on brother so this is the Satanic Bible right here sinan hopefully done by mistake I think probably give the benefit of the doubt 1717 version of the King James version says it's called The Vinegar Bible because it says the parable of the vinegar instead of the parable of the vineyard we've got to 1745 avenging obedience Bible it reads having Readiness to avenge all obedience when your obedience is fulfilled the first obedience should be Disobedience to avenge all Disobedience so complete inversion in 1747 we have the sting Bible a King James version again which reads the sting of his tongue was loosed instead of the string of his tongue not a big deal probably 1792 the denial Bible another King James Philip instead of Peter denying Jesus oh that's interesting I wasn't aware of this one Philip denying Jesus in Luke 22 34. wow interesting Philippe is one of my favorites by the way because he said to Jesus just show us the father that'll suffice and when I was a generic monotheist that's that was my thing just like I don't I don't believe in the Trinity you don't understand the Trinity just give me God the father and that's what Saint Philip said to Jesus and Jesus uh enjoyed that he didn't admonish Philip I think our Lord had a certain fondness for Philip obviously they're all unique characters the apostles 1795 the child killer Bible listens funny again in the King James Let The Children First be killed instead of filled so killed instead of filled kind of a big deal and then we have a similar one here in 1801 the murderer's Bible King James version uses murderers instead of murmurers 1802 discharge Bible another King James says I discharge thee before God instead of I charge thee complete inversion 1804 Lions Bible the murderer shall surely be put together uh instead of put to death and out of thy Lions that's the one I find funny instead of out of thy loins another inversion of two letters two vowels in the word taking loins to lions and just completely changing the meaning for the flesh lustus for the flesh lusteth after the spirit instead of against the spirits the flesh lusting after the spirit that's quite a different meaning 1805 we have the to remain Bible to remain in place of a comma because it's a note it was a note that made its way into the Bible they thought it was the tech part of the text but it was a note they wanted to keep certain things because there are editorial decisions that are made should this stay should this be taken out should it remain and this they had a note to remain and they just left it in it became part of the Gospel so in Galatians 4 29 so it's funny in 1806 standing fishes another King James and that other one the last one I read was also King James reads the fishes shall stand instead of the Fishers so instead of the fishermen we could now get the fish standing okay the fish are standing up so there you go that's that's a good one for the evolutionists if you believe in walking fish this one this I suggest you get the 1806 King James Version because it talks about the fish standing that's a good one for the evolutionists 1807 version the ears to ears Bible another King James wow he who hath ears to ears that's like when you smile from ear to ear I guess you got ears to ears instead of ears to hear how much more shall the blood of Christ Purge your conscience from Good Works instead of dead works so the King James version would have us Purge our conscience from good works okay well yeah that might be the Protestants they're not fans of works they are but they they like to complain about the way that we interpret the works we Catholics the 1810 version of the King James Bible says wife hater it reads If any man come to me and hate not his father yea and his own wife instead of his own life but it's true that's not a big deal wife life is the same thing for me we're one flesh so that's I'll let that error stand the wife hater thing because I'm one with my my wife and my life it's the same thing not a big deal for me could be a big deal though right if it falls into the wrong hands 1823 version of the King James says camels instead of damsels so I'm glad I didn't say camel toe anyway that's one good thing 1829 large family bible another King James says shall I bring to the birth and not sink and not cease to bring forth instead of cause to bring forth so anyway this is ahead of its time when we've got men bringing forth children out of their man wombs I'm gonna have to stop reading because my voice is getting hoarse 1834. uh this is a what is this a James Norse Bible unrighteousness he says unrighteousness instead of righteousness a complete inversion I think I could power through this yeah the 1944 owl husband Bible in another King James version it says uh owl instead of own being in subjection to their owl husbands instead of to their own husbands so all of you out there that are furries that like to dress up as animals and then get kinky uh yeah so be in subjection to your owl husband okay according to King James 1955 it's called the last s short bible the American Standard Version oh here we go and the things thou Hast heard from me among many witnesses instead of Hast heard from me so it says and the things that'll last even I read it wrong and the things that thou last heard from me interesting same copy also has these things speak and as short with all authority instead of exhort with all authority 1966 pay for peace Bible this is interesting the first edition of the Catholic Jerusalem bible it's a Catholic Bible it says at Psalm 122 6. pay for peace instead of pray for peace so here we have here we have the indulgences at work you can pay for peace just by by now right you can buy your piece just send us money I'm being silly there were abuses in the Catholic church and like no I shouldn't make light of that fact it's very serious thing but it's it's ironic that our first error that we see here in the in the Catholic version of the Bible is pay for peace 1966. so in 1970 the year I was born we have the darkness Bible ooh another King James one uh uh what does it say John 1 5 and the Darkness overcomes it instead of does not overcome it wow that's a complete inversion 1987 this is called the everyday Bible it's called the ship sale Bible that's its nickname it says why is it given to those who are so unhappy normally computer spell Checkers catch double usages but this one didn't it also said I don't get it it says why is it given to those who who are so unhappy I didn't even catch it okay so it did a double who there It also says in First Kings 22 48 King Jehoshaphat built trading ships to sail to ophir for gold okay sale like as in special reduced price interesting 1989 the the modern errors I guess are uh a bit tackier 1989 the unrepentant ninevites Bible for when Jonah preached to them they were not led to repentance instead of were led to repentance kind of a big deal complete inversion that's one of my favorite uh books in the Bible and uh mother Church assures me that the Book of Jonah is in the Bible even though I've never seen the Bible not the real one not the complete unabridged one with zero errors and finally we have in 1993 the sat on Bible this is another King James which dominates this list and it says he sat on them rather than they set him on them so he sat on them sit on it so let's just do a quick search K G King James Version 32 results wow and then 32 Plus King James 5 32 plus 5 37 out of I'm not sure how many are here but you get the idea so I guess I'll leave it off there I've rambled enough and it's been one hour so uh just to summarize we have an imperfect of Bibles here different manuscripts different translations it's a hodge podge mix and if you want to tell me that yes but we have 99.999 certainty about the most important parts of most of the books in the Bible That's nice but it's not Foundation upon which to build a religion and infallible religion it's not a foundation the foundation is not these imperfect books these imperfect copies of The Originals the foundation is God but the father God the son God the Holy Spirit and especially the Holy Spirit who indwells not only me but indwells the church and protects the church from teaching error concerning faith and morals that's why the church can tell me that the Vulgate is safe for me it's teachings on faith and morals are essential saving truths and I'm safe when I read that particular flawed translation I would Hazard to guess that it has a non-zero error rate and there are some additions and omissions that's what I would Hazard to guess that's no disrespect to Mother church or to the Vulgate Edition that was approved as safe by mother church but it's to make that all-important distinction between the Bible's militant through which we see as through a glass Darkly and make a distinction between that hot mess and the beautiful perfect complete unabridged version of the Sacred Scriptures who whose author is God almighty primary author is God almighty and which contains zero error about anything not limited to Faith and morals zero errors period it's completely inerrant and we get a little glimpse into those errors through the doctrines and especially the infallible dogmas of holy mother church so please bear this in mind please use this idea when you're talking to non-catholic Christians because they're obsessed with the Bible they're obsessed with their own interpretation their private Judgment of the Bible and they think that they can have confidence in the Bible but the confidence that they can have although it may be 99.99999 repeating it's not sufficient it's not 100 certain and it is subject to doubt okay my faith is not subject to doubt because I do not put my faith in an Imperfect book a physical book I put my faith in God first and foremost and God's work and God's word so that's it please pray for me and mine and you and yours are in my prayers God bless you and we'll talk very soon