Such as? And can you tell me HOW you know they're "MIS-translated" (and not simply translated in a way you and/or your pastor happen not to like)? Such a charge needs to be proven.Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm
The Douay-Rheims Bible is the ONLY one to translate the personal pronoun *he* as *she*.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
http://biblehub.com/acts/2-38.htm
The Catholic church takes the word *repent* and changes it to *do penance*.
For all your criticisms of sola scriptura as not being valid, the best Catholicism has to offer is *because we say so*. And then try to appeal to a verse or two to support themselves, which is ironic if they consider sola scriptura invalid for the reasons you mentioned.
By your reasoning, you did not render sola scriptura invalid, but the word of God itself.
This'll have to be my last one for the day; must get driving home, soon!
metmom wrote:
Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm The Douay-Rheims Bible is the ONLY one to translate the personal pronoun *he* as *she*.
Some editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible have used that mistranslation, yes; others have not. But since St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the official (we say "typical") Church's translation of the Scriptures (and St. Jerome translates it "He shall crush [etc.]"), you'd need to show how THAT is "mistranslated" in any way, in order for the formal teaching of the Church to be in any trouble in that regard. Were you under the impression that the Douay-Rheims (which is an excellent translation, apart from some errors) was the "official" Catholic Bible translation? That is not so.
One note on that point, though: the word "she" (and I do not say that you, or even any Catholic, need use it) would not change anything fundamental; the Blessed Virgin did indeed participate in the crushing of Satan's head, in her free consent to becoming the mother of Jesus (and the Mother of God, thereby).
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. http://biblehub.com/acts/2-38.htm The Catholic church takes the word *repent* and changes it to *do penance*.
Correction: the
Douay-Rheims Bible changes it to "do penance"... though honestly: do you see a substantial difference, there? What repentance does not involve doing penance (whether internally or externally)? And what valid penance exists without a repentance to drive it? One might as well object to steam being called "water"! But in any case, the DRB
is not identical with "Catholic Teaching", nor is it even the typical edition of Scripture used by the Church.
For all your criticisms of sola scriptura as not being valid,
...most of which you haven't addressed at ALL, by the way. Have you no answer for the idea that "sola Scriptura" is nowhere in the Bible, and therefore it orders you not to follow itself?
the best Catholicism has to offer is *because we say so*.
Nonsense. Even this thread has plentiful reasons well beyond any simple appeal to authority! If you truly desire to know (and if that statement wasn't simply a complaint), then check out some online, searchable version of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And then try to appeal to a verse or two to support themselves,
...usually when "sola Scriptura" believers insist on Scripture. You do remember that the Catholic Church USES Scripture (She wrote it, put it together, and preserved it from destruction through the ages, after all!), right? Refusing to use "Scripture ALONE" is not a refusal to use SCRIPTURE; it's merely a refusal to follow Luther in his unbiblical mistake.
which is ironic if they consider sola scriptura invalid for the reasons you mentioned.
I think you should be able to see, now, that that's not the case at all, and that you didn't understand my earlier points correctly.
By your reasoning, you did not render sola scriptura invalid, but the word of God itself.
See above.