25 Aug 05
Originally posted by TheBloopMaybe they thought it was a bit different stealing his silver cutlery or f-cking his wife.
What RB Hill is basically saying is:
The 10 Commandments, as originally "numbered" are:
1. No other gods
2. No graven images
3. No taking the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honor your mother and father
6. Shall not murder
7. Shall not commit adultery
8. Shall not Steal
9. Bear false witness
10. Covet (neighbor's house, ...[text shortened]... rs wife, and a 10th commandment about not coveting your neighbor's house and other possessions.
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by TheBloopSo RB is saying the mother of Christ was "graven" ?
What RB Hill is basically saying is:
The 10 Commandments, as originally "numbered" are:
1. No other gods
2. No graven images
3. No taking the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honor your mother and father
6. Shall not murder
7. Shall not commit adultery
8. Shall not Steal
9. Bear false witness
10. Covet (neighbor's house, ...[text shortened]... rs wife, and a 10th commandment about not coveting your neighbor's house and other possessions.
25 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by TheBloopWell, if he says so, he is incorrect. "The Ten Commandments"; i.e. Exodus 20:1-17 in the NIV has 14 commandments within it by my count. They are numbered Exodus 20:14, with X = 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17. Wikipedia says the Jews agree that there are 14 (or 15) commandments in "The Ten Commandments" and therefore they don't call them "The Ten Commandments" but rather "The Ten Utterances" or something.
What RB Hill is basically saying is:
The 10 Commandments, as originally "numbered" are:
1. No other gods
2. No graven images
3. No taking the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honor your mother and father
6. Shall not murder
7. Shall not commit adultery
8. Shall not Steal
9. Bear false witness
10. Covet (neighbor's house, ...[text shortened]... rs wife, and a 10th commandment about not coveting your neighbor's house and other possessions.
Exodus 20:17 contains two different sentences and each is a commandment in itself. The two commandments you say are the Catholic 9th and 10th are the two separate commandments in Exodus 20:17. The New Life Version agrees with this. The American Standard Version and King James Version agree too, though they place a comma between the two "thou shalt nots" instead of a period. The Holman Christian Standard Bible also agrees with this. Looks like it's not a product of the translation but inherent in what is written.
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOf course he is incorrect. RBHILL remains willfully ignorant of Catholic practices,
Well, if he says so, he is incorrect.
repeatedly demonizing them by intentionally misrepresenting what they teach.
The Roman Catholic Church has not omitted anything. They number the
utterances listed in Exodus differently. In fact, this was the way the Christian
Church did it before the Protestants schismed and renumbered what had
been over 1000 years of tradition.
The RCC considers the concepts of 'thou shalt have only one God' and 'thou shalt
not have graven images' as the same thing: don't worship anything that isn't God.
This is the way the Church does (and always has) conceived of the way of reducing
the number of utterances to fit the number 10. The Protestants changed this to
emphasize idols because the Church, in the 16th century became wrongfully fixated
on them. It was reactionary.
In terms of 'bowing to Mary,' I've gone over this, time and time again, with RBHILL
and he continues to misrepesent the teachings of the Church. I am not going to
waste my breath trying to impress upon him that ANY ROMAN CATHOLIC WHO
WORSHIPS MARY DOES SO IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO CHURCH TEACHING
but, in a few weeks, he will simply post the same garbage again. He is a bigot
towards that faith, something which is supported by the insular, self-righteous,
willfully ignorant, group of 'Christians' he gets his errant infromation from.
Nemesio
25 Aug 05
Actually, from memory, RBHILL used to be Catholic so knows a bit about it. Also, the Catholic (Douay Rheims?) Bible is quite different from the NIV etc.. I'm not sure about stuff taken away, but they are definatly books in the Catholic bible not in the others. I think this was due to the NIV etc being translated directly from the Greek/Hebrew texts, whilst the Douray Rheims was taken from another translation. However, i don't really know anything about this so i'll shut up about it 🙂
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by geniusAFAIK, the Douay Rheims Bible is a translation from the Latin Vulgate which, in turn, was based on Hebrew and Greek texts available in the fourth century (when St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate). So, if anything, it would be more accurate.
Actually, from memory, RBHILL used to be Catholic so knows a bit about it. Also, the Catholic (Douay Rheims?) Bible is quite different from the NIV etc.. I'm not sure about stuff taken away, but they are definatly books in the Catholic bible not in the others. I think this was due to the NIV etc being translated directly from the Greek/Hebrew texts, whilst t ...[text shortened]... ther translation. However, i don't really know anything about this so i'll shut up about it 🙂
In any case, there is no "official" Catholic Bible (although the Vulgate was the one used by the Western Church for most of its history). Many modern versions (the JB, NJB, NAB etc. come to mind).
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerHmm...I don't know quite what you mean, LH.
AFAIK, the Douay Rheims Bible is a translation from the Latin Vulgate which, in turn, was based on Hebrew and Greek texts available in the fourth century (when St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate). So, if anything, it would be more accurate.
If you mean its dividing of 10 Commandments would be a more accurate reflection
of 4th-century Christian thought, then, yes, I agree.
If you mean that the Vulgate is a more reliable translation (read: a more accurate
reflection of the 'original' text) than modern ones, I simply cannot agree with this.
I doubt you mean the latter, so I will delay supporting my position for now. Suffice
it to say that, except for some spots, I find the NAB translation with critical notes to
be the best English translation available.
Nemesio
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by NemesioIn my Catholic Study bible that I have the took out the #2 and moved it up. and split 9 and 10.
Of course he is incorrect. RBHILL remains willfully ignorant of Catholic practices,
repeatedly demonizing them by intentionally misrepresenting what they teach.
The Roman Catholic Church [b]has not omitted anything. They number the
utterances listed in Exodus differently. In fact, this was the way the Christian
Church did it before the Protesta ...[text shortened]... s,
willfully ignorant, group of 'Christians' he gets his errant infromation from.
Nemesio[/b]
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by RBHILLI cannot be clearer about this RBHILL.
In my Catholic Study bible that I have the took out the #2 and moved it up. and split 9 and 10.
There were no numbers in the original. There were just a bunch of
sentences. There were more than 10 sentences, so they had to be divided.
The first set of Christian divisions is the Roman Catholic one!
What you call the 'second' is included in the first the FIRST VERSION OF
THE CHRISTIAN TEN COMMANDMENTS, the Roman Catholic numbering.
Why? Because having one God means not worshiping graven images. It is
redundant. If you only have one God, you wouldn't worship something that
isn't God.
It was a direct response to the icon-worship that was prevalent amongst the
Jews in Moses's time.
The Protestants renumbered the Commandments, breaking from 1000 years
of Christian tradition. Please understand this.
NOBODY OMITS ANY ARTICLE IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. IT IS JUST
A RENUMBERING.
Do you get this? Are you going to stop willfully misrepresenting the Roman
Catholic Church now?
Nemesio
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by NemesioI think my use of the term "accurate translation" may be misleading. Apologies.
Hmm...I don't know quite what you mean, LH.
If you mean its dividing of 10 Commandments would be a more accurate reflection
of 4th-century Christian thought, then, yes, I agree.
If you mean that the Vulgate is a more reliable translation (read: a more accurate
reflection of the 'original' text) than modern ones, I simply cannot agree with this.
...[text shortened]... he NAB translation with critical notes to
be the best English translation available.
Nemesio
What we do know is that St. Jerome had access to and did make use of more original texts than we do today - many of which are no longer available to us.
What constitutes an "accurate translation"? One that conveys the original wording of the text? One that conveys the original sense of the words? One that conveys the moral message behind the words?
St. Jerome's translation would, no doubt, reflect the way the Church understood those texts at the time. Does his translation accurately convey the intentions of the authors? I don't know.
I would like it if you could elaborate (with a few examples, if possible) why you feel the NAB is the best translation around.
25 Aug 05
Originally posted by NemesioHaven't you read the Bible. God predicted that the laws would be changed and they where.
I cannot be clearer about this RBHILL.
[b]There were no numbers in the original. There were just a bunch of
sentences. There were more than 10 sentences, so they had to be divided.
The first set of Christian divisions is the Roman Catholic one!
What you call the 'second' is included in the first the FIRST VERSION OF
THE CHRISTI ...[text shortened]... is? Are you going to stop willfully misrepresenting the Roman
Catholic Church now?
Nemesio
The Catholic Church says the only why to be forgiven is by the Church but the Bible says only Jeus Can forgiven sins.
25 Aug 05
When it comes to who is right before God between Protestant and Catholic, I think that it's got nothing to do about which Bible you read or which church you attent; I believe God looks at each individual's heart.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.