Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Why do you say doubtful?
"they would remain his opinions, nothing more."
No, they would remain his beliefs, beliefs which have been adopted by the overwhelming number of Christians over the past 1900 years.
What evidence do you have that translation errors in the Douay-Rheims Bible were deliberate? Were then the multitude of translation errors in the King James Bible similarly deliberate?
Translations please, as per the RM’s instructions.
mm, it’s only Latin. For God’s sake, don’t tell me you don’t understand Latin?????????????????????
Translating the personal pronoun in Hebrew that says *he* as *she* is a deliberate mistranslation.
I find it inconceivable that anyone could seriously think that the translators simply made a *mistake*, especially since the same mistranslation occurred in both the German Bible that Luther read and the English Douay-Rheims Bible.
If that were the case, the translators would have demonstrated such a level of incompetence in translation that the whole version should be ditched.
It cannot be anything BUT a deliberate mistranslation that doesn’t even deserve the label of *error* or *mistake* and is a far cry from not being sure of the meaning of a word which might have only a slight impact on the meaning of a verse.
That’s irrelevant.
The RM has decreed that any posts in a foreign language which are not very common phrases must be translated.
In the last month or so, there have been two Latin posts that were exorcism prayers.
Now, when YOUR side is the one pulling that garbage, you have no basis for complaint or incredulity when expected to comply with the RM’s instructions.
My ability to understand Latin is not the issue, and I’m presuming that being a person of reasonable intelligence, that you understand that not everyone DOES understand Latin, Catholic snobbery notwithstanding. You’re not one of those people who thinks that just because you know something that everyone else should as well, are you?
Or are you going to tell me that you expect that everyone else who reads your posts knows Latin?
You know, common courtesy has really gone by wayside. My grandmothers, who spoke very little English and were not highly educated, at least had the common courtesy to speak English around those who did not understand their mother tongue because they understood that it was insufferably rude to speak a language you knew others did not understand in front of them. The reason being is that they didn’t want the people to think that they were being talked about in a disparaging way.
Now, in the above mentioned cases of the exorcism prayers, that’s exactly what the situation was. They were posted in Latin. Why would you suppose they did that if not to do it n full view of others, expecting that they wouldn’t understand and snickering about it to each other.
The little glitch in the whole thing was that there WERE others who understood Latin and recognized it for what it was.
So that provides the perfect example of why it’s insufferably rude to speak a language you know others don’t understand in front of them.
OK.
So, are you two going to comply with the RM’s instructions, or do you feel that you are exempt because YOU know what it says, which does not make it a commonly known phrase as in *adios* (example provided by the RM)
FWIW, my uneducated, old country grandmothers had more class in their little fingers than most of the snobby Catholics on this forum have in their whole bodies.
>> “For God’s sake, don’t tell me you don’t understand Latin?” <<
.
For God’s sake?
I think not! - Latin is the language of the occult, not the language of God.
.
Sigh...........
Really. I didn't see that. If that's true, then it speaks volumes about the abysmal level of theological understanding here on FR. In any event, Latin is no more a "foreign language" in a discussion of Christian theology and praxis than is Greek or Hebrew or Slavonic. With all due respect, English is the language which is foreign to Christian theology.
Source?
A dead language.
How appropriate.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always had their individual personhood (identity) and that will never change. Therefore, the Father and Son will not "become" God, as they are both already God. They are simultaneously both God and individual Persons within the Trinity.
Jesus did not ever claim to be God. Rather, He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me,..." and this is the same he asks for you.
Yes, Jesus did claim to be God. Here is an example:
The Jews tried to stone Him because they knew EXACTLY what Jesus was claiming. They knew their scriptures, including:
What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?
Start at this page in this very thread.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?q=1&;page=901
907 was the exorcism prayer.
Read down through 915 to get the gist of the conversation.
On the contrary about Latin. The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the NT in Greek and Aramaic.
The Latin Vulgate came around much later is is a translation itself. Anyone who uses that as the basis for a translation is using a translation of a translation, which allows for even more error to creep in as even more is lost in multiple translations.
Going back to the oldest original language manuscripts gives the best opportunity for as accurate a translation as possible.
The Jews tried to stone Him because they knew EXACTLY what Jesus was claiming. They knew their scriptures, including:
Ex. 3:13-14 : 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?"
Very Good, FK!
"But wherefore said He not, "Before Abraham was, I was," instead of "I Am"? As the Father uses this expression, "I Am," so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?" +John Chrysostom Homily 55 on the Gospel of John
STF-Christianity to me is not easy,it costs us something.
BB-”So, when Jesus said:
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. (Matt. 11:29-30)
He was exaggerating? Lying? Minimizing? What?””
This does not mean we will not suffer persecution by denying ourselves,it means we can find comfort and peace in the persecution by trusting in Christ,dear sister.Truly denying ourselves is NOT any easy thing to do
From the words of the late Bishop Sheen...
“Unless there is a cross, in our lives, there will never be a resurrection. The Christian Law of Life IS ‘We have to die in order to live’ (cf Mt 10:38-39). Now I do not mean and He did not mean physically dying, He meant mortification, self-denial. The application of the Cross in our lives. So that, unless we die to ourselves we cannot live with Him. We do not like the Cross in our lives. As a matter of fact, we would like to escape it…that’s the essence of the demonic, the escape from the mortification, the Cross and the penance
Penance is not Scriptural.
Once we’re forgiven, the sin debt is gone.
People want escape from penance because it’s one of those Pharisaical burdens the Catholic church imposes on its adherents that contributes nothing to one’s salvation or spiritual growth.
Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins so that we don’t have to.
The organization that established canon and compiled, published and defended the Bible was Catholic in the truest definition of the word. All who later split from this body forfeited their claim to a Catholic identity. Those who remained faithful are still in Communion with the original Catholics.
I agree 100%
"Going back to the oldest original language manuscripts gives the best opportunity for as accurate a translation as possible."
One would think so, but sometimes the oldest extant copies of a piece of scripture, OT or NT, are a mess of mistakes and amendments and emendations. There are no really ancient complete copies of the NT, for example (there is a fragment of +John from the early 2nd century...in Greek). As for Hebrew in the OT, well the oldest copies of the Greek Septuagint are older than the Hebrew OT used by Protestants or Jews for that matter. I think the oldest fragment of the OT in Hebrew is from the 1st century BC.
Some are predestined to believe the worst about others.
First, there is no single “Catholic Bible” recognized since 1750 that contains the error you speak of . The “Catholic Bible” you are referring to is the Douay-Rheims Bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate and published in 1611 by English Catholics living in exile in Douay, France. It was soon recognized to contain numerous errors and was replaced with the Challoner-Rheims version in 1750.
The error in Genesis 3:15 that you are so convinced are the result of a grand conspiracy concern who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All subsequent Catholic translations, in use since use masculine pronouns -- he and his.
Most scholars believe the reason for the error is traceable to the manuscript used by the Douay-Rheims translators. Subsequent translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). It is believed the error originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
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.