Luther vs. Rome

Praise God, that we are saved by grace alone. Works without faith are utterly without merit. This is not merely a Protestant notion.

Such has been the persistent teaching of the saints throughout the ages. Yet a whitewashing of Martin Luther has led to many people, even Catholics, fundamentally misunderstanding the Catholic Church's criticism of him.

Please understand that what I write here is no ad-hominem attack on Luther for any purpose, including the slander of Protestantism. Attacking the moral character of Martin Luther is gainless, for no-one supposes Luther to be imbued with the gift of infallibility. But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes. Further, given the whitewashed history of Martin Luther, it is imperitive to remember the context of the Catholic Church's language and actions, which seem terribly strident, presented out of the context.

The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.

This is not Luther's position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.” (Letter to Melanchthon, 1521) "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).

As such, it was not necessary to avoid sin. “If grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” In fact, the way to conquer sin, he taught was to indulge it: “The way to battle a tempting demon was to “in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him.” Even the greatest sin was permissible, so long as one believed in Christ.: “Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)

These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress. And his comments that peasants were born to be cannon fodder is horrific in light of the deaths of 100,000 peasants in a rebellion of which he spoke, “I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head... My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it.” (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299)

Such beliefs are not incidental to Luther; they are a major part of the reason for many princes siding with him against the Catholic church. Without such support, his movement would have no base. But he also appealed to their financial motives, arguing that they had no obligation to fight Muslims. In fact, Luther preached that Islamic domination was superior to Catholicism. His horrors at the excesses of Rome were pure fiction, aimed at weakening Rome's military strength. His lies are betrayed by his ignorance of Rome's geography. (He mistakenly thought that the Vatican was built on one of the seven hills of Rome, an assertion he'd make time and time again in asserting that the Papacy was Babylon.) Again, the context is horrifying: Belgrade fell in the very same year as the Council of Worms, 1521. By 1529, the Islamic horde had reached Vienna.

Luther even attacked the Holy Bible, itself. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, those words exist only in the Letter of James. So, Luther sought to have that book struck out of the bible. At the Council of Worms, he was shown how the 1st Letter of Peter refers to purgatory, how Revelations depicts the saints in Heaven praying for the souls below, how James explicitly states that “faith alone is dead, if it has not works.” Later Protestant apologists offered alternate explanations for these difficult passages, but Luther simply declared that they were false: “Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool “

His violence to the Word of God was worse still regarding the Old Testament. In condemning the Ten Commandments, he said Moses should be “damned and excommunicated; yea, worse than the Pope and the Devil.” Yet this man argued that the bible alone was authoritative?

When confronted by the Catholic church over his statements, Luther never disavowed these statements, or claimed they were exaggerations, or apologize for putting his foot in his mouth. Instead, he boasted, “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me.”

Thus, the Catholic church was in the position of defending Western Civilization militarily against the Islamic horde, when an outrageous heretic preached all manner of hatred against it, instigating insurrection, and leading political forces to align against it. In doing so, he attacked not only the Church, but the historical and biblical under-pinnings of the bible. Could there be any wonder that the church responded harshly? Luther is dead, and he has never been held to be infallible or sinless. This is not an attack on him, but a defense on the Catholic Church, which he assailed.

It's 1529. The Muslims are in Bavaria. There's a madman boasting that he's responsible for 100,000 dead peasants, and he sides with the Turks. Can you really say that the Church treated him too harshly?

You wrote:

“Since we differ on assumptions, we differ on conclusions. Unless one of us wishes to change assumptions, there will be no agreement on conclusions.”

You have assumptions. I have authoritative teachings from the Church.

“Protestants largely agree on doctrine. I’m a Baptist, but I’ve had no difficulty having Lutheran or Methodist pastors.”

Sure you do. Ask that Lutheran about Baptism. Ask him what the Eucharist really is.

“Obviously, all denominations have some who ignore scripture...but no more so than Catholics do (see Notre Dame & Obama, for example).”

The difference is this: We have individual Catholics who ignore scripture, but Protestant denominations ignore scripture. All Protestants are sectarians. They are not in Churches. They are in sects started by men.

“Those Protestant denominations that honor scripture have no major doctrinal differences, and those that do not honor scripture have no justification for calling themselves Protestants.”

Wrong. Again, get your Baptist and Lutheran pastors in the same room and bring up Baptism. Better yet, make it infant Baptism. See what happens.

“If the traditions of Catholicism don’t contradict scripture, then they do not bother me. However, I see no reason to twist the plain meaning of words to make scripture agree with your traditions.”

I’m not twisting anything. See how you have to twist things to satisfy your own beliefs? You MUST conclude that I am twisting things because I actually present the traditional, historical, 2,000 year old Christian belief and it doesn’t square with your less than 500 year old set of novelties.

Take Mary’s sinlessness. Do you think only Catholics believe in that? Here’s what Martin Luther wrote about it nearly 500 years ago:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. J. Pelikan. Concordia: St. Louis, Volume 4, 694)

Now, do you agree with that? If not, then how can you have no problems with a Lutheran pastor? If your Lutheran pastor doesn’t agree with Luther then why does he call himself a Lutheran?

“Different assumptions, different conclusions. Not unlike one of my biology professors years ago, who told me he believed in evolution because the alternative - belief in God - was unacceptable to him.”

Your analogy is completely off base. This is not a choice between a Christian belief and a secular belief.

“That makes sense - IF you assume the Roman Catholic Church IS the one true Church.”

Wrong again. Let’s use even your logic. You have no problems with Baptist, Methodist or Lutheran pastors even though they all disagree on major doctrines such as Baptism and the Eucharist. Which one of them represents the true church then? Clearly they can’t all represent it because they all believe and teach differently. Logically, no matter what you personally believe, at least two out of the three men MUST represent false sects and not the true church. Also, you MUST concede, that it is possible all three could be wrong (which is actually the case). Yet, I freely admit that the Holy Spirit can act through even bad men who are members of false sects. In other words, your premise is wrong, your understanding of the Holy Spirit is wrong, and your understanding of the Catholic Church is wrong as well. By the way, I am not Roman Catholic. I am just Catholic.

“If you do not assume that, then the widespread apostasy seen in the Episcopal Church is evidence of the contrary - that as we can sin, so can we sin in church. That is what is nice about scripture - it doesn’t change.”

Neither do the teachings of the Church. The Episcopal Church is no Church at all - just another Protestant sect.

“I am mildly aware of the teaching of your church on Mary’s salvation. I say mildly, because while I have read what your church has posted on internet sites, I have only done so recently in response to posts here at FR. Frankly, it appalled me.”

I think you should be more appalled at your own insistance in attacking what you didn’t understand.

“Even if you assume Mary was born free from original sin, you still have to believe either she A) live in compliance with God’s will in everything - including the Law, as a Jew, or B) her sinlessness is based on her justification by the saving grace of God - in which case, it doesn’t differ from us.”

I have no difficulty in believing Mary was obedient to God. We know she obeyed God’s laws as they pertained to her life and that other Jews did the same to the best of their ability. Also, she was saved by Christ and His grace as anyone who is saved is, although it was a singular grace for her because it came at the beginning of her life.

“...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” ‘has made’ - past tense - perfect forever. Justification.”

And?

“If A, then her sinlessness depended on herself, and contradicts scripture. If B, then she differs not from us.”

What? No one is saved by the law. No one. EVERYONE and ANYONE who is saved is saved by Christ. There are no exceptions.

“It doesn’t PROVE it wrong. It DOES make one suspect it either isn’t true, or simply isn’t important.”

Wrong on both counts. The Church has always taught Mary’s sinlessness. To teach otherwise would be to teach something wrong.

“Apparently, you largely agree with me. The point is that the woman should focus on God and His will, not Mary as Blessed.”

Largely? You were taking a verse and using it to attack the Catholic beliefs about Mary when the verse had nothing to do with them. You wrote: “And when a woman tried to pay attention to Mary, Jesus himself redirected her (“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”).” The woman was not concerning herself with Mary whom she clearly didn’t even know and who clearly wasn’t on the scene!

“An example of why I won’t continue this discussion with you further. We use tradition, but do not elevate it above scripture in determining what is right or important.”

That’s just not true. Sola scriptura. Period.

“However, I find your tone bitter and angry, and one cannot have a logical discussion with someone who is filled with anger.”

I’m not even remotely angry. Stop projecting.

You wrote:

“Paul also rebuked Peter on a matter of critical importance in doctrine”

Nope. Not once. Paul rebuked Peter for what he did, not for what he taught. We know what Peter taught from Acts. What he later did - against his own teaching - Paul had every reason to rebuke him for. I too can rebuke a pope or bishop or priest for what they do.

“If ‘The First Pope’ could be wrong on such a matter (salvation does not come by following Jewish dietary laws), why would we consider those who follow to be infallible in their teachings?’

Peter was not teaching salvation through kosher eating. He was eating with the Judaizers “because he was afraid of” them. The thing he did that was wrong was that he joined them in their “their hypocrisy”. It was his actions and not his teaching that was at issue here. This is proven by the very next verse that you posted:

“When I saw that they were NOT ACTING in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet YOU LIVE LIKE A GENTILE and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

See that? He was teaching one thing and doing another. It was hypocrisy that was at issue and not his actual teaching.

“If you claim the Holy Spirit is not in all believers, then you ignore the clear teaching of scripture.”

No. When scripture was written there was only the Catholic Church and those who fell away. Are those who fell away described as having the Holy Spirit? Simon Magus was a baptized believer. How was he described after he fell away? Remember he was already desscribed by Luke in Acts as a baptized believer when this happened:

18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

And Simon went on to form a sect. Today Protestants like to look at scripture and say, “See all believers were in the Church,” or “All believers had the Holy Spirit,” while pretending that their way of believing TODAY is equal to that of the early Christians. Ain’t so.

Get a Baptist, Methodist and Lutheran pastor in one room and ask them about baptism. When one disagrees with the other than ask yourself which one doesn’t have the Holy Spirit. The simple fact is the Holy Spirit doesn’t sow discord in doctrine. So, according to your logic, something would seriously be wrong for them to disagree since they all have the Holy Spirit according to you but would all disagree even if you had them all using the same Bible.

EPIC PROTESTANT FAIL.

You wrote:

“The Holy Spirit guides each believer, not an apostate church.”

Hence, the Holy Spirit has never once guided a Protestant sect.

“Your whole church is based on a couple of verses about Peter’s revelation that Jesus is the son of God and expaned it into a system that makes the bold and arrogant claim that their leader is infallible and that they have the power to ordain priests who are “alter Christos” - another Christ ???? The Bible warns us about people claiming to be another Christ !!”

Uh, no. Our Church is based on the central mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, His death, resurrection and His issuing of the Great Commission. Verses in Matthew 16 show what Christ intended, but no verse in Matthew is the basis of the Church. Christ is.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, not Peter. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, not some later scriptural exegete. The Church is the bride of Christ. Period.

“Add to that, these “priests” allegedly have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven to become a peice of bread ??”

No, and no Catholic claims they do. Christ does not become a piece of bread - nor does any Catholic claim He does. When I see something like that from an anti-Catholic like yourself I am struck by how intensely erroneous anti-Catholics are in their understanding of something yet it never seems to stop them from posting examples of it. Christ does not become a piece of bread. The bread becomes Christ’s flesh. You apparently think that means the same thing - and that says quite a bit.

Ceiling. Watch.

“Again your “church” has taken the words “do this in memory of me” and expanded it into this bizzare unbiblical ceremony where Jesus is sacrificed again, and again. WOW!”

No. Jesus can’t be sacrificed again and again and no one is trying to do it. Again, we see that you do not understand even what the Mass is. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE. His sacrifice, however, was so momentous that it transcends time and space. That’s why Moses will be in heaven and not just believers standing at the foot of the cross! That sacrifice is the most pleasing sacrifice God ever receieved. And it is re-presented today in an unbloody form in honor and worship of the Father in Heaven. Also, the word translated as “do this in memory of me” is the Greek word anamnesis. You might want to learn about what that word means when coupled with sacrifices:

In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (”mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4). http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/eucharist/fcfc-eucharist3.htm

Ceiling. Watch.

“Yes I do, and you should read it again.”

I was right the first time.

“You trust the church, but not Christ himself or his words.”

Wrong. Trusting the Church - which Christ sent - is trusting in Christ and His words. The Church is Christ’s body. Do I need to point out where in Paul’s letters he says that? Try 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.

“You may not think Mary is a goddess, but your church believes and teaches that she should be treated like one.”

No, actually the Church has never taught that. This is EXACTLY what the Church teaches in Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 970 when quoting Lumen Gentium from Vatican II:

“No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”514

See that? NO CREATURE [and Mary is a creature and this paragraph is in the section on Mary] COULD EVER BE COUNTED ALONG WITH THE INCARNATE WORD AND REDEEMER.

That’s what the Church teaches...so do you care?

Ceiling. Watch.

“Your church calls her the “Queen of Heaven” and proclaim that graces from God come only through her.”

Because Christ is the king and He came through her. He is grace.

“Your church robs God of the glory that is ALL HIS. Your church also teaches that he is some tough guy and only can be appeased by Mary.”

That’s completely untrue. No one and nothing can appease God except for what he chooses. Mary is the greatest saint and the greatest of the saintly intercessors before Christ’s throne. That’s what we believe. We do not believe what you said. Do you even care to get it right?

“What did JPII say after he was shot “Mary help me, Mary help me, Mary help me.”

Because it was her feast day, he already knew the third secret of Fatima that talked about a pope being attacked and he was particularly devoted in his daily prayer life to the intercession of Mary.

“Here is some Mary worhip from the catholic church.”

No. None of it in any way, shape or form shows any dulia being given to Mary. This is another old Protestant canard to take The Glories of Mary and misrepresent what St. Alphonsus wrote as if it was about dulia when it was not. St. Alphonsus is now in heaven. I wish I could say the same for the anti-Catholics who repeatedly attack this saintly man.

Here’s the sort of thing from St. Alphonsus that anti-Catholics like yourself never post (gee, I wonder why):

All holiness and perfection of soul lies in our love for Jesus Christ our God, who is our Redeemer and our supreme good. It is part of the love of God to acquire and to nurture all the virtues which make a man perfect.

Has not God in fact won for himself a claim on all our love? From all eternity he has loved us. And it is in this vein that he speaks to us: “O man, consider carefully that I first loved you. You had not yet appeared in the light of day, nor did the world yet exist, but already I loved you. From all eternity I have loved you”.

Since God knew that man is enticed by favours, he wished to bind him to his love by means of his gifts: “I want to catch men with the snares, those chains of love in which they allow themselves to be entrapped, so that they will love me”. And all the gifts which he bestowed on man were given to this end. He gave him a soul, made in his likeness, and endowed with memory, intellect and will; he gave him a body equipped with the senses; it was for him that he created heaven and earth and such an abundance of things. He made all these things out of love for man, so that all creation might serve man, and man in turn might love God out of gratitude for so many gifts.

But he did not wish to give us only beautiful creatures; the truth is that to win for himself our love, he went so far as to bestow upon us the fullness of himself. The eternal Father went so far as to give us his only Son. When he saw that we were all dead through sin and deprived of his grace, what did he do? Compelled, as the Apostle says, by the superabundance of his love for us, he sent his beloved Son to make reparation for us and to call us back to a sinless life.

By giving us his Son, whom he did not spare precisely so that he might spare us, he bestowed on us at once every good: grace, love and heaven; for all these goods are certainly inferior to the Son: He who did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for all of us: how could he fail to give us along with his Son all good things? http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/695/On_the_Love_of_Christ_St_Alphonsus_Liguori.html

Ceiling. Watch.

And what I said still stands - all the more so now:

But in the end, anti-Catholics like yourself, have no other recourse than to slander Christians, Christ, His Church and even His mother. In that one post you did all of that.

Ceiling. Watch.

“”I’d be curious what passages he horribly mistranslated. Much of his work ended up in the KJV. Mind you.””

There are so many translation error's in the KJV that many protestant sources agree as well.Sadly,they write it off as good enough.

The sources don't realize that so many of these errors effect many prophecies fulfilled through typology.This is also the reason for so many spin off groups who deny the trinity as well.

Here is just a few errors from a long list

Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read “ . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD.” The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”

Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”

Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read “ . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction.” “Curse” doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”

II Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”

I Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”

Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be ‘were cast’ because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, “was” is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized “are” is incorrect and that “were cast” in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), “I am he.” The “he” is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great “I AM” of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words “the son” are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words “it were”. It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words “to be.” The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God.”

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word “is” in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has “their” in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have “person, a.” Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has “[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The comma should not be after “thee”, but “day.” The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between “risen” and “early” and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .” Thus, it should say, “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . .”

Errors in the King James not found in the Septuagint

1. The scripture specifically mentions seven nations that the Israelites were forbidden to enter into covenants with. All seven are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. But for some reason, when these “seven” nations are repeated in other parts of scripture, the KJV deletes one of them, the Girgashites, whereas the Septuagint retains all seven of them (Exodus 23:23; 34:11). Likewise, Genesis 15:21 lists five nations, but the King James deletes one of them, the “Evites.”

2. In Acts 7:14, Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the King James falsely state “70.” Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is why “70” is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.

3. In the King James bible, 2 Samuel 24:13 says there would be seven years of famine, but 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years of famine. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read three years of famine.

4. In the King James bible, 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old. The Septuagint accurately reads 22 years old for both.

5. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 5:16 says there were 3300 overseers, and 2 Chronicles 2:18, speaking of the same thing, says there were 3600 overseers. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 3600 (3600 is also confirmed in III Kings, chapter 3, first paragraph, in the Septuagint).

6. Speaking of the same exact event, the King James Bible says there were 700 horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4, but 7000 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 7,000 horsemen.

7. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:26 says there were 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4:5 says there were 3000 baths. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 7:26 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.

8. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 9:23 says there were 550 people that bear rule, and 2 Chronicles 8:10 says that 250 people bear rule. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 9:23 does not exist, so there's no contradiction.

9. In Joshua 10:15, where this verse is omitted in the Septuagint, it can easily be seen that this verse, in the King James, does not belong and is out of place. Because the Israelitish army did not return to the camp at Gilgal till after the hanging of the five kings and the destruction of their cities. This is sufficiently evident from the subsequent parts of this chapter. When all this business was done, and not before, is when they returned to the camp to Gilgal (see Joshua 10:43). This verse is omitted by the Septuagint; and it does not appear to have existed in the ancient hexaplar versions; it stands in its proper place in Joshua 10:43, and is not only useless in Joshua 10:15, but appears to be an encumbrance to the narrative. Should it be considered as genuine and in its proper place, I would propose that the camp at Gilgal should be read instead the camp at Makkedah, for we find from Joshua 10:21 that Joshua had a temporary camp there, after which we may suppose that Joshua having secured the cave, sent some detachments to scour the country and cut off all the remaining straggling Canaanites; when this was done they also returned to the camp at Makkedah, as is related Jos 10:21, and when the business was completed they struck the camp at Makkedah, and all returned to their fortified camp at Gilgal (Joshua 10:43).

ANY translation will have multiple areas of possible different translation, even if you start with the same text. And few translations of the Bible use the same beginning text.

This:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Woudstra_Gen3_15_CTJ.pdf

is about 10 pages on translating a single verse (Gen 3:15). It highlights both the difficulty and care that goes into translating scripture.

Then when one looks at a book like Jeremiah...

“Considerable differences have been noted in the transmission of the text between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the book. The Septuagint (Greek or ‘LXX’) version does not include 10:6-8; 25:14; 27:19-22; 29:16-20; 33:14-26; 39:4-13; 52:2, 3, 15, 28-30, etc. In all, about 2,700 words found in the Masoretic text are not found in the Septuagint. Also, the “Oracles against the Nations,” that appear as chapters 46-51 in the Masoretic and most dependent versions, in the Septuagint are located right after 25:13, and in a different order.

The Septuagint version also includes the Book of Baruch and the supposed Letter of Jeremiah. The great early translator Saint Jerome explained that his rational for not including these in his Latin version of the book was based on the fact that it was not accepted as scripture by the Jews. However, the Council of Trent later included them as part of the authorized apocrypha of the Old Testament.

Parts of the Book of Jeremiah have also been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in cave 4 in Qumran. These texts, in Hebrew, correspond sometimes with the Masoretic text and other times the Septuagint.”

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jeremiah,_Book_of

Still, one would be hard pressed to find very many significant theological issues that hinge on the differences, either of text or translation.

I remain fond of this passage from the introduction to the New English Bible New Testament:

“The translators are as conscious as anyone can be of the limitations and imperfections of their work. No one who has not tried it can know how impossible an art translation is. Only those who have meditated long upon the Greek original are aware of the richness and subtlety of meaning that may lie even within the most apparently simple sentence, or know the despair that attends all efforts to bring it out through the medium of a different language. Yet we may hope that we have been able to convey to our readers something at least of what the New Testament has said to us during these years of work, and trust that under the providence of Almighty God this translation may open the truth of the scriptures to many who have been hindered in their approach to it by barriers of language.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/neb-intro.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.