You wrote:
“vladimir998, thank you for your answer, I guess, although it came across more a diatribe than a calm, reasoned response.”
Actually, logically, it could only come across to someone that way if he intended to take it that way no matter what.
“The basic truth is that there were some disparate translations into German, not widely available, of Jerome’s Latin Bible, the Vulgate.”
False. As Andrew Gow has shown, translations of the Vulgate were commonly available in late medieval Germany.
“Now you are introducing a completely different subject for which you offer no evidence.”
False. I was correctly your insufficient presentation. I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the your presentation was lacking. Again, you apparently have not done the needed research for the topic (or topics) at hand.
“This is a subject that has been discussed for years and years, but no solid proof has ever been forthcoming.”
It is not needed for my point. Again, as I pointed out, we have no autographs. None. My point, therefore, stands even if Hebrew and Aramaic had not been the original language.
“So, it point of fact, you are offering mere speculation to undergird a position you have chosen to take whatever the case may be. Scholarly or agenda driven? Hmmmmm.”
Truth driven. You have failed in all respects.
vladimir998 wrote:
“Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”
This is not diatribe? (Definition: A speech or discussion bitterly and violently directed against some person or thing. Synonyms: Denunciation, Invective, Tirade) I will let the readers decide.
He also wrote:
“False. I was correctly (sic: correcting) your insufficient presentation. I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking. Again, you apparently have not done the needed research for the topic (or topics) at hand.”
I made no presentation. I asked reasonable questions to which you somewhat gave answer, and then pointed out that you were changing the subject - which indeed you did, your denial notwithstanding! It is interesting to note your statement: “I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking.” Again, I made no presentation. The rest of what you pontificate here, again, I leave to the readers to evaluate the worth thereof.
He also wrote:
“It is not needed for my point. Again, as I pointed out, we have no autographs. None. My point, therefore, stands even if Hebrew and Aramaic had not been the original language.”
Your point stands? I see. Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament. It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom. By an analogous logic the effort that went into the Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament, for example, was unnecessary and wasted. You appear to be saying that God gave His Word only symbolically, to whit: Since the autographs are not extant the concrete words of God never quite attained reality. That is almost Gnostic in its ultimate unreality. On the other hand, Christians have had to deal with Gnosticism in its many manifestations for a very long time. It makes me wonder a little about the christological assumptions under which you labor.
Finally, vladimir998 concluded:
“Truth driven. You have failed in all respects.”
So, you are truth driven? Was this insight given you from heaven (do you have an autograph of the certification you received?) or did you just conclude it on the basis of your own insight? It is quite convenient in a discussion to assume the position not only of a participant, but also of the referee and the judge. I guess you are more formidable a personage than I could have imagined. So, I guess we are all forced - and I mean forced! - to agree that you have succeeded in all respects. Again, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.