Posts: 1,866
Joined: September 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,787
Posts54,917
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
|
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040 |
I would also point out that the Catholic Church has recended the doctrine of Limbo. As far as I know it's still a permitted opinion, despite some sensational news stories over a year ago. The point is that these sorts of opinions, having no scriptural warrant and so many being directly contrary to scripture, have proliferated within the Catholic Church because Rome does not stand on Scripture alone as the infallible word of God.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37 |
having no scriptural warrant There are many teachings both Catholic and Protestant that are Extra-Biblical because Rome does not stand on Scripture alone as the infallible word of God. This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author -Father Jaime Pazat De Lys (A very conservative priest) While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations. Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English -> tons of translations (NIV, NKJV, LB, NASB...etc) The question begs itself: were the translators of the Bible through all these stages given the inspiration and blessing of God? Rome doesn't think so- especially with such bibles as the NIV (My priest jokingly calls it the Nearly Inspired Version) which has come under attack by many biblical scholars (both protestant and catholic) for some questionable translations. Things get lost in translation- that's quite easy to accept, especially being a Latin student- and you can't except for some versions to be infallible. The "Modern" NIV version that briefly came out that made the bible politically correct comes to mind (they refer to God as he/she, say human kind, etc...) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith" That's a pretty big change right there.
Last edited by Young Catholic; Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:28 AM.
Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
|
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040 |
There are many teachings both Catholic and Protestant that are Extra-Biblical I am well aware. But two things: 1) I am not, nor is this board, a generalized version of Protestantism; and 2) we were discussing specifically Catholic doctrines, and a specifically Catholic problem which is related to the Roman Church's dogmatic foundations. While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations. Kinda like the Mormons. But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions. Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> German -> English -> tons of translations (NIV, NKJV, LB, NASB...etc) Many modern "translations" are no such thing. But those that are actually translations, such as the NASB, aren't translating Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English. They're translating Hebrew to English and Greek to English (using the LXX and early Vulgate for comparison). There are certainly places where English rendering can be challenged, but we're not leagues and leagues away from the original texts. Faithful modern translations contain the same word of God, and it is only prevarication to say otherwise -- as though semantic barriers between languages were so thick they could never be overcome to any significant degree. Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way? "Well, we can't be entirely sure that this is really what they meant because something is always lost in translation, you know." Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith" That's a pretty big change right there. More a gloss than a mistranslation. But Martin Luther's translation is not the issue.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,866
Permanent Resident
|
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,866 |
YC, Just want to speak of this. Young Catholic said:This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author -Father Jaime Pazat De Lys (A very conservative priest) While you won't find anyone reasonable in Rome who would say the original Bible isn't inerrant as it is the word of God inspired through the blessed writers- Rome is weary to proclaim that all Bibles are infallible for one simple reasons- translations. What did Pazat meant by using the phrase "God for its principal author"? Who are the less prinicipal authors of Scripture? It appears as if that is a partial inerrantist position without the argument of failed translations.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57 |
Young Catholic said: Also, a less subtle change came from the translation from the Vulgate to German by Martin Luther when he added the word "Alone" to "Being therefore justified by faith" That's a pretty big change right there. The subject is "Praying for the dead". However, to answer your erroneous conclusion re: Luther's "alone" with the perhaps impetus to have you start a new thread, Luther simply stated what the Scripture is teaching. For, how else would one render Paul's statements, e.g.: Galatians 2:16 (ASV) "yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Galatians 3:22-24 (ASV) "But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
Romans 3:21-26 (ASV) "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, [I say], of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. . . (28) We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
In all of Paul's writings, he contrasts faith vs. works of the law and consistently shows that salvation is by faith (alone), i.e., faith and nothing else (alone). Thus, Luther didn't add to the Scriptures by insisting that salvation is by faith alone. He was simply stating what the Scriptures incontrovertibly teach. Again, IF you are of the mind to discuss/debate "Sola Fide", then please start a new thread in the Theology Forum. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37 |
What did Pazat meant by using the phrase "God for its principal author"? Who are the less prinicipal authors of Scripture?
It appears as if that is a partial inerrantist position without the argument of failed translations. His meaning here is to point out that the scriptures were inspired by God and to proclaim that the Bible is God's Word. Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way? Not at all- most of the Church Fathers spoke in latin- a tounge very familiar to the Roman Church. But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions. That's a terrible claim to make about the Roman Church. If you were talking about the Mideval church- I might let you off with such a generalization- but the modern Church- no. While there are obviously some conservative factions in Rome (what denomination doesn't have such factions?) the problem is not politically and traditionally. The Catholic Church does not have problems with modern translations as long as they are accurate translations. In fact, the Bible I have with me now is the NAB (CE). More a gloss than a mistranslation. But Martin Luther's translation is not the issue. I am merely reminding people of the fact that translators are always free to add their own thoughts about the passage and do not always stick to just translating the text.
Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
|
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040 |
Young Catholic said:Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way? Not at all- most of the Church Fathers spoke in latin- a tounge very familiar to the Roman Church. So I presume all of the scholars in the Roman Church speak Latin as their native tongue and nothing is "lost in translation"? The Greek Orthodox claim that, because they still speak Greek, they alone are capable of properly understanding the New Testament and Septuagint. But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions. That's a terrible claim to make about the Roman Church. If you were talking about the Mideval church- I might let you off with such a generalization- but the modern Church- no. While there are obviously some conservative factions in Rome (what denomination doesn't have such factions?) the problem is not politically and traditionally. What's terrible about it? Vatican II was a council. John Paul II was, and Benedict XVI is, a pope. And certainly patristic theology is still influential. But the dogmatic foundations of the Roman Church are not Scripture; Scripture is mostly filtered through a thick haze of Magisterium. The Catholic Church does not have problems with modern translations as long as they are accurate translations. In fact, the Bible I have with me now is the NAB (CE). Like I said, the Roman Church's problem is not Bible translations. I am merely reminding people of the fact that translators are always free to add their own thoughts about the passage and do not always stick to just translating the text. No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37 |
So I presume all of the scholars in the Roman Church speak Latin as their native tongue and nothing is "lost in translation"? The Greek Orthodox claim that, because they still speak Greek, they alone are capable of properly understanding the New Testament and Septuagint Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator. What's terrible about it? Vatican II was a council. John Paul II was, and Benedict XVI is, a pope. And certainly patristic theology is still influential. But the dogmatic foundations of the Roman Church are not Scripture; Scripture is mostly filtered through a thick haze of Magisterium. I suppose then your respective denomination is built solely on scripture? I doubt it- there are practically no denominations that have solely-biblical ideals for one simple reason- the Bible doesn't tell us everything nor was it meant to. No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general. Not at all- my point was a counter-point to your comment that was made about my observation about Martin Luther. My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view. As with any literary work- we must remember the bias of the person translating/writing the work. Sometimes, there is little bias, sometimes there is great bias. We should always remember that when we read. (Sire addresses this issue in wonderful detail in his book "How to Read Slowly")
Last edited by Young Catholic; Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:42 PM.
Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
|
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040 |
Young Catholic said: Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator. That doesn't automatically make the work of translation less reliable. And if the Bible is to be available to everyone, either everyone must learn to read Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, or the texts must be translated. I suppose then your respective denomination is built solely on scripture? I doubt it- there are practically no denominations that have solely-biblical ideals for one simple reason- the Bible doesn't tell us everything nor was it meant to. The rules of faith and the practice of religion are derived from Scripture primarily and foundationally. There are subordinate documents that are used as summaries of biblical doctrine, but the Bible is always the first authority. There is nothing set up on par with Scripture, not any tradition or magisterium. No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general. Not at all- my point was a counter-point to your comment that was made about my observation about Martin Luther. My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view. Which was a supporting argument in favor of your view that we can't hold translations of Scripture as actually communicating the word of God (thus implicitly undermining the trustworthiness of translations in general).
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37 |
That doesn't automatically make the work of translation less reliable. And if the Bible is to be available to everyone, either everyone must learn to read Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, or the texts must be translated. Indeed- my point is that one must obviously be careful about what translations they use- there are obviously more reliable translations than others. Which was a supporting argument in favor of your view that we can't hold translations of Scripture as actually communicating the word of God (thus implicitly undermining the trustworthiness of translations in general). My point is that we must be careful to make sure that the translations of the scriptures we are reading are accurate.
Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Needs to get a Life
|
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856 |
Young Catholic said:
My point is that we must be careful to make sure that the translations of the scriptures we are reading are accurate. How do you as a Roman Catholic understand a verse like 2 Peter 1:20? "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," Based on this verse I seem to remember that the Catholic church has taught that laymen shouldn't try to interpret Scripture for himself but rather rely on a Priest to explain it to him. Has that changed? Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57 |
Young Catholic said: Anyone who can read a language can obviously better understand the meaning of the text in that language than someone who is reading it from a translator. Not necessarily! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" /> How many people do you know that have been born in, let's say the United States, where the accepted language is English but who have little grasp of English compared to a foreigner who immigrates to the States, learns the language and consequently has a far better grasp of English grammar than the natural born individual? Secondly, case and point... when I studied Koine Greek there was an exchange student in the class from Greece. Doubtless his native language was Greek but I tell you, he had to study nearly as much as we English-speaking men because Koine Greek grammar is decidedly different than Modern Greek and the vocabulary was also different. Lastly, since there are no individuals current alive who lived during the 1st century and spoke Koine Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, all translators are forced to learn those languages before taking upon the task of translating them. I am more than confident that my Greek professors were as fluent in that language than those who had mastered the language in the 1st century. Thus their translations of the sacred text can be relied up to be accurate. Young Catholic said: My point is that it is important to remember the individual's goal in translation- his motives, bias, etc. No one can deny that quite a few translations have had things added to them to advocate their theological view. Most of us here would have no argument with this statement. Many of us, myself especially reject the validity of ANY and ALL translations which are based upon "Dynamic Equivalence" methodology. I will accept as a starting point only those translations which are based upon "Formal Equivalence". And from there, those translations can be scrutinized as to "bias", translator "liberty", etc. But again..... this is Thus, IF you wish to further this topic of the reliability of translations, methodology of translation, divine inspiration, the authority of Scripture, etc., etc..... please start a new thread relevant to what it is you wish to pursue. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 37 |
The context of this, in my personal opinion and may not represent the view of the Roman Catholic Church (I believe all those disclaimers are good enough <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> ), is that the verse you mention seems to be talking about the fact that those who wrote the Bible did not write it so under personal inspiration, rather through the inspiration of God and through his Holy Spirit. So all the interpretation of Biblical properties is from the Spirit- not the writer.
Last edited by Young Catholic; Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:58 PM.
Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancti, Amen!
"For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17
Plebeian
|
Plebeian
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 17 |
Young Catholic, With regard to infants who have died going to heaven, I would direct you to II Samuel 12,when David's infant son born out of his adulterous relationship to Bathsheba dies, In vs. 23 David being God's elect says "I shall go to him,(where?)but he will not return to me." I think this clearly states(at least in this case) that an infant that dies will be in heaven. Quite possibly all infants who die are indeed God's elect. In regard to scripture being corrupted by men in translation. I pose this question, is not the Sovereign God of all the universe able to preserve His word against such corruption? The answer to that is a resounding YES.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,457 Likes: 57 |
jaf said: With regard to infants who have died going to heaven, I would direct you to II Samuel 12,when David's infant son born out of his adulterous relationship to Bathsheba dies, In vs. 23 David being God's elect says "I shall go to him,(where?)but he will not return to me." I think this clearly states(at least in this case) that an infant that dies will be in heaven. Quite possibly all infants who die are indeed God's elect. Hi jaf! I for one among many would have to disagree with your assumptions concerning the interpretation of II Sam 12. To be sure there is nothing in that passage which speaks directly to the matter of the salvation of the dead child. May I suggest that David was not implying (at best) that the child was in heaven, but rather he was referring to the fact that the child was in the grave to which he too would eventually go and from which the child would not return. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> There has been much discussion/debate on this subject on this Board alone, never mind throughout history. Doubtless, there never will be universal agreement on the subject, if for no other reason than it is a very emotional one. My response is not meant to further the debate, since I have written more than enough on my view here already, but rather to address the exegesis of the passage itself and to offer another possible and plausible interpretation. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
1 members (Anthony C.),
154
guests, and
28
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|