[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.

[metmom]

fd: “I make no representations as to the inaccuracy of interpretations.”

Sure you did....

Here.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=254#254

and here.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=299#299

Besides, where we state the RCC is wrong is by comparing the Catechism of the Catholic church with Scripture, not for the most part, comparing the translation of the Bible that the Catholic church uses to other not Catholic endorsed translations.

[metmom]

What’s *nom* supposed to mean?