Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
There is a breadth of opinions, starting at least with St, Augustine, and of course, the Holy Scripture leaves room for all of them, as I pointed out a few posts ago.
Deliberations of the Church. You think the two Canons were just dropped from heaven like Joseph Smith's tablets?
Yawn. Go read my post again. Whatever happened to the canons in the first four centuries did not alter the original texts.
Why? I already dealt with most all the various aspects of that, what it means and what the ramifications are -- and how none of that changes a thing which I told you that generally refutes your claims.
"Did not alter the original texts" here you mixed with "whatever happened to the canon".
Those are two different issues, but which you are mixing or conflating as to being the same, or *something*.
As far as contents of various books goes;
That is neither here nor there, for the discussion was not necessarily about the contents of the texts themselves -- AS I HAVE ALREADY pointed out to you and explained WHY.
Yet I did show you where the text of Genesis had been altered in one location. Do you forget that so soon?
Oh, wait --- I see in yet another comment you made some brief mention (and a lot of bluffing) about Gen 3:15, as if that had not been changed by Roman Catholics.
I could show you Douay-Rheims to go along with what I've already shown you straight from the USCCB webpages to show how the word phrasing indicating "their heel" has been substituted for what is in the Hebrew decidedly masculine "his" heel and in the Hebrew that a "he" or masculine shall inflict injury to the serpent's head.
Many scholars have dealt with this precise issue and verse. There is no way to honestly feminize the "seed" with which the serpent's seed shall have enmity with. When they interact it is not a "her" which shall bruise or harm the snake, and it is not a "her" which the snake shall strike at, but her seed which is identified in the masculine gender. The Douay reads that "she shall crush" [the serpents head] and the serpent "shalt lie in wait for her heel".
So go ahead. Disavow the Douay-Rheims -- as not official enough?
Here at FreeRepublic, we've been down this road before. Next up will be to disavow the United States Catholic Bishops version which they provide on their own official web portal (or else disavow the portal? -- anything-- any "trick" whatsoever to deny culpability for the RCC in regards to this issue).
Where I've seen this end up is there is "no official Roman Catholic Bible" OTHER THAN the Vulgate! No "official Roman Catholic" English language bible -- at all!
Isn't that true?
How convenient it all is --- for those who seek hedges of obfuscation, from which they can then duck and dodge behind, to then suddenly dart out from with whatever special pleading or special interpretation they think they can bluff or buffalo others with, the same as they fool themselves with. Rabbit trails...
Meanwhile, there are honest translations from Greek and Hebrew texts which do not indicate either what the USCCB claim Genesis 3:15 says, and which soundly refute the Douay versions as for it being a "she" rather than a masculine "he" who shall do the head crushing and have his own heel struck, or laid in wait for.
Perhaps you would care to here tell us what precisely is this "Catholic Bible" which you have in mind?
If we end up with nothing "official" other than Vulgate, then that would beg the question -- which Vulgate? There is more than one version of that.
Oh, wait. You just produced in another comment, Hebrew and Greek both -- which you termed "original".
What are you going to do? Pull out a copy of Septuagint? If so -- which 'copy' -- which version?
Which Hebrew texts are you using?
Provide links, show your work. No more of this "mystery" game engaged in within this other effort of your own to drag it all off into the bushes (of obscurity).
As for the canon itself having changed;
It is unavoidable that be here a consideration, for you were originally saying that the Catholic Bible has not changed in 2000 years.
Yet it has changed, in what is most properly considered to canon -- as I have well enough established.
Why do I have to repeat this? Cannot you not read and comprehend?
I showed you how the canon HAS indeed changed, taking much effort, and going into some detail while you sat back and did nothing but spout your own shown to be erroneous opinions.
You give up 400 years like it was nothing. I showed you that it was more than 400 years, and why even up to and during Council of Trent, the writings which Jerome termed 'Apocrypha' were not accepted as being fully equal (thus in actuality 'canonical' OT) by significant numbers of learned, Roman Catholic churchmen.
Instead of sitting back on one's own duff and yawning, telling others to read --- do that yourself.
So?
Previously you were mixing the two together in the same sentence...
Now, after your other argumentation having failed, you switch to this tack.
This is the very kind of thing which makes any kind of interaction with yourself -- beyond extremely tedious - to flat out infuriating.
But now I have to nail down yet more squirminess and squiggling?
What original is that? (I'm smelling both desperation -- and being set up for trickery!)
Do you have the autographs at home in a desk drawer? No?
The I must ask (again) -- WHAT "original" text are you speaking of now?
It cannot be the Latin Vulgate, for that is but a translation itself.
I already have. Issues of canon, and how that has subtly changed to allow in full canonical status for Apocrypha, is simply an unavoidable issue in this context. That aspect alone falsifies the above statement.
Now for things like this which you posted here;
require more than just vague assignment of those snippets be allegedly from "Gen:3;15".
What sources are you copying those from, huh?
Show your work. Show your sources. Provide links to those -- if you really want to drag this off into Greek and Hebrew 'bushes'.
The OT canon was already in existence.
Can you not read?
I provided St. Athanasius's own view that the OT canon had been established. And he was far from alone.
There was no need for "deliberations of the Church" to gradually change that which had been and was well enough established at the time of Christ for what made up the Hebrew Scripture prior to Christian era.
So what now?
Resurrection of the hand-waving argument "Septuagint, Septuagint!"
Phhffft.
That apologetic for inclusion of Apocrypha has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
If they (*some* around here) had a lick of sense, and the humility to honestly access and reason towards things which may well refute themselves, they just may find I have blown their apologetic right off the page.
Yet it is not "me" that has done anything, really.
I'm just the messenger, and at that -- only one of many.
I did not need rely upon my own arguments -- and neither did Webster.
All he had to do was bring out the information form ECF's, and that did all the work, though Webster (and others) did assemble it into cognitive form, and did provide extensive footnotes for his work, all along the way.
He should get credit for that.
"honestly access" should have been "honestly assess"
Now, I am not calling anyone a liar or a hypocrite. I am simply pointing to what Sixtus produced.
By the way, Sixtus was not the only pope who detested the Latin vilgate version and tried to change it.
It was centuries ago. No one today is to be faulted for what others did, centuries ago.
Yet I have, on these pages, encountered the "there is no official English language bible" for the RCC.
Which begs the question that has been answered numerous times in papal documents and RC "magesterium".
Only -- the Vulgate is "official" -- and there is some trouble there. Which one?
The INC doctrine is so far out in left field, I am not even sure we can call it a form of Godliness.
My other one is "I'm looking for a submarine, it's big and black, and the driver is a very good friend of mine."
ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁAnd the Greek of the LXX is a good analog to it:
αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήνWhat doesn't line up is the original Vulgate:
ipsa conteret caput tuumThis error has been corrected in the Vatican-approved Nova Vulgata (new Vulgate):
ipsum conteret caput tuumNotice that "ipsa" (she) has been corrected to "ipsum" (he). As pointed out in the Schaff explanation above, there was no real way to evade this correction, because the verb "to bruise" is masculine, so that's what the pronoun is going to be. Some have argued that "hu" can be translated "she," and that is technically correct. However, as Schaff points out, the occurrences in the Masoretic text where "hu" stands for "she" have the pointing that goes with the feminine, to make it abundantly clear where it should be taken as "she." Genesis 3:15 is not one of those place, because the pointing is distinctly masculine. No doubt this was done to ensure a match with the verb "to bruise," the gender of which is definitely masculine.
Available here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html#3
So the TRUE church, started by JESUS CHRIST himself, and GUIDED by the Holy Spirit, makes ...
What ELSE have you guys SCREWED UP?
(Other than the seven churches in Asia that you absolutely REFUSE to address on FR!!)
But WHY?
The TRUTH is NOT very Faith Promoting!
If I seem tentative, it is because I do not consider myself thoroughly educated on the subject of the catholic magesterium. I feel I can discuss with depth cosmology, logic, medicine, and some aspects of politics, but here I continue to learn.
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.