[metmom]

It is the height of hubris (not unknown amongst those who little to nothing about Catholicism) to suggest that another interpretation, based on over a thousand years of study, is somehow less than your handful of years in what could best be described as a bastardized version: be it the King James (considered by scholars to be the worst translation ever) or, worse still, the modern English version. How’s your Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek?

How's YOURS?

You're passing judgment on the quality of the translations of King James and other versions.

On what authority do you base THAT?

How fluent are you in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

[narses]

claptrap is from the pit of hell.

[freedumb2003]

>>How fluent are you in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?<<

I make no representations as to the inaccuracy of interpretations.

Those who say the RCC is “wrong” and “not truly representative of the Bible” must defend that charge by supporting the accuracy of their interpretation (of the interpretation).

Heck, linguistic scholars can’t even agree on “Nom” — how can someone with a few years’ experience whose theological schooling consists of reading cherry-picked phrases from a bad interpretation of the Bible come to the conclusion the RCC and its 1,000+ years of scholarship and billions of adherents are “just wrong?”

The onus is not on me. Your argument is forensically flawed.

And my Aramaic is admittedly rusty.

[narses]

How fluent are you in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?