“Your history reading is very narrow, hemmed in by the RCC’s recommended reading list, evidently.”
LOL, no I’m a former Protestant, who was always warned not to read certain passages of the Bible. So, I started looking at the translation of the Bible and found out that it was Protestant beliefs that forbit looking at the original Bible translation. You read the KingJames version of the Bible, which purposefully changed original meanings of important words.
Research it on your own. That reality is objective.
“I’m a former Protestant, who was always warned not to read certain passages of the Bible.”
I don’t know about “Protestants” ‘cause I’ve never been one. Nobody has ever instructed me not to read any passage in the Bible. Every church I’ve ever fellowshipped with makes cover-to-cover Bible reading and personal in-depth Scripture study a very high priority for the common folks. Virtually the entire membership of one such church reads the whole Bible in eight weeks every year. That’s 20 chapters a day. They do it as a congregation, encouraging each other to be avid Bible readers. The churches we attend are congregations where each believer carries his own Bible to church and looks at it when the preacher is preaching, and will question what he said, if need be, according to the Bible.
Of course, you are duty bound to state that any Bible (KJV or otherwise), that doesn’t have the approval of the Vatican, “made changes,” etc. etc., because you really believe that the RCC is the only authorized source for the Bible—any manuscript evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Hills, Wilkinson, Schrivener, Vance and Gipp would mean absolutely nothing to you as scholars on the subject (although they are genuine), simply because they are not Roman Catholics. Nothing would mean anything to you if it didn’t come directly from a RCC-approved source.