Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Me too AG !
You mean you do not do the Calvin rosary or light candles before his image in your Presbyterian church? Don"t your brides leave flowers before his icon? and sing "Ave Calvin "while they are doing it??
I think a bathtub Calvin in front of the church would be just nifty don't you?? < / sarcasm >
He is never quoted in my church..
So tell us how does a a Catholic get to heaven?
“One of the sources for the KJV was the Vulgate and the translators of the KJV used the Douay-Rheims to double-check their translations of the New Testament.”
Wiki on DR:
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay-Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible
Wiki on the KJV:
“Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[25] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word “church” were to be retained and not to be translated as “congregation”. The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.
James’ instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops’ Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops’ Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner’s Bible and the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible.[26] It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been “translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#New_version
The comment on the KJV having detected influence - whatever that means - of the DR is supported by page 328 of “Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired”. Yes, I own the book. No, I cannot find it. When I do, I’ll check out what it says.
However, I don’t think it is accurate to say “the translators of the KJV used the Douay-Rheims to double-check their translations of the New Testament”.
Shoot and move: The argument was that our mention of MAry in our worship showed that we worship her. Our retorts and ridicule were directed at THAT argument.
You wanna talk about bathtubs, fine, but that’s a different argument.
Please leave Luther out of it, I doubt he would be Catholic although certainly Christian.
“I think the guys doing the KJV saw what the Greek said and in conflicted with their theology so they produced “what is behind” to obscure it. That’s why I asked about the DR, because the plain meaning of Scripture is less scandalous to Catholics than to Protestants.”
Ummm...no. Please see this as an example:
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0sirthomasmore.htm
Thomas More spent a great many words attacking Tyndale’s translation, but Tyndale was following the Greek, and More was following church doctrine. And if you use a modern version of the DR, then you need to realize the KJV had more impact on it than the reverse.
Happily, the NAB (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM) is a pretty good translation. I’ve pinged annalex so he can go thru the roof in fury at that statement!
And the modern translations such as the ESV & NASB work very hard to keep to the Hebrew and Greek, the NASB more so than the ESV, although that can make it harder to read. It is a pity, I’ll admit, that they persist in using the word ‘church’ where congregation would be more accurate...
While the main sources were different, everybody was being pretty fair and scholarly and checking against all the available sources. The main thing you'll notice is that the Deuterocanonical Books (or Apocrypha) were left out because they had been dropped from the Jewish canon by the time the ben Asher text was written.
“One big difference is that the KJV was based upon the Stephenus Greek text from the 16th Century for the NT and the ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew (from the 10th Century). For stylistic purposes, it also copied a lot from the Douay.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only if filled with gin.
You wrote:
“And in this case, the revulsion I have for things placed in lieu of the body and blood of my Lord Jesus Christ stems from deep within my spirit.”
Actually it seems to be coming from prejudice. After all there is nothing about the art in question that in any way actually indicates what you claim. Thus, not only were you wrong about the statue, but we now have reason to doubt your not only your spiritual discernment but your even your perceived relationship with God.
Your post, however, brings up an interesting point. Two, actually: 1) When Protestants disagree among themselves, but all claim to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit it shows that some must, in fact, be lying to themselves and greatly deceived. 2) When someone claims the Holy Spirit is revealing something to them that goes against reality itself, it shows that that person is too deceiving himself or herself no matter how strong their feelings. If we use your understanding of things then Mormons must be correct because they feel a burning in the bosom about the Book of Mormon.
My conversation with you has been most instructional. It has shown that that anti-Catholics care little or nothing about facts or reality and when pressed resort to claims - claims that belittle the Holy Spirit - of divine influence toward anti-Catholic sentiments. How convenient. And how patronizingly belittling of Almighty God.
And God told you this, just you? Next time you talk to him you should ask him for the winning lottery numbers....LOL
The abuses identified by Luther have long sense been cleansed by the Church itself. It is possible that the Church would not have Luther today because he was such a virulent anti Semite. There was no need of a religious war that killed a significant percentage of central Europe.
It seems the original DR version is available online here:
Here is a passage (with the vv changed to w, and u to v):
“And hearing these things, they were compuncte in hart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, What shal we doe men, brethren? But Peter said to them, Doe penance, and be every one of you baptized in the name of Iesvs Christ for remission of your sinnes: and you shal receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For to you is the promisse, and to your children, and to al that are farre of, whomsoeuer the Lord our God shal call. With very many other wordes also did he testifie, and exhorted them, saying, Save your selves from this perverse generation. They therfore that received his word, were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand soules.
As best as I can find, here is the 1611 KJV (http://www.thebiblepage.org/bibles/av/index.shtml) - the updated spelling suggests it has been altered somewhat, but I haven’t found a facsimile online to check it against:
Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Notice do penance vs repent...anyone want to debate which is more accurate?
1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
Heb Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Oh, I don't know...Could be because He says so...
The 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha.
Yes, but denied their Scriptural authority (see Art. VI of the XXXIX).
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.