If that were true, then why are there so many individual interpretations of English language Scripture? Or do you now maintain that the Holy Spirit gives different revelation and understanding to each and every human being?
LOLOL! There you go again with the knee-jerk blather. That was Ephesians 2:8-9 from the New American Standard Bible NOT the KJV! Care to apologize?
For what? My statement stands and is true. The attitude that they have creeps into your posts to an alarming extent.
Well, probably the same reasons why the Catholic Church uses "official" Catholic version Bibles. Some are good some are not. And I don't know where you are getting this "so many individual interpretations of English language Scripture". First of all no one has their "own" Bible translated/interpreted. Second, even your church has changed its Bible versions over the years. At one time, they used the Jerome translation in Latin called the Vulgate. That was late fourth century. Then there was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate they used called the Douay-Rheims Bible in the late sixteenth century, early seventeenth. There were some that refuted that version and William Fulke produced a Bible called the Bishops Bible.
Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of 1750 with very few changes. Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810; and these various Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th Century. Subsequent editions of the Challoner bible printed in England most often follow Challoner's earlier New Testament texts of 1749 and 1750; as do most 20th century printings, and on-line versions of the Douay–Rheims bible circulating on the internet. Although the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is still often the Bible of choice of more traditional English-speaking Catholics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible)
So perhaps you would like to rephrase or rethink your assertion about "interpretations"?
For what? My statement stands and is true. The attitude that they have creeps into your posts to an alarming extent.
It's okay, I'll let you slide this time although it would be honest if you at least conceded you spoke too quickly about accusing me of being creepy with "those KJV'ers" since I don't always post verses from that version AND since the verse I did quote was from the New American Bible and NOT the KJV. Also, please tell me when I EVER said anything that caused you alarm thinking I had a KJVer attitude that had crept into my posts. BTW...what exactly IS that attitude???