Posted on 10/07/2005 8:38:02 AM PDT by Caleb1411
Well, actually you've both got it a little wrong.
If you're going to really go for the ancient translation, source of KJV, etc., learn Latin and get a copy of the Vulgate.
And then spend the next 20 years in university to learn Latin well enough to be able to confidently read it.
The original KJV translation was from the Vulgate, with comparisons to the (few) Greek texts that were around to compare it to.
That last was an error.
The earlier English Bible translations, were Vulgate translations. The KJV used Erasmus' version of the textus receptus.
Not that it really makes a difference, frankly, because there's no substantive difference between them.
But when we've got folks claiming that the Gospel of Thomas was in the Bible, etc., it's important to get the history at least a little bit right. Apologies for the error.
Why would I learn Latin when the original books and letters were penned in Hebrew and Greek?
Uh, what did they do with "man lying with man is an abomination"? Was it changed to "earth creatures who lie with other earth creatures are life partners"?
I assume you are refering to the Itala, and not the Latin Vulgate produced by St. Jerome. I don't agree. But I give leeway in that a number of manuscripts such as the ones Erasmus and Stephes used where must probably along the same lines, e.g. very close word for word, as the original greek manuscripts that where used to create the Itala. Some books I own go as far as saying the greek manuscripts that where used for this version date back to 150AD. And we know the third century Waldensian used this version, before it was basically outlawed and a certain church attempted to exterminate these peoples living in those valleys. But lets face it, most references indicate the 1611 KJV was based on already good translations mixed with GK manuscripts Erasmus had on hand that closely followed the Stephen,Beza, the Elzevirs translations and GK manuscripts.
Incidently I have a great English/Greek Transliteral Bible based on the Stephens text. But that is beside the point. You are probaby very well aware there are so many sources on who transcribed/translated what and by whom, that often paint a somewhat confusing picture. So I will close by saying that my studies in the past would lead me to no other believe that the Itala represented fairly well what the autographs may have contained. But I have not found proof where the committee used the Italaas a key source.
***The original King James Bible was a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate,***
Strange, I thought it was Eurasmus' Greek text and Beza's texts, then compared with the Latin texts.
*** When you say, "America was founded as a Christian nation", what exactly do you mean? ***
Go read the Mayflower Compact signed by the Pilgrims as they took ship for the Americas.
I mean a Christian nation not a Christian government. What I mean is that the founding principles of America - self government, God-given rights, etc. as well as our system of government are judeo-Christian in origin. In addition, the first people who settled here were Christian people - pilgrims, puritans. In addition, 95% of the founding fathers were Christians, the majority of which were calvinist, and 99%of the people were professing Christians at the time of the Revolution. In a very small nutshell, that is what I mean.
Interesting that the article is in "World". Veith is usually a credible source of material. Beltz would not risk the reputation of the magazine on a possible slander, even of Campolo.
Campolo has lost his mind if he is truly supporting something that slices out the pastorals & revelation and replaces them with the Gospel of Thomas.
Essentially, he's saying he has a better take on what should be canonical than the earliest churches.
Man that boy could rock. Too bad he and double trouble went down the way they did.
>> I wonder if someday we're going to find out that Sinead O'Connor was assaulted by a priest when she was younger. <<
And then maybe some day we'll find out Bill Clinton had loose morals!
The sarcasm is just silliness not grumpiness, but yeah, it's quite well known that Sinead is a "survivor." I'm not sure if she ever stated it was a priest, though.
Hmmm. go figure... It turns out the exact translation is "Shad Shack." Not to be confused with "Pere's Pike Place, down the street.
Ah, now I see - you don't know what a Christian is!
That does make a debate about Christianity difficult. But then, someone who believes the 'Gospel of Thomas' is part of the Bible isn't interested in honest debate.
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.