Posted on 02/22/2010 10:34:43 AM PST by MarMema
“Another thing which he rebuketh is, that I interpret this Greek word presbyteros by this word senior. Of a truth senior is no very good English, though senior and junior be used in the universities; but there came no better in my mind at that time. Howbeit, I spied my fault since, long ere M. More told it me, and have mended it in all the works which I since made, and call it an elder. And in that he maketh heresy of it, to call presbyteros an elder, he condemneth their own old Latin text of heresy, which only they use yet daily in the church, and have used, I suppose, this fourteen hundred years: for that text doth call it an elder likewise. In the 1 Pet. v. thus standeth it in the Latin text: Seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior, pascite qui in vobis est gregem Christi: “ The elders that are among you, I beseech, which am an elder also, that ye feed the flock of Christ, which is among you.” There is presbyteros called an elder. And in that he saith, “ Feed Christ’s flock,” he meaneth even the ministers that were chosen to teach the people, and to inform them in God’s word, and no lay persons. And in the second epistle of John saith 2 John. the text, Senior electee domince et filiis ejus: “ The elder unto the elect lady and to her children.” And in the third 3 John, epistle of John, Senior Gaio dilecto: “ The elder unto the beloved Gaius.” In these two epistles presbyteros is called an elder. And in Acts, chap, xx., the text saith: “ Paul sent Actsxx. for majores natu ecclesice, the elders in birth of the congregation or church, and said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves, and unto the whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you episcopos ad regendum ecclesiam ; Dei,” bishops, or overseers, to govern the church of God. There is presbyteros called an elder in birth; which same immediately is called a bishop or overseer, to declare what persons are meant. Hereof ye see that I have no more erred than their own text, which they have used since the scripture was first in the Latin tongue, and that their own I text understandeth by presbyteros nothing save an elder.”
William Tyndale
Tyndale was a heretic. His opinions simply don’t impress me.
There have been numerous councils in the East and the West, not to mention the Ecumenical Councils. Many of the Western councils are not recognized by the East, especially the ones dealing with Pelagius. You have the Robber Council of 449 called by Emperor Theodosius II, also called the Second Council of Ephesus, that was later condemned. Probably the most disturbing is when you had three Western councils all choosing a different pope. You had three popes ruling at one time and each excommunicated the other two. If you had the time to sit down and read through them, you would see come strange things, such as when Council of Constantinople III, declared Pope Honorius a heretic. I doubt that was accepted by Rome. There are many strange things that took place within these councils.
I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. All one needs to do is completely read Daniel 6 and Daniel 14 and one will come to the understanding that they are two seperate events. One event tells of how Daniel was cast into the lions den for one night for transgressing King Darius the Mede’s edict. The second event was when Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for 6 days for proving to a different king, from a different empire (Babylon), that the priests were frauds AND for killing the dragon whom the Babylonians worshipped.
Daniel at the time of the overthrow of Babylon would have been at least 70 years old so when did these events occur? Who was this “different king”? Cambyses II? His brother? Nidintu-Bel? And when did these event occur in Daniel's life?
As I'm sure you know, The History of Susanna plus Bel and the Dragon are not part of the Hebrew Bible canon so they cannot be chapters in the book of Daniel.
The Hebrew canon wasn’t finalised until the council of Jamnia, which was in 90to 98 AD and did remove a lot of references that could imply to Jews that Christ was the fulfillment of the prophets.
Jesus and the apostles had no doubt as to what was included in the Hebrew Scriptures citing “the Law and the Prophets”, i.e., the entire Hebrew canon as we have it today, sans apocrypha.
Speaking of which, have you found what kings you were referring to in your earlier comment on Bel and the Dragon?
Or when these events supposedly occurred in Daniel's life?
“The second event was when Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for 6 days for proving to a different king, from a different empire (Babylon), that the priests were frauds AND for killing the dragon whom the Babylonians worshipped.”
The Greek translation of the Torah by 70 Hebrew scholars was of the Five Books of Moses only, and I don’t believe any copies exist.
The collection of Greek manuscript fragments are also called ‘Septuagint’, but is definitely not the Septuagint as translated for the Ptolemies.
“the stories in Bel and the Dragon are stories that do not contradict the original story of Daniel as I explained above.”
But when I ask you who the king was you referred to and when in the life of Daniel these purported events took place you seem a bit short on explanation.
Therein is the problem..These are just stories, stories that are not part of the Hebrew Scriptural canon and never were.
Yes, Tyndale the heretic was very, very evil for translating the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible into English comprising 60-80% of what we today reference as the King James Version of the Bible.
We wouldn’t want to ever be impressed with anything Tynsdale might have written. /sarcasm
Tyndale was not tried for his translation since translating the Bible was not a crime and he wasn’t tried by an English court.
It is amazing to me how ignorant Protestants are of their own heretical history.
Bearing false witness is still condemned, fortunately.
I have little time tonight, and so I cannot to go into any of the details of some of the posts ... which I would like to do. But, I must say on a quick scanning of the 150 or so posts, this thread has a much better feel than most that have been posted on FR. Catholic and Protestant (even though I do not like how either term is used to our day, historically and linguistically speaking) are actual talking and listening to each other - with a few predictable exceptions. May such pursuit of real knowledge continue. And may God alone be glorified.
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.