Which Bible Should We Trust?

[123]

[quote]THe International Versions out there may be easy reading, but are not authentic catholic scholarship, and so contain errors in translation and/or footnotes.[/quote]


I agree with c'mom. IMHO, my conviction is that the right way to understand the Scriptures would be the way that Islam and Judaism understand them, only the Arabic text of the Qur'an and the Hebrew of the Tanakh are reliable. Once they are translated into english the texts lose their cultural worth and can be manipulated. Therefore, it would not hurt if Christians, who feel they are authentic, should learn to read the New and Old Testaments of the Bible in their original texts, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

That is just a theory, but, It would solve all of this: Plummber's Study Bible, Super Prophecy Edition Study Bible (with Apocalyptic footnotes included!), Airmens Study Bible, or versions of [i] The Message[/i] that can be even ordered in Ebonics, and yes even, The Duct Tape Bible.

[cmotherofpirl]

I see no point in how Islam interprets the Scriptures, unless you are doing apologetics with muslims.
To say that only the Hebrew Tanakh is reliable isn't true, the Catholic church has been using the same basic Scriptures for 2000 years. St Augustine [born in AD354] testifies that the old Latin version had certainly come "from the first days of the Faith", and the latter that it "had helped to strengthen the faith of the infant Church." So I will stick with the Catholic translations.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1205686' date='Feb 27 2007, 10:26 PM']Each religion will go out of its way to try to prove each other is wrong. They do so because Religious spirits come into the lives of people, and drive them with this lie - their religion is the only true religion and all other religions are evil and in sin, and all other members of all other religions must repent of the sin of seperating itself of the 'true religion' or they will burn in hell. All religions are based on that fact, and there are people in all religions who are so zealot that they must prove their religion is the right one.[/quote]

This isn't exactly true, I was once a zealot at a Messianic Jewish/charismatic church [in my pre-teen years], then I'd been raised by Muslims [in my teens], but was introduced to Coptic Orthodox at this time [which I rejected] and was overly zealous about that, then I'd gone back to the Messianic Jewish/Charismatic church but later was enlightened to Coptic Orthodoxy. Just for the record too... Coptics [as probably most Christians] dont' have the view of "either you're Coptic or you're burning in hell".

[quote]Don't fall in love with your religion, fall in love with YHWH, because he is the only one who can save you.[/quote]The problem is that the church [the true church] is Christ's bride, therefore those that aren't part of that church are what? God isn't a polygimist and doesn't have multiple brides, so if someone doesn't belong to his one and only bride, what are they?

[quote]Nothing beats Jewish People translating the original Hebrew Text, period.[/quote] Actually that isn't true, the Jewish people can't translate the Bible from the original Hebrew because the original Hebrew was lost. After it was discovered from the ruins of the temple, it didn't have any vowels in it, therefore the modern Hebrew speakers couldn't interpret it properly, which makes the Septuigent the most accurate translation on the planet [not to mention Jesus quoted from it].

back to the question at hand. "The Message" is just a typical example of Protestant faults. It's heretical, through and through. It's best to stick to a mainline translation. As I'd mentioned, if you'd like something more easy to read, read the New Jerusalem Bible [a Catholic Translation, given the stamp of approval by the Vatican, if I'm not mistaken].

[quote]Amen. Even my evangelical Protestant boyfriend agrees with that statement. (He defends me against anti-Catholic accusations by asserting that the Catholic Church is responsible for putting the Bible together).[/quote] But as I'd mentioned before, "Catholic" is in reference to all the Catholic Churches [Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox alike] that helped compile it, etc... NOT just Roman.

Reza

[Aloysius]

Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are two ways of saying the same thing.

but yes, it was set by an infallible [i]ecumenical[/i] council, it comes from the whole Catholic Church, all sui juris churches included.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206208' date='Mar 1 2007, 08:20 AM']The problem is that the church [the true church] is Christ's bride, therefore those that aren't part of that church are what? God isn't a polygimist and doesn't have multiple brides, so if someone doesn't belong to his one and only bride, what are they?[/quote]

Hmm, I guess I must belong to your religion for Christ to take me in. I must be going to hell then.

Churches are not organizations, they are believers.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1206513' date='Mar 1 2007, 07:37 PM']Hmm, I guess I must belong to your religion for Christ to take me in. I must be going to hell then.

Churches are not organizations, they are believers.[/quote]

Yuo were baptised so you are a member of the Body of Christ. The Church is the organization of believers set up by Jesus.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206570' date='Mar 1 2007, 08:32 PM']Yuo were baptised so you are a member of the Body of Christ. The Church is the organization of believers set up by Jesus.[/quote]
That is what I am talking about when I talk about Religious spirits.

Your statement doesn't show any religious spirit attached to it. You recognize that I am part of the Body of Christ. That is what redeems me from death and hell.

The other person I commented on wrote something that wasn't of the Holy Ghost.

I have to admit, my posts reveal a lot of my personality. I like 'stirring the pot'. I find it interesting to see people's reactions to my posts.

But at the same time, I take my relationship with God very seriously. I LOVE HIM! I WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PLEASE HIM! If I ever felt that I needed to belong to a certain religious organization, I would do it immediately. But he doesn't. He doesn't press on me to join any church.

[mroger]

Dear author,

I find it quite absurd that you would even consider "which bible we should trust" as a valid question when your answer ended with King James.

Nevermind that most protestants today recognize that the books of Wisdom, and Tobit and others that the KJV do not include are in fact canonical. In fact, even the Jews use the ancient "Catholic" books in their own Canon.

Where is the proof that their texts merit such authentication you might ask? Well, how about it is a well known fact now that not all Psalms were written by Jews, nor in Hebrew, nor even in Jerusalem. Thus, it is not necessary that any book be written in Hebrew to be considered canonical. Therefore, books, such as Maccabees, ought to be considered in the KJV because because of their merit in word, not because of some ancient ethnocentric view that all OT books ought to have been written in Hebrew.

Secondly, the New KJV uses Lutheran translations, which are totally inappropriate. Did you know that if Luther would have had his way, there would be seven and possibly eight fewer books in the New Testament? That's right, Luther wanted to rid the Canon of all books written by John, including Revelations and the Gospel. He also wanted to destroy the Books of Hebrews, James and Romans.

Imgaine how much less of The Word we would have if those crazy Protestants woulda had their way!

The KJV is inadequate because it does not include such necessary books as Maccabees, and because it is an inauthentic translation, not true to what was in fact said in those ancient texts.


Sincerely,

Sie Geistesswiesenschaften
(have fun translating that one!)

P.S. I'd highly recommend taking a course in Hermeneutics.

And don't forget - [b][i]Catholicism is the Original Bible Church!! Why? Because we wrote it!!!![/i] [/b]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206208' date='Mar 1 2007, 01:20 PM']Actually that isn't true, the Jewish people can't translate the Bible from the original Hebrew because the original Hebrew was lost. After it was discovered from the ruins of the temple, it didn't have any vowels in it, therefore the modern Hebrew speakers couldn't interpret it properly, which makes the Septuigent the most accurate translation on the planet [not to mention Jesus quoted from it].[/quote]

I would argue against that to a degree. While I can't read unpointed text very easily, it can be done. Just as we can read hieroglyphs even though no vowels were written. Hebrew is based on a triconsonantal root system, so every word with those 3 consonants is related. The root itself might be a noun, then add a prefix to make it verb, for example. The vowels that are in there now have been taken from modern Hebrew, I believe, in order to make it readable (where in Middle Egyptian we just add 'e's as needed to make it readable). The Septuagint is great, don't get me wrong, but don't discount the ability to read the Hebrew just yet.

But I suppose that's a bit off-topic. As for translations go, I would love it if more of use could read the Hebrew and Greek. I think people need to read a real translation, not a paraphrase, like the Message is. The Jerusalem Bible is my new favorite translation; I'd actually never been exposed to it until moving here, but it's great.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1206707' date='Mar 2 2007, 05:14 AM']Where is the proof that their texts merit such authentication you might ask? Well, how about it is a well known fact now that not all Psalms were written by Jews, nor in Hebrew, nor even in Jerusalem. Thus, it is not necessary that any book be written in Hebrew to be considered canonical. Therefore, books, such as Maccabees, ought to be considered in the KJV because because of their merit in word, not because of some ancient ethnocentric view that all OT books ought to have been written in Hebrew.[/quote]

Quite true.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206775' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:14 AM']I would argue against that to a degree. While I can't read unpointed text very easily, it can be done. Just as we can read hieroglyphs even though no vowels were written. Hebrew is based on a triconsonantal root system, so every word with those 3 consonants is related. The root itself might be a noun, then add a prefix to make it verb, for example. The vowels that are in there now have been taken from modern Hebrew, I believe, in order to make it readable (where in Middle Egyptian we just add 'e's as needed to make it readable). The Septuagint is great, don't get me wrong, but don't discount the ability to read the Hebrew just yet.

But I suppose that's a bit off-topic. As for translations go, I would love it if more of use could read the Hebrew and Greek. I think people need to read a real translation, not a paraphrase, like the Message is. The Jerusalem Bible is my new favorite translation; I'd actually never been exposed to it until moving here, but it's great. [/quote]

I would disagree with your conclusion on several basis's.

1.) After it wasn initially translated, those Jewish scholars [and Christian ones too] proclaimed it to be a severely flawed translation, while the Septuigent was translated by Hellinized Jews from the original text and was far more accuate.

2.) You can always add vowels, but again you're guessing and basing that upon a modern form of the language, not the original. Proof that this wouldn't work are in the differences in Aramaic Dialect that the Syriac Orthodox Church currently uses, and the difference between Egyptian Arabic and Traditional Arabic.

Reza

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206798' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:52 PM']I would disagree with your conclusion on several basis's.

1.) After it wasn initially translated, those Jewish scholars [and Christian ones too] proclaimed it to be a severely flawed translation, while the Septuigent was translated by Hellinized Jews from the original text and was far more accuate.

2.) You can always add vowels, but again you're guessing and basing that upon a modern form of the language, not the original. Proof that this wouldn't work are in the differences in Aramaic Dialect that the Syriac Orthodox Church currently uses, and the difference between Egyptian Arabic and Traditional Arabic.

Reza[/quote]

What I'm saying about the vowels is that you don't need vowels in order to know the word and what it says. For example, when I'm translating Middle Egyptian, I don't need the vowels to know what the word is. Can I pronounce it as an Egyptian would? No, of course not. But I don't need to speak it. The same applies to ancient Hebrew, we can read it.

I would like to see where the scholars said the Hebrew version was flawed, and which Hebrew version. Not trying to attack or anything, but I'm curious, as a scholar. I use the BHS, which does have footnotes about the Septuagint to cross-reference. It is taken from the Leningrad codex, and I think some might be from the Aleppo codex, at least in footnotes; the Leningrad dates to the 11th century, I believe, and the Aleppo to the 10th, unless I'm mistaken (quite possible ) Most scholars I know regard it to be quite accurate, and it is very widely used by scholars, as far as I know. There are earlier versions, though, that are not as accurate, so I can see what you mean with that. I personally think translations should look at both, but that's my opinion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206570' date='Mar 1 2007, 06:32 PM']Yuo were baptised so you are a member of the Body of Christ. The Church is the organization of believers set up by Jesus.[/quote]

[quote name='The Catechsim of Pope St. Pius X']6 Q. Is the dignity of the Christian Priesthood a great dignity?
A. The dignity of the Christian Priesthood is great indeed, because of the two-fold power which Jesus Christ has conferred upon it — that over His real body and that over [b]His mystical body, or the Church[/b]; and because of the divine mission committed to priests to lead men to eternal life.[/quote]

The mystical body of Christ IS the Church and therefore those outside of the Church are NOT part of the mystical body of Christ.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1206995' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:10 PM']The mystical body of Christ IS the Church and therefore those outside of the Church are NOT part of the mystical body of Christ.[/quote]
Gotta love those religious spirits. So St. Thomas More, you think I'm going to burn in hell. I would say, when we're both in heaven, you'd be surprised, but somehow I think God won't offend you with that sight. . .

After all, there will be many, many Catholics, protestants, muslims who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ and believe in his deity, Jews who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, and many others.

[quote name='Mark 9:38-40']And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is on our part.[/quote]

[quote name='Luke 9:49-50']And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.[/quote]

Seems like Jesus didn't really care if you were part of a particular group. If you cast Demons out in his name, you're for him and his church. And if he is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, than I guess he wouldn't really care if you are a part of a particular group today.

Edited March 3, 2007 by FullTruth

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206907' date='Mar 2 2007, 01:39 PM']What I'm saying about the vowels is that you don't need vowels in order to know the word and what it says. For example, when I'm translating Middle Egyptian, I don't need the vowels to know what the word is. Can I pronounce it as an Egyptian would? No, of course not. But I don't need to speak it. The same applies to ancient Hebrew, we can read it.

I would like to see where the scholars said the Hebrew version was flawed, and which Hebrew version. Not trying to attack or anything, but I'm curious, as a scholar. I use the BHS, which does have footnotes about the Septuagint to cross-reference. It is taken from the Leningrad codex, and I think some might be from the Aleppo codex, at least in footnotes; the Leningrad dates to the 11th century, I believe, and the Aleppo to the 10th, unless I'm mistaken (quite possible ) Most scholars I know regard it to be quite accurate, and it is very widely used by scholars, as far as I know. There are earlier versions, though, that are not as accurate, so I can see what you mean with that. I personally think translations should look at both, but that's my opinion.[/quote]

1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza

[FullTruth]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207056' date='Mar 2 2007, 09:53 PM']1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza[/quote]
Reza

First of all, there are things in the Jewish Publication Society Bible that no other Bible will plainly spell out. Like the Genesis 3:15 scripture concerning the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It isn't Christ that is to defeat the enemy, it is us. We need to put the Devil underneath our feet. I thank God that he gave us Jesus Christ to do that.

Second of all, if you read Genesis 6 in the Jewish Publication Society Bible, it becomes an entirely different chapter. You will see one word, and when you read it, I dare you to Google it.

A teaching of the Roman Church totally contradicts this teaching, and therefore leaves you powerless to the things the word in Genesis 6 describe.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1207062' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:00 PM']Reza

First of all, there are things in the Jewish Publication Society Bible that no other Bible will plainly spell out. Like the Genesis 3:15 scripture concerning the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It isn't Christ that is to defeat the enemy, it is us. We need to put the Devil underneath our feet. I thank God that he gave us Jesus Christ to do that.

Second of all, if you read Genesis 6 in the Jewish Publication Society Bible, it becomes an entirely different chapter. You will see one word, and when you read it, I dare you to Google it.

A teaching of the Roman Church totally contradicts this teaching, and therefore leaves you powerless to the things the word in Genesis 6 describe.[/quote]

I wouldn't deny that the JPSB has different messages, but what I would deny is its authenticity. I dont trust those of the Jewdaic faith much, in regards to Christianity. Their credibility was compromised at Jamnia.

Reza

[FullTruth]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207132' date='Mar 3 2007, 12:00 AM']I wouldn't deny that the JPSB has different messages, but what I would deny is its authenticity. I dont trust those of the Jewdaic faith much, in regards to Christianity. Their credibility was compromised at Jamnia.

Reza[/quote]
It's funny you say that. Messianic Jews use it a lot.

That's how I learned about it. My Mentor and I are so passionate about learning the word of God in it's most pure form, that when we heard about the JPS old testament translation, we had to get ahold of it. We learned about it from a Messianic Jewish friend my mentor meet on a message board, like this one.

Their scriptures which testify of the Christ are very accurate, and there are messages that come from it that when you learn what is truly going on, you know God had his hand on the JPS translation.

It doesn't have the new testament though. For that, I go back to the King James Bible, because it is very good.

Like I said. Download the JPS bible and bible reading software, read Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 6:4, then Google the Second word of Genesis 6:4 + "Seed of the Serpent" and see what you get. It will open up your eyes.

There is a grand conspiracy, which comes from Satan, to deny us the heritage God has given us. He doesn't want us to know who we are in him, so he can continue to destroy humanity, one life at a time.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207056' date='Mar 3 2007, 02:53 AM']1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza[/quote]

In most languages I would agree. I did not know you are a Copt, but I do know that Coptic is the descendant of the Egyptian language and is most closely related to demotic. I do not know demotic & Coptic yet, but maybe I will at some point. I understand that Coptic uses the Greek alphabet, with some changes. Like I said, I don't know demotic, the closest Egyptian language to Coptic; it developed in the 25th dynasty, and I don't study the Late Period. I'll let you know when I find more. I myself am an Egyptologist, but I love learning languages and pick up ancient languages fairly quickly.

Hebrew & Egyptian are actually quite different, but I have studied both. The similarity is that they use roots as the basis for words. In Hebrew for example, לדבר and דבר are from the same root, dbr, for 'word'. The one on the left is the verb form 'speak'. The root consonants determine the root meaning of the word, and the vowels only distinguish its part of speech a bit further. Hebrew is not like English; the consonants themselves can point to which vowel will follow (especially true in the case of vav & yodh). The vowels can help, and the Leningrad Codex was a pointed text from Masoretic tradition, but it can be read without them, it just takes more practice. Even if the verb form doesn't add another consonant, you can tell it's a verb by its position and usage. Oh, and modern Hebrew doesn't write the vowels, either. Check out the newspaper Ha'Aretz.

In Egyptian, similar rules apply. hqr (there should be a point under the h to make it emphatic) can mean either to be hungry or the hungry person. The consonants don't change, and we don't know the vowels. I can easily tell which is which, however, by its position in the sentence (verbs come first in the sentence and are followed by the subject), and by the determinative at the end. So yes, in most languages vowels are absolutely necessary to determine which word it is, but in a language based on roots, it's a little different.

As for the google search, I did find some things about earlier manuscripts, but I also found scholarly praises for the BHS, which is what most scholars now use and what most translators use for the Bible (in addition to the Septuagint).

[TruthSeeker777]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1206707' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:14 AM']Dear author,

I find it quite absurd that you would even consider "which bible we should trust" as a valid question when your answer ended with King James.

Nevermind that most protestants today recognize that the books of Wisdom, and Tobit and others that the KJV do not include are in fact canonical. In fact, even the Jews use the ancient "Catholic" books in their own Canon.

Where is the proof that their texts merit such authentication you might ask? Well, how about it is a well known fact now that not all Psalms were written by Jews, nor in Hebrew, nor even in Jerusalem. Thus, it is not necessary that any book be written in Hebrew to be considered canonical. Therefore, books, such as Maccabees, ought to be considered in the KJV because because of their merit in word, not because of some ancient ethnocentric view that all OT books ought to have been written in Hebrew.

Secondly, the New KJV uses Lutheran translations, which are totally inappropriate. Did you know that if Luther would have had his way, there would be seven and possibly eight fewer books in the New Testament? That's right, Luther wanted to rid the Canon of all books written by John, including Revelations and the Gospel. He also wanted to destroy the Books of Hebrews, James and Romans.

Imgaine how much less of The Word we would have if those crazy Protestants woulda had their way!

The KJV is inadequate because it does not include such necessary books as Maccabees, and because it is an inauthentic translation, not true to what was in fact said in those ancient texts.

Sincerely,

Sie Geistesswiesenschaften
(have fun translating that one!)

P.S. I'd highly recommend taking a course in Hermeneutics.

And don't forget - [b][i]Catholicism is the Original Bible Church!! Why? Because we wrote it!!!![/i] [/b][/quote]

Beacause we wrote it

Tell me is there a numeric and scriptural code in the catholic bilbe like there is in the KJV.?

The apocraphy is ommitted because it is not inspired writing,its simple.