>>The RCC’s bible is their catechism, man made doctrine/traditions. <<
Unless and until you are working from the Bible in its original languages, you are merely interpreting it (and even then it is interpretation since so much is expressed in stories and parables).
It is the height of hubris (not unknown amongst those who little to nothing about Catholicism) to suggest that another interpretation, based on over a thousand years of study, is somehow less than your handful of years in what could best be described as a bastardized version: be it the King James (considered by scholars to be the worst translation ever) or, worse still, the modern English version.
How’s your Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek?
> “...be it the King James (considered by scholars to be the worst translation ever)”
.
Accidental mistake, or deliberate falsehood?
Actually, by true scholars analysis, it is among the best, but not to be considered a complete treatise either.
The basic doctrines are the same in all the major translations. The important issues that are popping up now are due to the failure of the basic Greek to pass the meaning of the hebraic idioms through. This failure affects all of the commercially prodeced versions, including the KJV, Geneva, NASB, NIV, RSV, and the Douay.
How's YOURS?
You're passing judgment on the quality of the translations of King James and other versions.
On what authority do you base THAT?
How fluent are you in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?