Replies

A bit late on this:

Angelo's point is that certain key verses appear to have bad translations into Greek and these bad ideas have permeated Christianity, making us see things in the OT that he claims are not there.

I know what his point is and I reject it for the following reason: the Hebrew Scriptures are NOT, as the Koran is supposed to be by Muslims" the literal Word of God, but a compilation and restatement of earlier writing that no longer exist (the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance). Furthermore, I ask: in what written form were the Ten Commandments inscribed on the Tablets of the Law? The Hebrew alphabet was probably not even invented in the 13th Century B.C. The Jews, IMHO, treat the Scriptures as do the Fundamentalist Protestants: a canon that was "sealed: and which is itself and only itself the whole of divine revelation. I don't agree, and say, what are THEY to tell me that Luke, or even the translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not speaking the word of God? Why should I accept their authority any more than I accept the authority of Luther, or Ray Brown, for that matter?

Fitting that the first reading on November 11, Veterans Day, is from 2Macabrres, recounting the story of the martyrdom of the Seven brothers. It is from this period in Jewish history that we have the first martyrs for faith--any faith, for who ever died for Baal or Zeus? "At the point of death [one of the brothers] said: [to the Syrian king]

"You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the worldwill; raise us up to live again, forever. It is for his laws that we are dying." From the earliest days, Christians esteemed their own martyrs and felt an unbreakable bond with them. We likewise, especially in these days, feel a attachment with those who have given their lives for their country.

the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance

You do know that this theory believes that the "J" version used Yhwh for God and "E" versions used "Elohim?" What a silly theory. I'll let the rest of your points speak for themselves.

I know what his point is and I reject it for the following reason: the Hebrew Scriptures are NOT, as the Koran is supposed to be by Muslims" the literal Word of God, but a compilation and restatement of earlier writing that no longer exist (the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance).

allend, dignan3, would you care to share your opinion of modern critical theory with RobbyS?

Furthermore, I ask: in what written form were the Ten Commandments inscribed on the Tablets of the Law? The Hebrew alphabet was probably not even invented in the 13th Century B.C.

If you have any evidence which suggests that the tablets of the 10 Commandments were written in any language other than Hebrew, please present it. Otherwise, it is just idle and meaningless speculation.

what are THEY to tell me that Luke, or even the translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not speaking the word of God?

What is the Catholic Church to tell the Mormons that Joseph Smith was not speaking the word of God?