Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

... ": That's right. Not a word. The Church has translated the Bible into virtually every language on earth, always being as faithful to the original texts as possible. Any time anything is translated, there is always the danger of losing a certain shade of meaning from the original language. Indeed sometimes a word may not even exist in the new language that expresses exactly the same nuance as a word in the original language. But the scholars who have produced the priniciple Catholic translations have been the best the world has known. Contrast this with a translation like the original King James version, which contains literally thousands of translational errors. " ...

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004

Answers

Really now? I would like to see these "thousands of translational errors".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Oh, but I don't see rod making a big deal about this...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

David,

Yeah, I think Paul was a little over the top. But there are common misconceptions about the errors of the KJV. I doubt it was intentional deception on his part.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Emily,

I have been around the Greenspun forums for over a year, and I don't think this was the case. He was attacking the KJV. This is also his usual rhetoric when it comes to the "thousands upon thousands" of Protestant denominations.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Well David, are you going to deny that there are thousands of denominations?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Emily,

I would really like to see a list (including the essential doctrines they believe) of all these alleged "thousands upon thousands" of denominations.

Yes, I deny it, that number is grossly inflated.

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

I have argued/discussed things in the other forum about such translations. The Catholic Bible did have "Lilith" recorded nicely in Isaiah (I forget the chpt. and verse). My argument dealt with the purity of truth, as "Lilith" was removed in later editions of the Catholic Bible. The problem stemmed from the lack of accuracy with the translators. Evidently, "Lilith" became a transliteration, which put it in the "honest mistake" category. That "honest mistake" pushed the door a little wider in regards to accuracy of the Bible.

Lilith was a popular evil creature in legend and mythology. How it got placed in Scriptures is still a mystery to me.

Also, the KJV does have a funny line: "Foxes have holes." Well, of course they do.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Well, it is nice to read the 23 Psalm in the KJV. It is poetic and colorful. The Catholic version is not as popular outside the Catholic camps. But, are both versions saying the same things or not? Perhaps King James had his crowd to please and needed to go away from the Church by constructing a whole new Bible. Fact is; he did. Fact is; the Catholic Bible has maintained its originallity. Or, has it? Probably not, if words and readers keep changing. But, some would argue that it is a natural progression in the preservation of God's Scriptures. I don't know. Let's all just learn Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

David,

To address those articles to which you linked:

Whether it's 30,000 or 8,000 or 100 or 2, that's still too many.

John 17 (KJV)

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Even one disagreement on what is God's Truth is one too many. Are Protestants one as Christ and the Father are one? Do Christ and the Father disagree on doctrinal issues? No. God must grieve the divisions in Christianity today.

As for the "divisions" among Catholics, the problem is simple. People are calling themselves "Catholic" when they are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church. In their actions, they are being hypocritical.

The confusion here comes from the Protestant perspective. For Protestants, doctrinal teaching is relative to the opinions of people (leaders of that particular denomination) and how they believe God is leading them. That is not how the Catholic Church operates. Catholics must submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, and anything else is disobedience. They become Protestant in their beliefs and cease to be Catholic, so one cannot say that this creates divisions in the Catholic Church. What it really does is add to the Protestant divisions.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

"People are calling themselves "Catholic" when they are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church. "

Ouch! what can I say?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

The Catholic "version" is the original "version", and was the only version until a few hundred years ago. The Catholic "version" used today still contains exactly the same 73 sacred books it contained when the Bible was first compiled by the Catholic Church 1,600 years ago. It was the founders of Protestantism who decided to trash 10 books of the Word of God in the 16th century. Fortunately, their plans to remove three New Testament books met with such vehement opposition that the New Testament was not desecrated. But they did manage to toss out seven books of the Old Testament which, by a remarkable coincidence, contain teaching contrary to some of the new traditions they were imposing on their followers. The New Testament books which were rescued from their grasp also contain teaching contrary to their new traditions - such as the powerful teaching by James regarding the necessity of works for salvation - but that they just have to live with. In any case, absolutely nothing has been added to the original Canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church, but a great deal was removed by the early Protestants, who now have only 66 books of God's Word available to them; and who would have had only 63 if their founders had had their way.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

With all the talk of Mormons that occasisonally shows up o these baords, one wonders if a Mromin coidl make the claim of the Cahtolics that they don't contain all the scriptures in God's word since they lack the Book of Mormon, Doctorine and Covenants, and the Pearl of GrAT pRICE? iSN'T THIS THE SAME CLAIM?

(No, I am not in support of Mormonism, just interested in parrallels. Nor am I attakcign Catholisism. Just an observation.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 03, 2004.

There is nothing resembling a parallel here. Mormons not only could, but DO in fact claim that the Book of Mormon is equal in authority to the Scriptures. However, the fact is, the Canon of Christian Scripture was defined once and for all time at the Council of Carthage - a gathering of Catholic Bishops - at the end of the 4th century. The only means any person on earth has of knowing what writings constitute Sacred Scripture and which do not is the authority of that Holy Spirit-led Council. If the Council was truly Spirit-led, then the 73 books they discerned as divinely inspired ARE divinely inspired, and we can know that infallibly. If the Council was NOT divinely inspired, then we have absolutely BNO way of knowing that ANY writings are actually Scriptural. You can't pick and choose. Either the Bible as originally defined is the Word of God, and we cannot remove anything from it - or it is a mixed bag, from which we can remove any books that don't suit our fancy - like the 7 Old Testament books the founders of Protestantism removed, and the 3 New testament books they attempted to remove. However, if thoase books can be removed, it MUST mean that the Council which chose those books was not Spirit-led, and therefore all of the remaining books are likewise subject to removal by men.

With all the talk of Mormons that occasisonally shows up o these baords, one wonders if a Mromin coidl make the claim of the Cahtolics that they don't contain all the scriptures in God's word since they lack the Book of Mormon, Doctorine and Covenants, and the Pearl of GrAT pRICE? iSN'T THIS THE SAME CLAIM? ?"

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2004.

Bt dotn you see, that it IS similar, in that htey claim Cathokcis and Protestants d not have the complete set of scriptures, as THEIR counsils have added texts while beign leadby the Holy SPirit...

Its just a point of parrallelism, not mean to convey much, excpet that I find such similarities facinating.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

No Catholic Council "added" any text to the Bible, as there was NO officially accepted Bible until the Council of Carthage defined and compiled the Bible in 397. Since then, NOTHING has ever been added or removed by the Catholic Church, though a great deal has been removed, and small portions added, by the fopunders of the Protestant tradition.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 05, 2004.

NO, your wrong. First off you STILL havebt shown ANY protestant addition tot he txt AT ALL.

Likewise, Trent is where the Contested books where declared scripture, and even thogh you say it reaffirmed the existign Cannon, records clearly indicate that the Contested books had no definitive classification till Trent

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Zarove, the "contested" book as you call them were declared canon in 397 as Paul stated. Here's is the pertinent text from the Council itself as provided by Bruce Metzger, noted Protestant theologian:

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine.

The English text below is from Bruce Metzger.

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 05, 2004.

If it was not a General Counsil, then why woudl we assume it had bearign on the whole Chruch?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.