Before you start reading this you have in front of you now, I must say that I do not in any way want to attack you or anyone who is a Catholic. I know many good, sincere, and truth-seeking Catholics, I have worked with Catholics in the past, and some of my best friends are actually Catholics. We can talk about this in a sensible way without offending each other. I hope you will not be offended by this either, and if you are offended, I beg your pardon.
What I want to do is deal with is the Catholic Church’s treatment of the Bible, the changes the Catholic Church has made there over time, and the arrogant attitude this church has shown and still shows above the Word of God.
If you are in doubt about my intentions, I ask you open your Bible and find out what the Bible, and the Bible alone, says about what you disagree with me.
Ellen G. White got a vision regarding the Bible and that it has been changed. This view is included in the book Early Writings under the heading Death not eternal life in misery:
I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it (the Bible) more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed.
The reason for all the confusion that arises around certain words and expressions, which are translated with very different words, is that there is a battle behind the scenes. Ever since he seduced the first humans, Satan’s purpose has been to destroy any connection between humans and God. He caused Cain to kill Abel, he made people completely rebellious against God before the flood, he made people rebel after the flood by building the Tower of Babel and much, much more. All this to destroy God’s people. In Christian times, Satan first began to persecute and kill Christians – without success. True, many were killed for their faith, but their blood became like seeds and the Christian church grew rapidly. Then Satan began to infiltrate the church with pagan rituals and human traditions when he persuaded Constantine to make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire – even now without complete success, for there were many who, despite tribulation and persecution, managed to keep God’s word pure. After this, Satan mixed persecution and killings with paganism in what developed into a monster of a church – it was not entirely successful either, because God has always taken care of His people. There has always been a small remnant that has survived Satan’s attempts to annihilate God’s people, and that has kept God’s word pure.
Even through the centuries when there was only one church, the Catholic Church, major changes were made in the Bible. Although it was mostly only the clergy of the Catholic Church that had access to the Bible and that it was only to be found in the churches, monasteries and faculties, changes were made, something Codex Sinaiticus shows with all the desired clarity with all its additions, corrections, deletions, changes and changes of changes. There should be on average more than five changes on each page in the old manuscript that was found in a trash can! in the old monastery by Mount Sinai in 1844, note the year!
However, it was not until the art of printing had been taken into use, and the Reformation had begun, that Satan began to seriously change the written word of God, something that has really taken off in the last two hundred years. But because God still has a small remnant that upholds His Word, this will not succeed for the great deceiver either.
This is why we have so many different Bible translations, and it ranges from innocent attempts to make the Bible more accessible to ordinary people, and thus make it easier to read, to deliberately changing words, texts and the like to post special guidelines for how translators want the text to be understood by readers. Punctuation was introduced sometime in the Middle Ages to help the reader better understand the text, and the oldest known document that uses punctuation is Mesha Stele from the 9th century. Even the punctuation is changing nowadays, which can have dramatic consequences. This can best be illustrated by an anecdote.
There was once a prisoner sentenced to death who sought pardon from the president. The president received this application the day before he was to be executed by hanging. The president decided to listen to what this man had to say, and dictated a telegram to be sent to prison. The president said: Hang him not, wait until I come. The secretary who wrote down the telegram made a fatal mistake by placing the comma in the wrong place and wrote: Hang him, not wait until I come.
As we can see, moving a comma one way or another can have major consequences. The same fatal mistake we can experience if we are not aware that the Bible we prefer may have been changed, precisely to give the text a special meaning that is obviously not there from the beginning. This can be done by laying down guidelines for how to interpret or read a particular word or verse, which we find in the footnotes in many different Bible translations concerning, for example, as is done with Revelation 1,10. The verse reads like this: I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet. In many cases, the footnotes states: This is the very first reference in Christian literature that the first day of the week is called the Day of the Lord. How it is possible to read which day of the week we are talking about here is incomprehensible to me. It is probably more a matter of laying down guidelines for looking at Sunday as the Day of the Lord instead of the Sabbath, and which in one case is mentioned as the Day of the Lord in the Bible. (See also English / End time begins / The second coming of Christ – The Day of the Lord.)
It can also be as it is done with what Jesus said to the robber on the cross (Luke 23,43). The original text was without a semicolon, and would have been like this in English: … … Verily I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in paradise. When they added a comma, the sentence also had to be rewritten to be grammatically correct.
If we look at the expression verily I say unto thee to day, it was a common form of expression when the Bible was written, but which did not necessarily have the meaning of the one special day it was pronounced, but more so that what the prophet say today will, for example, be fulfilled or should be done. In Deuteronomy 30,15-16 we find a similar text: See, I have set before thee this day* life and good, and death and evil. In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
* this day is synonymous with to day. Then the question becomes whether what Moses said in his speech to Israel only applied to this special day, or whether it even has a meaning for us today to choose correctly. (See also Deuteronomy 11,26-32.)
When many people interpret what Jesus said to the robber on the cross so that he would join Jesus to Paradise on the day of death, this is a wrong interpretation, and this mistake is solely due to the fact that the punctuation is wrong. the semicolon has been placed in the wrong place. This has been done deliberately. That this is how I claim is something the Bible itself shows us through what Jesus said to Mary after the resurrection: … … Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God, John 20,17. Mary could not touch Jesus until after He had introduced Himself to His Father. Jesus first had to introduce himself to his Father and then come back and appear before the disciples who were allowed to touch Him. This was the third day after Jesus told the thief that he should be allowed to go to Paradise. It appears from the text that Jesus did not ascend to heaven on the day He died, which was Friday, nor on the Sabbath, but after the resurrection on the third day. We also do not know which day the thief died, because it usually took both two and three days before the crucified died. When the crucified were not allowed to hang on the cross over the Sabbath, they were taken down from the cross at sunset on Friday, their legs were broken so that they could not escape, and then they lay by the cross until the Sabbath was over to be hung on the cross again to die. It is therefore impossible that Jesus meant the same day he hung on the cross, Good Friday the year 31, when He said verily I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
I believe that Luke 23,43 with punctuation becomes more correct in this way: Verily I say unto thee to day: thou shalt be with me in paradise. We should also notice the one little word Jesus uses … … thou shalt be with me in paradise, not TO Paradise!
There are many such changes in the Bible, and the latest translations only reinforce the impression that there is a planned and wanted change that is going on. It is also worth noting that in connection with the work on the Norwegian Bible Society’s new publication, Bible 2011 it was for the first time both an Adventist pastor and a Catholic priest in the editorial staff, in other words a real ecumenical Bible.
Three types of translation methods have been developed called, 1) concordant; 2) idiomatic and 3) paraphrase, where all three have their own special method of approaching the basic texts.
1) Concordant. These are basic textual translations, which emphasize being as close as possible to the basic languages Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) as possible, such as the English King James Version (1611); the Spanish Reina Valera (1569/1602) and the Norwegian DNB 1930/38 and the Bible BGO (1988). These translations will always be closest to the original text. We can find words and expressions that are no longer common in everyday speech, but these translations retain the original meaning to a greater extent than all the others. But despite the fact that we can find words and expressions that are not common in everyday speech, those who sincerely search for the right understanding will get help to understand this.
2) Idiomatic. These are meaningful translations, or functionally-equivalent translations, as the Bible 1978/85 emphasizes reproducing the message in words and concepts so that it is perceived as easy to understand. As the explanation says, words and expressions, which are used here, are easy to understand. It will then not necessarily always be the most correct translation that is chosen, and thus there will be changes in how one understands the text in relation to the original meaning of the word or expression that has been changed, replaced with another expression or deleted.
3) Paraphrase. These are translations close to the recipient that aim to get as close as possible to the language and way of thinking of modern readers. This method of translation will also move away from the original by using modern words and expressions, which do not necessarily fully cover what the basic text wishes to express. The New Living Bible (Norwegian 2005) and The New Agreement (Danish 2007) are examples of this type of translation.
We have translations that are tailor-made for some denominations, such as the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which was the first Bible translation that really changed words and phrases and removed parts of verses and entire passages, such as verses 9 to 20 in Mark chapter 16. Next to this edition, we find the Bible of the Catholic Church, which contains the apocrypha, which the Catholics prefer to call the deuterocanonical books. The apocrypha, or apocryphal texts, in short, mean texts that are hidden or cryptic, and are a term for religious texts, especially in connection with the Jewish and Christian tradition. They are thus included in the Catholic Church’s version of the Bible, but until now not in Protestant versions. Deutero means; after-; another or post-(canonical). The apocrypha are therefore to be regarded as post-canonical books, in other words, they do not belong to the biblical canon, even though the Catholic Church chooses to call them another – or the second phase of the Biblical canon. It was not until during the Council of Trident, the Concilium Tridentinum, which the Catholic Church arranged in the years 1545-1563 that it was decided that the apocryphal writings should be part of the canon of the Catholic Church. In other words, they were not part of the canon of the Catholic Church until after Luther’s Reformation, which is perhaps worth noting.
We must take into account that there is a spiritual battle going on over the word of God, which is the Bible, and which has been going on ever since the time of Adam and Eve. Ever since the time of exile, many more apocryphal writings have been produced than those found in the Catholic Bible, and in addition we have many Gnostic writings that are gaining more and more influence in more and more Christian congregations. And as if this were not enough, the Bible, as mentioned above, over the last two hundred years has been the subject of many changes in the text, ranging from large changes that are easy to see to small to subtle changes that can be difficult to spot on.
Gnosticism is a collective term that embraces religious syncretism and philosophical mystery religions and sects, which teach that the cosmos was created by an imperfect god, a demiurge, who according to Plato’s work Timaios was the world creator. In Gnostic philosophy, the demiurge is an evil lord who rules over the lower powers. The term gnosticism comes from the Greek word γνώσις, (gnṓsis), gnosis, which means knowledge, realization or insight. Gnosticism is a dualistic religion. It was influenced by, and even in ancient times the gnosticism influenced Hellenistic philosophy, Judaism, and Christianity, and continues to this day to influence Christianity..
In the letter to Ephesians in Revelation chapter 2, Jesus mentions those who are evil. Eventually, the church in Ephesus became well acquainted with tribulation and adversity, and had internal difficulties due to false prophets, but these were revealed. These must have been the false prophets who appeared in the early church, as early as the apostles of Jesus still lived, and who called themselves apostles. These constituted the most serious threat to the primitive church towards the end of the first century, and these defended Docetism, an important Gnostic doctrine, which states that the body of Christ was not human, but was either spiritual or consisted of a heavenly substance, and that His sufferings were therefore only apparent. This chapter also compares the teachings of the Nicolaitans with the teachings of Balaam. Irenaeus identified the Nicolaitans as a Gnostic sect, a sect that sought to link Greek philosophy and Christian faith to a higher realization. The Nicolaitans have also become a symbolic expression of the Gnostics who plagued the churches at that time.
There are two main types of changes that are made in the Bible, all of which contribute to complicating or distorting the original meaning of the text. I call this 1) major changes that a) are easy to spot because here some words, parts of sentences, whole sentences and whole paragraphs are removed, and b) those that can be a little harder to see where a word has been replaced with another word meaning almost the same or with a word meaning something completely different from the meaning the root word provides guidance for, which implies a different understanding of the sentence or paragraph, and 2) subtle changes that are easy to overlook if one does not know the Bible and the biblical principles well.
1) The big changes.
These are usually easy to spot, and such a major change is found in Psalm 2,12 where in one translation, King James 1611* which is a concordant translation, it is said Kiss the Son, and where in other translations, as in Douay-Rheims Bible and Catholic Public Domain Version, which are two catholic translations, it is said embrace discipline. It is obvious that the common catholic shal embrace the discipline the pope demands. In Norwegians translations as in the Bible 1978/85 which is an idiomatic translation is said Kiss the earth. Although it can be defended that it is translated with the earth, this translation is far beyond the context of Psalm 2.
* This translation, King James, is in accordance with the Spanish Reina Valera 1569/1602 and the Norwegian King James called Bibelen Guds Ord, and is based on the Byzantine text family, where both the Majority text and the Textus Receptus (the received text ), and which amounts to approx. 95% of all ancient manuscripts. All of these manuscripts are based on the text that Jesus’ disciples brought with them when they fled from Jerusalem because of the persecution that began with the stoning of Stephen in 34 AD.
Another major change is the one we find here in Matthew 20,22 where an entire sentence of important information is omitted in the New International Version 1984*. In Matthew 20,22 where King James says: But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able … … new International Version 1984 says: You don’t know what you are asking, Jesus said to them. Can you drink the cup I am going to drink? (Missing important text.) We can, they answered.
As we see, there is a whole sentence of 12 words that has been omitted in the New International Version 1984. This change does something with both the verse and the passage, because the baptism Jesus refers to here is his death on the cross.
* The New International Version 1984 is based on the minority text, which it is limited to less than 1% of the old manuscripts, and mainly to the two Alexandrian manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
En annen type stor endring er den vi finneri Jesaja 7,14, hvor Bibelen Guds Ord skriver: Se jomfruen skal bli med barn … … mens Bibelen 2011 skriver: Se, den unge jenta skal bli med barn … … I Matteus 1,23 som siterer Jesaja 7,14 står det jomfru også i 2011-utgaven. Det er å melde en inkonsistent oversettelse når de oversetter Jesaja 7,14 forskjellig og Matteus 1,23 likt. I tillegg så bruker 2011 den unge jenta og ikke kvinnen som Strong´s Exhaustive Concordance velger som alternativ oversettelse. Det er også en vesentlig forskjell på ei ung jente og ei ung kvinne. På den tiden da disse tekstene ble skrevet hadde ei ung jente ikke nådd puberteten, mens ei ung kvinne kunne vært gift eller vært gifteferdig. Ordet som oversettes med ung kvinne eller jomfru er det hebraiske hā-‘al-mā, mens det greske ordet som brukes er parte’nos og som oversettes med jomfru, ugift/ung pike, brudepike. Nå hadde det seg vel slik at på den tiden Jesus ble født, og da Jesaja levde, at en ung kvinne ikke nødvendigvis var jomfru, fordi hun kunne ha bli giftet bort ganske ung, mens en jomfru var en ugift kvinne, eller en ung jente … … nettopp fordi hun ikke var gift. Denne forandringen er med på å sparke beina under jomfrufødselen, og gjør Jesus til et vanlig menneske.
Another type of great change is the one we find in Isaiah 7:14, where King James Version says: Behold, a virgin shall conceive … … while the Good News Translation says: Behold, a young woman whio is pregnant … … In Matthew 1,23, which quotes Isaiah 7,14, both KJV and Good News Translation use the word virgin. It is to report an inconsistent translation when Isaiah 7,14 has been translated in a different way than Matthew 1,23 because Matthew 1,23 is a quote from Isaiah 7,14. There is also a significant difference between a virgin and a young woman. At the time these texts were written, a virgin was not married no matter how old she was, while a young woman could have been married.
The word translated as young woman or virgin is the Hebrew hā-‘al-mā, while the Greek word used is part’nos and it is translated as virgin, single / young woman, bridesmaid. When Isaiah and Jesus lived, it could have happened that a young girl was married quite young, perhaps only 13 – 14 years old, and as a married woman, she would no longer be a virgin, whereas a virgin was a single woman or a girl, precisely, because she was not married and had not had relations with a man. This change is devastating to the virgin birth and turns Jesus into an ordinary human being.
2) The subtle changes.
Unfortunately, we find such subtle changes in many places in NIV 1984, and they are used in many different ways as we can see here in John 6,47. Where KJV says: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. … NIV 1984 says: I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. Here, as you can see, two important words have been left out in NIV 1984. Elsewhere in this edition, one, two or more words have been removed, and sometimes entire paragraphs have been omitted. Those who defend NIV 1984 will claim that it emerges from the context that it is Jesus we are to believe on John 6,47, which is so far correct. But, we humans have the property that in most cases we isolate a verse to use this for all it’s worth. Therefore, this change is not innocent, but it is much, much more dangerous than it seems. The question is what will happen at the next crossroads.
We also find such a subtle change in Matthew 7,23. Where the Darby Bible says: and then will I avow unto them, I never knew you. Depart from me, workers of lawlessness! … King James Version har changed word ans says: Matt 7,23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity, (in the sense of injustice). As you can see, the word lawlessness has wrongly been replaced with iniquity in KJV. To me, these are two very different things. Doing lawlessness is the same as breaking God’s law – those who practice lawlessness therefore live without regard for part of, or all of God’s law. One who commits iniquity can, for example, discriminate between two people by paying one less than another for the exact same work. Then the person in question commits iniquity, but it is not necessarily lawlessness. There is therefore a big difference between lawlessness and injustice there is a vast difference. Doing iniquity is a more vague term that does not describe lawlessness. Iniquity describes favouritism, error, discrimination, bias and the like. To engage in lawlessness is for me to break God’s law, and to put oneself above it: Lawlessness is without a doubt the strongest word for sin and iniquity that we can find in the Bible. Lawlessness is something more than crime. Lawlessness is the same as repealing Gods law. The lawless act just as there were no laws, rules or norms. In practise, the practically everything will be allowed.
Catholic Church Art.
In Catholic church art, where the goal must be said to be a pictorialization of the Catholic doctrine, it is clear that the Catholic Church has installed Jesus’ mother, Mary, both as the queen of heaven and mediator or co-saviour. The Catholic Church has driven a bit like that cut and paste, by removing the Holy Spirit from the Triune God, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, and replacing the Holy Spirit with Jesus’ mother, Mary. In addition, she is placed in the centre of all the pictures I have seen where we find her with God the Father and God the Son. Now it must be admitted that the dove in these two images represents the Holy Spirit, but it still does not defend that Mary is the one that is focused on in both images. She has been given a place in the Catholic Church that is not according to the teachings of the Bible.
As early as the end of the 4th century, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote that Mary’s immortality was already prevalent in popular circles. And it was he who introduced the idea that the woman dressed with the sun in Revelation chapter 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus. This idea was adopted by the Catholic Church, and eventually the church developed the dogma of Mary’s ascension. According to an early Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican view, Mary was taken up to heaven with body and soul. This is celebrated on the same day in both the Eastern and Western Churches, on August 15, but it first became a Catholic dogma on November 1, 1950, when the then pope, Pius XII, spoke ex cathedra in connection with the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, (The Generous God).
The coronation of Mary as queen of heaven. In this painting, we see God the Father and God the Son crowning Mary. In this way, the Catholic Church has made Mary, the mother of Jesus, something more than she is they have made her Queen of Heaven and Co-Saviour.
The Queen of Heaven, the Co-Redemptrix, the Mediator or Co-Savior Mary. If you look at recent Catholic Church art, it is reflected in the fact that they paint a trinity consisting of God the Father, Mary and Jesus as in the illustrations above, or Mary has the Child Jesus on her arm, but Mary is always in the centre of the three.
The Queen of Heaven.
In 1845, the feast in honor of the Queen of All Saints was celebrated in Ancona, Italy. In 1870, Spain and most of the dioceses of Latin America were allowed to celebrate this feast on May 31st. During the Marian congresses of Lyon (1900), Friborg (1902) and Einsiedeln (1906) it was requested that the feast be introduced in the Roman calendar. In 1933 there were inquiries from all over the world, and on November 1, 1954, Pope Pius XII (1939-58) introduced the feast through the bull Ad coeli Reginam (The Queen of Heaven) at the end of the Marian year on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the declaration of the dogma Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The feast was celebrated in Catholic churches around the world from May 31, 1955, the last day of the month of Mary in May, as a double feast of the second class
Co-Redemptrix, the Mediator or Co-Saviour.
Co-Redemptrix, mediator or co-savior are titles more and more Catholics are now beginning to apply to Mary. Catholic theology also refers to Mary’s role in the plan of salvation for men. Over the years, many Catholic theologians have discussed the concept, such as Frederick William Faber in the 19th century and Mariologist Gabriel Roschini in the 20th century. G. Roschini published in 1946 the Compendium Mariologiae (Short Mariology) in which he explains that Mary not only participated in the physical birth of Jesus, but she entered into a spiritual union with him. The divine plan of salvation was not just physical, but a permanent spiritual union with Christ. Mary willingly suffered under the cross, thus sacrificing Christ to God the Father. Most mariologists share this view.
Now, many may raise questions about whether this has anything to do with the battle for the Bible. The answer to that is simply yes, it certainly has something to do with the battle for the Bible. To proclaim the mother of Jesus, Mary – who is an ordinary human being like you and me – the queen of heaven, and co-saviour contradicts what the Bible says about who is able to save us. Jesus Christ, and Him alone are the Saviour. Just look at what Jesus himself says in John 14,6: … … I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Mary was only the man Jesus Christs earthly mother, and an ordinary human being who needs as much God’s grace and forgiveness and salvation as you and me.
All of this is related to the change of the Bible and biblical teaching to do. I want to guard that claim that there is no new Bible translation without at least one Catholic and / or a Jesuit in the editorial staff. Many of the most recent Bible translations are ecumenical, and all denominations gather around them. This is sad because in these translations about 2.5% of the text has been changed including the punctuation. Had 2.5% of the text in Shakespeare’s Hamlet been changed, the script would have been rejected as useless.
This is exactly what the battle for the Bible is all about.
The ecumenical churches, led by the Catholic Church, seek to bind the churches together through a common Bible. To achieve this, they use Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as the main material. In ancient times, the Reformers used Textus Receptus when translating the Bible into German or into other languages. The two ancient manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus represent a minority text and are found in only a few copies. They have not been used in either Eastern or Western Europe for a period of 1400 years, and were out of use from the 4th century when the two mentioned were written in Alexandria, and until they were rediscovered in the 19th century . Codex Sinaiticus was found by Konstantin von Tischendorf in a trash can during his first trip to the convent of Santa Catalina in 1844 (note the year!) at the foot of Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, and is full of additions, corrections, crossings, alterations and changes of alterations. It is dated to between 330 and 360 AD and is written with a text type called Alexandrian text type. Codex Vaticanus was found in a basement in the Vatican in 1868, but is dated to between 300 and 325 AD and are written with the same text type as the Codex Sinaiticus, indicating that they have the same place of origin, Alexandria.
Cardinal Willebrands said this in 1987: As before, the inter-church translation will continue to be based on a Hebrew version of the Old Testament and a Greek version of the New Testament, as agreed by representatives of the various denominations. The draft and review of the translation will be carried out in close collaboration, with the aim that the new text will be accepted and used by all Christian and Christian communities that speak the language in which the translation is done. The clear goal of this inter-church effort is to create editions of the Holy Scriptures that give all who speak the same language a common text. This will then enable, often for the first time, a common testimony of God’s word in today’s world.
Dei Verbum is a Catholic doctrinal document from the Second Vatican Council, and is one of the four constitutions of the Synod. Dei Verbum means Word of God, and was published after the Second Vatican Council 1962-1965. It was promulgated, that is, announced by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, after the bishops present with a vote of 2,344 to 6 had approved it. It constitutes one of the principal documents of the council, and according to one of the council’s leaders persons, Bishop Christopher Butler, this work is the Council’s basic document. Here we read the following:
Everything that has to do with the interpretation of the scriptures is ultimately subordinated to the decision of the Church, because it is the Church that has been given the divine mission and the service to take care of God’s word and interpret it. However, when the word of God is at hand at all times, the Church, as a mother, ensures that accurate and useful translations into the various languages are published, especially from the original text of the holy books. And if a translation, when circumstances dictate it and the ecclesiastical authority agrees to it, is done in communion with our separated brethren, all Christians will be able to use it. It is up to the bishops, for with them is the apostolic doctrine, to provide the believers who are placed under their responsibility, the necessary introduction to the proper use of Scripture, especially the New Testament and, above all, the Gospels. That is, they should provide translations of the biblical texts provided with the necessary and truly sufficient explanations, so that the children of the Church can safely and profitably associate with the Holy Scriptures and be filled with their spirit. In addition, it is recommended to publish editions of the Bible for non-Christians, adapted to their needs and provided with the desired comments.
When Dei Verbum says the decision of the church, the Church, ecclesiastical authority, then of course it is the Catholic Church we are talking about. Also, note that the Catholic Church provides guidance for how the Bible is to be interpreted / understood, in that the biblical texts are provided with the necessary and truly sufficient explanations, and for non-Christians the Bibles must be adapted to their needs and provided with the desired comments.
It is my responsibility, and only my responsibility, to become familiar with and understand the Bible. I cannot leave it to other people to interpret the Bible for me, neither my spouse, brother, sister, pastor or pope. All the help I need I will receive from the Holy Spirit who has been sent to earth to help us in every possible way. Jesus said to his disciples just before he ascended to heaven:
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you, John 16,7-15.
As we see, we do not need the help of fallible people. Our help is divine, it is the Holy Spirit, and He will give us the whole truth.