Vatican allows Scrolls to change to Bible

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 09/11/2001 | RICHARD OWEN

[Chemnitz]

At least you admitted that you lowered yourself to a personal attack. The NIV/HIV is not a person. It is not a personal attack to call it a bad translation. Besides, I reported the simple fact that the NIV has a nickname. Someone made it up. I think it is appropriate.

[bryan1276]

"As for me and my house we will serve the Lord" is what you said. My response, you will try to serve Him without believeing a word He says about preserving His words or giving you a perfect Bible to go by. How do you serve someone when you don't know what they say?

[HiTech RedNeck]

I believe God has given us an adequate bible. Even KJV defenders seldom claim the translation is perfect.

[HiTech RedNeck]

P.S. Yes I do hold the original was perfect. I hold what we have today is adequate. Like the cells of living things that God created and which still live today, the Living Word was inspired to withstand damage. We have to be careful not to worship man's "perfection" (including the "perfection" of a particular bible translation).

You want the religious scripture with the best record of letter perfection from the moment of inspiration to today, go to the Koran. (Didn't think you would!)

[al_c]

At least you admitted that you lowered yourself to a personal attack.

No, I haven't attacked you ... yet.

[al_c]

It is not a personal attack to call it a bad translation.

Then call it a bad translation, not a disease. I can follow your search postings and find the information you mention, but I can also find numerous sites showing the errors of the KJV.

[dadwags]

I read somewhere that the KJV and the Douay Rheims were close enough so that the translators of one compared their work to the other . One had the N.T. first and the other group had the O.T. first . I don't remember which was which .

[dadwags]

OOPS! I meant that they were close in Time >

[BlessedBeGod]

The Catholic Church has several official translations -- the Rheims, the NIV, etc. The onlyone still on the list of banned books under Ratzinger's office is the King James Bible. The magisterium believes in a bible that evolves like Catholic doctrine.

The officially acceptable Bible versions in the Catholic Church are:

The 1966 Jerusalem
The New American Bible
The Douay-Rheims
The Revised Standard Version.

FYI, The Revised Standard Version was translated by Protestants. So if there are any problems with it, it's not our fault.

[BlessedBeGod]

The onlyone still on the list of banned books under Ratzinger's office is the King James Bible.

BTW, there is no list of forbidden books anymore. If the KJV was ever on it, it would be because it had so many errors.

[Khurkris]

No Problem. My God is a Living God. I do not fear the changes attempted by various translations of God's messages. If it leads more people to God, No Problem.

[bryan1276]

You assume it's adequate and thus prove the point. You have nothing, no standard, to compare it's adequacy to. You believe in the originals yet the Lord discarded them 1800 years ago. Shouldn't our view of the "originals"--that folks have made out to be gods--be the same as the Lord's view of them? As far as what some people claim or what KJV so called believers claim about their Bible being perfect has no bearing on anything. "Let God be true and everyman a liar." As to going to the Koran I have already read it over and proven sufficiently to myself that it is full of devilish nonsense. But you offered it as the religious writing with the best record. Record for what? I would call 300 years of revivals from 1611 to 1901 the best record; in addition to changing the culture of music, art and changing world history. That's quite a thing for one book to do. And since the AV 1611 did it; I'll stick with that--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Your claim is that none are perfect, so why do you defend the continual introduction of more and more imprefections. Thus creating such a hodgpodge of nonsense all called "The Bible" that a person is relegated to his opinion about what God said and THEN he will pick a BIble that suits what his ideas already told him; i.e., your comment, we have an adequate Bible. According to who? Your opinion of the matter of course.

[bryan1276]

Defenders of modern versions usually have no idea that all modern versions were taken from the Vatican and lead back there. One was taken out of a trash can--Siniaticus, and the other--Vaticanus--was so thoroughly refuted by Dean Burgon in his day that the only way it survived was by its resurrection via greedy Christians who wanted to produce something "new" on the basis that the old was insufficient; i.e., no one had had a sufficient BIble for 2000 years until someone dug up Vaticanus and picked SIniaticus out of the trash can and translated them. Now, I would like anyone who defends the modern versions at the expense of the KJV to try and talk Bible history and manuscript history with me because it will be sufficiently shown beyond any doubt that all corruptions of the Bible from the 1881 Jerusalem Chamber until now are Roman Catholic, specifically Jesuit, ploys to "bring in the fold" and herd Christians today back into line with Rome.

[bryan1276]

Some deletions from modern Bibles: Acts 8:37 1 John 5:7--the greatest verse on the Trinity (who would want that wiped out of your Bible?) Mark 16:9-20, a footnote is inserted and doubt cast on the validity of 12 verses. Dean Burgon's work The Last Twelve Verses makes such mincemeat out of the scholarship behind this footnote that one realizes that either scholars these days are just flat lazy or absolutely ignorant of reality; when you mess with God's book, He messes with your mind. Luke 19:10 says that the Lord Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. In the modern Bibles, that has been wiped clean. If anyone is honest enough to take a hard look at why they believe what they do about translations and the Bible, they will come to these conclusions. What I have pointed out here is not even the tip of the iceberg. The lines and the canals of this devilment have seated themselves so deep in Christianity that they have become unquestionable tradition. Stop and realize that with 400 differing translations, that is, 400 different authorities all claiming to be Bibles, that God is no longer the author of any book and you have become the necessary judge of what God said. But thank the Lord that He has preserved for us a Book and a foundation and that anyone who would like to find it may. It is the 7th purification (Ps. 12:6-7) and was Authorized by a King because it is about a King and a Kingdom. Amen

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

al-maw'
Noun Feminine
1.virgin, young woman
a.of marriageable age
b.maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

Much ado about nothing, it seems.

[Woodkirk]

You are wrong. The KJV was and is on the list fo forbidden books because it is a witness against Roman Catholic propaganda. In my Catholic Bible right in front of me, it says that a Catholic is excommunicated for : "publishing, reading, or keeping certain forbidden books and publishing books of Scripture without permission". The list at one time exceeded 5,000 in the 1950s. Among the books that Catholics are prohibited from "publishing, reading, keeping, selling, translating, or communicating to others in any way" Is "any edition or translation of the Scriptures by nonCatholics, i.e., a King James version of the Bible." Any one who thinks they are Catholic and chooses to think for himself, and reads the truth in the KJV is defacto excommunicated . Wake up, Catholics, your magisterium doesn't want you to know the truth because it might set you free from them.

[Woodkirk]

You are wrong. The KJV was and is on the list fo forbidden books because it is a witness against Roman Catholic propaganda. In my Catholic Bible right in front of me, it says that a Catholic is excommunicated for : "publishing, reading, or keeping certain forbidden books and publishing books of Scripture without permission". The list at one time exceeded 5,000 in the 1950s. Among the books that Catholics are prohibited from "publishing, reading, keeping, selling, translating, or communicating to others in any way" Is "any edition or translation of the Scriptures by nonCatholics, i.e., a King James version of the Bible." Any one who thinks they are Catholic and chooses to think for himself, and reads the truth in the KJV is defacto excommunicated . Wake up, Catholics, your magisterium doesn't want you to know the truth because it might set you free from them.

[bryan1276]

Alma means VIrgin; that's exactly right. A person could go to English and find that out as well. Alma Mater (your school) means VIRGIN Mother

[Havoc]

Now, I would like anyone who defends the modern versions at the expense of the KJV to try and talk Bible history and manuscript history with me because it will be sufficiently shown beyond any doubt that all corruptions of the Bible from the 1881 Jerusalem Chamber until now are Roman Catholic, specifically Jesuit, ploys to "bring in the fold" and herd Christians today back into line with Rome.

You might as well spell this out because whether you do or not, you will be attacked for it and called every name in the book. Put the history on the table for those who don't know - because that's what this is about. They will attack you and your scholarship along with anyone you cite; but, let the truth stand.

[DonQ]

Alma means VIrgin; that's exactly right. A person could go to English and find that out as well. Alma Mater (your school) means VIRGIN Mother.

Well, now you're mixing Latin and Hebrew and not even realizing it. Alma Mater is Latin for "fostering mother" or "nourishing mother" or "indulgent mother". I cannot imagine how you thought Alma was Latin for virgin.

In Hebrew, Almah means young - in the sense of adolescent or thereabouts. In the Aramaic Targum of Genesis 34, the word Almah is used to describe Dinah after she was raped by Shechem.