Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: johngrace

I agree with you Catholic Scholars overwhelmingly agree with the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. “their version” of it that is.


35 posted on 06/14/2010 12:30:47 AM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: ColdSteelTalon
I agree with you Catholic Scholars overwhelmingly agree with the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. “their version” of it that is.

Sorry, but the RSV was an ECUMENICAL text prepared in the 1950s in a joint effort between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. Because of its nature as a literal translation from Greek/Hebrew, it is one of the preferred English-language scholarly texts in general.

41 posted on 06/14/2010 2:47:25 AM PDT by GCC Catholic (0bama, what are you hiding? Just show us the birth certificate...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: ColdSteelTalon
"“their version” of it that is."

You've fingered the reason I go to the original Greek (which I can read, if slowly-- once you master the alphabet, it's rather clear). Well, okay, maybe Aramaic would be more original, but the Greek textus receptus gets pretty close and is readily accessible.

Conclusion: The KJV is quite accurate. Later translations, sometimes not so much. In particular, the clammy hand of political correctness can be perceived in later translations. For example, there are passages in which the Apostles referred to each other as "fellow slaves," but in later translations that becomes something along the lines of "brothers." And I'm here to tell you that the relationship between a slave and his master is quite a sight different than between brothers. Which says something about the relationship believers are expected to have to Jesus, versus the kum-ba-ya version accepted by too many. To me, that's just another example of Satan's minions at work, tirelessly, over two millennia to deflect good people from flocking with the Shepherd.

Things like that are intellectually quite fascinating to me and very revealing. If you can at least as a reference use a literal translation or interlinear (and Greene's are quite good), you can learn a great deal, and much of it is not in line with modernist teachings.

As to which church or denomination-- matters not, your membership card or secret handshake aren't checked at the Gates. Your beliefs, both professed and as exemplified by the way you live your life, are another matter. It could not be more clear. But beware of false prophets, they came to lead you astray. That goes for agenda'd translators of the Bible over time, too.
64 posted on 06/15/2010 6:59:02 AM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast (Obama: running for re-election in '12 or running for Mahdi now? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson