Replies

You made the claim that:The fact is Scripture has been copied down by men, and translated by men and frankly biased men. I can only interpret that to mean that the Greek original translations are biased. Then what value are they if they're not correct? This position is simply to reduce the sacred and inspired writings down to standard Church writings. This isn't what the Fathers thought at all, all before the 8th century.

You made the claim:we go by the greek originals . So what??? Fifty years ago I might have been impressed. Today with all the search tools and various Greek lexicons all over the Internet, one can read how an actual Greek piece of scripture read. If you want to look at a different Greek text, it's there. To be honest, there isn't much difference between the various text. What's normally argued here is content and doctrine; not whether a particular passage is accurately translated.

What really bothers the Church is the capability of people being able to look up the original writings for themselves. The fall back plan is to say, "Father Jones felt blah-blah-blah about Passage X. So don't go interpreting it for yourself. Your mind can't handle it. All translations are wrong except the one Father Jones uses." As soon as people understand that Father Jones isn't any different than Sam Smith down the street and he uses the same version as what everyone else uses, the jig will be up.

And, at least my version isn't written by bias gentlemen.

If you'l recall the New Testament original language is Greek; it's not a translation.

As for your second claim it's plain silly; why do most protestants not follow Corinthians? Because they read their translation which is worded poorly and seems to suggest that 282 of St Paul's words which have been accepted as scripture for almost 2000 yeras are meaningless and do not apply today. It's not simply the doctrine (women refraining from preaching and covering their heads) it's the translation and the 'interpretation' of the reader which is iseparably linked to that translation.

Further we get things like the revised standard edition which, for example, leave off 8 versus at the end of Mark amoung which is the one where Christ says folks must be baptised.

It's a fact that since the 14th century there have been rampant attempts by folks with an axe to grind to translate the Bible into what they'd LIKE it to say in English rather than what the original says.

We know from Luke 10:38-42 that a disciple named Mary sat in the presence of Jesus. The important part of the passage is that she chose the better part, to learn at Jesus' feet. No mention is made of any head covering or that it was necessary to block gamma rays or anything emanting from Him.

Another time a Mary washed his feet with her long hair, so she defintely was uncovered, except for the hair, in that instance.

Paul taught in synagogues where a shaved head would have represented a Hebrew slave. A good scripture explaining the origin of the custom is Deut 21.