Okay. Mormons don't believe in transubstantiation either. But ask any knowledgeable Catholic to justify his belief in transubstantiation using the Bible and he may point you to John 6:53-55, which states, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." In verses 60-61, we read, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?" A believing Catholic will tell you that it would be absurd for anyone to be offended by merely drinking wine and eating bread that symbolized His blood and His body. Clearly, they must have been offended only because He was *supposedly* telling them that the bread and wine were actually his body and blood. Despite the fact that I understand those verses differently than a Catholic would, I can acknowledge that the Catholic has indeed provided biblical support for his beliefs.
Now you and I both see this differently than the Catholics. What I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that certain verses (many verses, in fact) can be interpreted (i.e. understood) in different ways. Even if we were all reading the same translation, we'd end up with two different beliefs.