Originally posted by HalitoseAgreed.
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.
But RBHill continues to accuse Catholics of doing something they clearly do not - even non-Catholics on the forum see that. So, is he being invincibly ignorant, deliberately ignorant or knowingly untruthful?
And what does that say about what's in his heart?
Cheers,
LH
Originally posted by lucifershammer
St. Jerome's translation would, no doubt, reflect the way the Church understood those texts at the time.
100% agreement! St Jerome was a mighty scholar and demonstrably meticulous.
Anyone who disagrees with this is a fool.
Does his translation accurately convey the intentions of the authors? I don't know.
I think we can venture that it may not convey it to a certain degree. He will carry with
him about 300 years of Christian experience (heresies, arguments, councils, and so forth).
All of things are going to taint him, lean him in a certain direction of interpretation.
He has no experience with Jesus (of course) or His disciples, or even His disciples' disciples.
The early Christian writers had, to some degree, that. He also doesn't have the advantage
of today's archeological and anthropological studies which can give us insight into the meaning
of a word or phrase.
I would say that St Jerome did the best he could to create the best edition with the texts
he had, but that he, like us all, was a product of his time and was influenced by it. Editors
today are in a better position for three reasons:
1) They have access to history and information unavailable to St Jerome;
2) They have better knowledge of text-critical and redactive techniques which
inform them as to the best way to handle a given passge of translation;
3) There is a greater freedom of peer review (without fear of being burned at
the stake), which allows for discussion and contemplation, rather than the absurd
notion that 'this translation is the never-changing, always perfect' notion.
I would like it if you could elaborate (with a few examples, if possible) why you feel the NAB is the best translation around.
Because it has the Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur!
Just kidding. That's not why.
I find that, if for no other reason than its size, the Roman Church has the most
advanced theological scholarship of any denomination. They have liberal scholars,
conservative scholars, bookworms and mystics, scholars who are pro-institution,
who are anti-establishment. You name it. And, while the Church has tried to
silence some of the radicals, there remains a tremendous outlet for this information,
a sort of 'point-counterpoint.' The NAB is a product of that environment; with only
a few exceptions that I have noticed, the critical notes reflect the positions of a
variety of theological perspectives, the introductions reflect an expression of what
was the best scholarship of that day.
Of course, I supplant any NT biblical study I do with a Greek transliteration and
translation aids (UBS series) and am up-to-date on new theological trends (again,
largely in journals which are appealling to RC audiences), so any objections I have
to an interpretation are often supported by some RC theologian.
The NAB is where I start for the superficial study (a quick glance or reminder about
a passage). My NAB is (unsurprisingly) highly annotated by me where ever I have
reservations in their translation. I'm not wedded to it, and, if you could recommend
another translation that you feel is better, I'm all ears!
Nemesio
Originally posted by RBHILL
Haven't you read the Bible. God predicted that the laws would be changed and they where.
THERE ARE NO NUMBERS IN THE HEBREW. NONE.
How thick do you insist on being? St Jerome numbered them the way that the RCC
teaches. It was that way for 1000 years.
It was the Protestants who changed them. So, according to you, the Protestants are
going to burn in hell. Yippee! Yay!
The Catholic Church says the only why to be forgiven is by the Church but the Bible says only Jeus Can forgiven sins.[/b]
RBHILL, I've been over this time and time again. At least twice before.
The Bible does *NOT* say that only Jesus can forgive sins. Confer St Mathew 16:18-19
[And Jesus said:] And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the
keyts to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
See also St Matthew 18:15-19, especially 18 (Amen, I say to you (plural), whatever you
(plural) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven).
See ESPECIALLY St John 20:22-23: And when He had said this, He breathed on them and
said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose
sins you retain are retained.
So, as usual, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG about the Roman Catholic Church and
WRONG WRONG WRONG about what the Bible 'says.'
Let's see if you learn this lesson this time.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWeren't they struggling with a re-emergence of paganism during Mose's time and actually did have a graven image of a false god problem.
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 is? Are you going to stop willfully misrepresenting the Roman
Catholic Church now?
Nemesio[/b]
Although the neighbor's wife was considered his property, she clearly wasn't considered a commodity( goods).
Christ covered all the loopholes when He said
there were really only 2 Great Commandments.
Originally posted by frogstompChrist covered all the loopholes when He said
Weren't they struggling with a re-emergence of paganism during Mose's time and actually did have a graven image of a false god problem.
Although the neighbor's wife was considered his property, she clearly wasn't considered a commodity( goods).
Christ covered all the loopholes when He said
there were really only 2 Great Commandments.
there were really only 2 Great Commandments.
Because they were all encompassing, covering not only more than the previous 10, but by obeying them, you automatically complied to the other 10 or uh... 9.
Originally posted by HalitoseMakes it easier to under the word too.
[b]Christ covered all the loopholes when He said
there were really only 2 Great Commandments.
Because they were all encompassing, covering not only more than the previous 10, but by obeying them, you automatically complied to the other 10 or uh... 9.[/b]