Actually, this is what you said.
“I’m not the one quoting a 500 year old translation that, by your own admission, is from the Latin. Your use of a translation made from Latin to promote Roman Catholic belief 500 years ago makes your posts suspect, not mine.”
The Latin translation is MUCH older than your translation.
And from the Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew texts. If you’re not using that, your posts are suspect.
Good grief.
YOU wrote (post 101) “From the Douay-Rheims it says....”
I pointed out that it “is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English.” Normally, double translations aren’t the most accurate. And the Douay-Rheims you quoted was made in response to the Reformation.
Yes, the Latin Vulgate is older, but it has many texts - as do the Greek and Hebrew. Modern translations - which I’ve used - take all that into account in trying to figure out what the original manuscripts would have been.
Neither of us is qualified to debate the quality of various texts used in translating the Bible. From what I’ve read, the Catholic Church, in the 1500s, tried to set in stone what is the authoritative text - by decree, not scholarship.
That is fine if you are arguing with other Catholics, but doesn’t count for much when you cite scripture to non-Catholics. If you have reason to believe the texts used by the NIV / ESV etc are bogus, feel free to lecture me. Otherwise, I’ll go with the best scholarship of folks who have devoted their lives to studying the basic Greek & Hebrew texts.