The Truth Project -- Extended Trailer

AND YOUR PROOF of this is???????Proof of what? There were two clauses, neither of which is in serious dispute

hiscosmicgoldfish Liberal Anglican 49   Join Date: 1st March 2008 Posts: 3,485 Blessings: 1,125,296 [Bless] My Mood Reps: 39,641,247,145,180,856 (power: 39,641,247,145,189)

Originally Posted by REPHAIAHPEDAHEL Use multiple translations for best results, there are some translations that being out meanings of passages better than the KJV and vice versa. when I'm doing bible study, I compare the KJV with the ES. The KJ is usually best.. 'for the overspreading of abominations' is the most accurate for that in Daniel, not what the NIV makes up about it. 'Also use the Hebrew interlinear, to check the exact wording of the Torah.

#33       4th June 2013, 11:16 AM

PJM Newbie   Join Date: 29th January 2013 Location: Central Florida Posts: 73 Blessings: 1,008,951 [Bless] Reps: 3,253,569,843,833,554 (power: 3,253,569,843,834)

=WisdomTree;63191772]There are bibles that are in Greek. No DOUBT, AND in every common language. BUT when and by WHOM? God Bless you, patrick68

#34       4th June 2013, 02:47 PM

ebia Senior Contributor   Join Date: 6th July 2004 Location: A very long way away. Sometimes even further. Posts: 31,196 Blessings: 342,642 [Bless] Reps: 688,958,133,294,077,440 (power: 688,958,133,294,117)

Originally Posted by prov1810 Most people would agree that the KJV is peerless in terms of literary quality. The beauty and dignity of the language make it seem elevated, more "spiritual", in the sense of not being common or mundane. This, and the archaic language, can serve as a reminder that the Bible is unique among books and this is a good thing. How is giving it a particular literary quality unconnected to the original language text a good thing? __________________ "Goodness is stronger than evil, love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, life is stronger than death, victory is ours through him who loved us." (+Desmond Tutu)

#35       4th June 2013, 03:04 PM

ebia Senior Contributor   Join Date: 6th July 2004 Location: A very long way away. Sometimes even further. Posts: 31,196 Blessings: 342,642 [Bless] Reps: 688,958,133,294,077,440 (power: 688,958,133,294,117)

Originally Posted by PJM =Nails74;63166753]Only by those who believe that it is THE inspired word of God. The position isn't sustainable. There is lots of good info on the topic...much more than you will find in a forum discussion. This is a good place to start... King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?: James R. White: 9780764206054: Amazon.com: Books I would think it depends about how important you feel the WHOLE and ENTIRE truth is? The KJB FLOWS from and necessiarily THROUGH two Catholic bibles: The Latin Vulgate The Douay Rheimes [the 1st. common language Catholic Bible]. The Vulgate predates the KJ about 1,200 years and the DR predates it by about 50 years. While all bible "are good" some possess the Entire Truth; unlike the KJB which made very cleverly selective changes. The Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, which Luther would have used along with the Latin Vulgate Catholic bibles both pre-existed the King James bible, by at least fifty years for the Douay; and well over a thousand years for the Vulgate. So it would seem quite reasonable to ask why “any differences” exist as God WORDS are after ALL “God’s Words” Here are three site for you to check out: 1. The Douay Catholic bible. Which is the first “common language” Catholic Bible About 1610 AD http://www.drbo.org/ . The King James dates around 1660 AD 2. The Latin Vulgate, Catholic Bible which dates back to the very early 400’s AD http://www.latinvulgate.com/ 3 Online Parallel Bible site that permits making same page comparisons. http://www.biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/ And then let’s take one verse from the Vulgate; The Douay and the King James and compare what they say; and ASK; does it really matter? And if so; WHY? comparing1st: Luke 1:28 Vulgate:The Latin Vulgate ) 28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena [means “FULL of Grace”] Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus Douay Bible: [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women King James Bible 28: “And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" Now to be completely fair, I must point out that some less than “Totally orthodox” [which I define as completely Loyal to what Rome; the Pope; and the Magisterium {the official teaching authority of the CC} Teach, and require being taught as God’s always singular truth], catholic bibles also use the terms that the KJB does in some cases. That requires an entirely separate conversation. So again I ask: WHY ANY changes? And the answer lies in willful changes to Catholic theology; philosophy; or Traditions. Pope Benedict on the day he became our 265th consecutive Pope, proclaimed the following teaching: “there cannot be your truth AND my truth OR their would be NO truth.” Logically and Morally any defined issue can only have one truthful and complete answer. Said differently: We hold that there is Only One Good and Perfect God. Therefore that One God can, logically and Morally, ONLY have One set of Faith beliefs on LONG defined* issues. Which is precisely why Christ founded Only “One Church.” So that there would [could] be NO debates about what it is that Christ taught and Wills. Here’s another example #2 Acts 20: 28-30 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, [singular] which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Douay Rheims Bible King James “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” The Vulgate on verse 28: “adtendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam [this means BISHOPS of the [singular] church] Dei quam adquisivit sanguine suo” Eph. 4: 4-7 “One body [Means only One Church] and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, [Means ONLY One set of beliefs] one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. But to every one of us is given grace, [True; complete and right UNDERSTANDING] according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” Douay Rheims Bible King James Eph. 4: 4-7 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift So in two of the three examples provided, the at first minor and seemingly insignificant changes appear harmless. NOT SO! Both change the single truth to facilitate a totally DIFFERENT theological teaching; exposing a philosophy that actually contradicts the Singular TRUTH of our God. In the case of Luke 1:28; If Mary is NOT “FULL of GRACE” then she cannot possibly be “sinless” and a virgin. In Acts 20:28 By changing “Bishops” to “you” Protestants are able to apply this to themselves or to whomever THEY choose. So the answer to your question is not pleasant. But it IS thee Truth. The changes are intentional to make possible “manufactured evidence” of a New faith; one that actually competes with God’s WILL and teachings. [And yes I can prove this biblically]. Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” 6 “And Ihave other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” Matt. 13: 9-14 “He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples [Apostles] came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he [Jesus] answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: “You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.” “ The CC is some 2,000 years old. There is a TON of things to learn, know, understand and come to grips with. That is why I have so many LESSONS on So many topics. And then on top of it all, ones incorrectly taught perceptions and understandings need to be corrected; with clarity, proof, and charity. Faith; and its Fruits of Wisdom, Knowledge and Right Understanding ARE gifts from God. And ONLY The Holy Spirit can grant them. So pray much; ask lots of questions and don’t be at all concerned about doing it. I’ve been teaching for MANY years. And I believe God Has placed us together for His purpose. patrick68 This whole section seems to assume that the purpose of translation is to fit preconcieved theology, rather than get as close as possible to the meaning of the original language. Also to note that the Challoner revision of the DR, which is what most people today think of as the DR, was produce around 1750 and is massively influenced by the KJ __________________ "Goodness is stronger than evil, love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, life is stronger than death, victory is ours through him who loved us." (+Desmond Tutu)

#36       4th June 2013, 05:07 PM

MarkRohfrietsch Unapologetic Apologist 54   Join Date: 8th December 2007 Posts: 14,405 Blessings: 110,703,652 [Bless] My Mood Reps: 1,998,710,905,773,137,152 (power: 1,998,710,905,773,157)

Originally Posted by PJM The Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, which Luther would have used along with the Latin Vulgate Catholic bibles both pre-existed the King James bible, by at least fifty years for the Douay; and well over a thousand years for the Vulgate. While Luther used copies of the oldest manuscripts available, he did cross reference St. Jerome's Vulgate as well. Until Luther's translation, the Vulgate was the Bible of the Lutheran Church; it's doubtful that Luther could read and write English, he would have had no need; speaking German at home, and as Wittenburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, Latin was still more or less a universal (catholic) language. One other English translation was that of Tyndale, who, after studying with the Lutheran theologians, translated Scripture into English, and got the stake for it. Originally Posted by ebia This whole section seems to assume that the purpose of translation is to fit preconcieved theology, rather than get as close as possible to the meaning of the original language. Also to note that the Challoner revision of the DR, which is what most people today think of as the DR, was produce around 1750 and is massively influenced by the KJ So true; translations such as the NKJV and the ESV were not translated by a single denomination or Church, but by a consortium of theologians from various backgrounds, including RC; why these two editions have not been approved by the RCC, I don't know; we would have to ask them. However, these are good sound translations, which have been endorsed by theologians of Protestant, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Bible scholars. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 2 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 2 posts. dir="ltr"> Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Augsburg Confession Article XXIV; 1, 2.

#37       4th June 2013, 05:26 PM

PJM Newbie   Join Date: 29th January 2013 Location: Central Florida Posts: 73 Blessings: 1,008,951 [Bless] Reps: 3,253,569,843,833,554 (power: 3,253,569,843,834)

=ebia;63195647]This whole section seems to assume that the purpose of translation is to fit preconcieved theology, rather than get as close as possible to the meaning of the original language. Also to note that the Challoner revision of the DR, which is what most people today think of as the DR, was produce around 1750 and is massively influenced by the KJ AND YOUR PROOF of this is??????? I have oten compared the Dr to the Vulagte.

#38       4th June 2013, 05:26 PM

ebia Senior Contributor   Join Date: 6th July 2004 Location: A very long way away. Sometimes even further. Posts: 31,196 Blessings: 342,642 [Bless] Reps: 688,958,133,294,077,440 (power: 688,958,133,294,117)

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch While Luther used copies of the oldest manuscripts available, he did cross reference St. Jerome's Vulgate as well. Until Luther's translation, the Vulgate was the Bible of the Lutheran Church; it's doubtful that Luther could read and write English, he would have had no need; speaking German at home, and as Wittenburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, Latin was still more or less a universal (catholic) language. One other English translation was that of Tyndale, who, after studying with the Lutheran theologians, translated Scripture into English, and got the stake for it. So true; translations such as the NKJV and the ESV were not translated by a single denomination or Church, but by a consortium of theologians from various backgrounds, including RC; why these two editions have not been approved by the RCC, I don't know; we would have to ask them. However, these are good sound translations, which have been endorsed by theologians of Protestant, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Bible scholars. The ESV is likely to be adopted by the Catholic Church in Australia as its Mass translation. On the whole the RCC is less interested these days in officially endorsing or otherwise bibles generally than people suppose. Here the NRSV is the normal version used in Catholic scholarship. __________________ "Goodness is stronger than evil, love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, life is stronger than death, victory is ours through him who loved us." (+Desmond Tutu)

#39       4th June 2013, 05:29 PM

ebia Senior Contributor   Join Date: 6th July 2004 Location: A very long way away. Sometimes even further. Posts: 31,196 Blessings: 342,642 [Bless] Reps: 688,958,133,294,077,440 (power: 688,958,133,294,117)

Originally Posted by PJM AND YOUR PROOF of this is??????? I have oten compared the Dr to the Vulagte. Proof of what? There were two clauses, neither of which is in serious dispute.     The Challoner DR (and further revisions) is the DR in use now, and Bishop Challoner was a convert who had grown up with the KJ. To suggest that all of the language similarity between his translation and the KJ, that is missing from the highly latinised original D-R, is coincidence is absurd. __________________ "Goodness is stronger than evil, love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, life is stronger than death, victory is ours through him who loved us." (+Desmond Tutu)

#40       4th June 2013, 05:36 PM

MarkRohfrietsch Unapologetic Apologist 54   Join Date: 8th December 2007 Posts: 14,405 Blessings: 110,703,652 [Bless] My Mood Reps: 1,998,710,905,773,137,152 (power: 1,998,710,905,773,157)

Originally Posted by ebia The ESV is likely to be adopted by the Catholic Church in Australia as its Mass translation. On the whole the RCC is less interested these days in officially endorsing or otherwise bibles generally than people suppose. Here the NRSV is the normal version used in Catholic scholarship. Interesting, thanks for the info; we already have adopted the ESV for our translation of the Mass in our new Service Book (Same one as used by the Australian Lutheran Church, with whom our Synod is in fellowship). I'm not sure if the NRSV is used here in Canada, but the NASB is used extensively. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 2 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 2 posts. dir="ltr"> Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Augsburg Confession Article XXIV; 1, 2.