Roman Catholicism is an unscriptural cult

[plt42]

.


The Bible is the basis of authority for those of us who call ourselves Christians, no way of getting around that. Following the teachings of men is forbidden.

The bible had been edited, revised, and re-written so many times that it's authority must be suspect. The Catholic bible is vastly different from most. King James put his stamp of approval on his version to suit his political and personal needs. Then there's the New International Version and it's offspring, the Life Application Bible. ..... In the original Greek, the term "ama" was used to describe Mary. Ama means young girl... not necessarily a virgin. ..... You can't revise and transcribe any book over and over and not have it lose something. While Jesus of Nazareth was real, the bible is a wonderful and inspirational book of historical fiction... nothing more.

This is only my opinion. It's your right to accept or reject it but I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to flaming me. Thanks.

 

[glockmail]

The bible had been edited, revised, and re-written so many times that it's authority must be suspect. The Catholic bible is vastly different from most. King James put his stamp of approval on his version to suit his political and personal needs. Then there's the New International Version and it's offspring, the Life Application Bible. ..... In the original Greek, the term "ama" was used to describe Mary. Ama means young girl... not necessarily a virgin. ..... You can't revise and transcribe any book over and over and not have it lose something. While Jesus of Nazareth was real, the bible is a wonderful and inspirational book of historical fiction... nothing more.

This is only my opinion. It's your right to accept or reject it but I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to flaming me. Thanks.

I reject this opinion since its based on a false assumption. The Bible has been re-translated several times into many languages and dialects, including the New American Bible, translated into contemporary American English, which is considered the Catholic Bible in America. Along with making it easier to read and understand, these translations serve to expand our understanding of the original text by taking advantage of the increasing understanding of the ancient languages.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I reject this opinion since its based on a false assumption. The Bible has been re-translated several times into many languages and dialects, including the New American Bible, translated into contemporary American English, which is considered the Catholic Bible in America. Along with making it easier to read and understand, these translations serve to expand our understanding of the original text by taking advantage of the increasing understanding of the ancient languages.

Uhh......no.

Most of the translations that we have today are very far removed from the original language, which is Hebrew. Therefore, any translation is suspect.

 

[Vintij]

Uhh......no.

Most of the translations that we have today are very far removed from the original language, which is Hebrew. Therefore, any translation is suspect.

This is based on fact. I don't see how glock or anyone would want to pose opinions on the matter when literally the oldest of all scriptures "dead sea scrolls" had been dated to hundreds of years after jesus died. Yes they are originally hand written but they were not written by the hand of the original authors. Scribes copied these hebrew scriptures so many times over that it would be silly to think that every single draft would be flawless. They didn't have copy machines back then Glock, and not everything is written in English, for the enjoyment of Americans. Every single religion derived from some sort of Hebrew/Jewish religious writings and are essentially all the same, a mechanism to dehumanize and segregate the human race into sections, all of which believe they are somehow different or unique.

 

[plt42]

Uhh......no.

Most of the translations that we have today are very far removed from the original language, which is Hebrew. Therefore, any translation is suspect.

The old testament was in Hebrew. The new testament in Greek. Martin Luther made mention that translators must be scholars of both Hebrew and Greek in that all nuances do not translate precisely into other languages. Old Greek has a verb tense that does not exist in the Germanic languages. So, it's doubtful that any translation could be considered precise.

What concerns me more is the intentional editing and re-wording by those for their own agenda... and over the centuries, there have been those in power who did just that. How else do we explalin the need for so many different versions and the subtle differences in the Synoptic Gospels.

Again... just my opinion.

 

[Care4all]

Uhh......no.

Most of the translations that we have today are very far removed from the original language, which is Hebrew. Therefore, any translation is suspect.

no, they are not far removed....not at all...there are words that are different but very, very few...and you can google this... in fact books matched up to the dead sea scrolls were identical to today's king james bible and they were written between 200 bce and 68 ad....

do a google, it is interesting!

 

[Vintij]

no, they are not far removed....not at all...there are words that are different but very, very few...and you can google this... in fact books matched up to the dead sea scrolls were identical to today's king james bible and they were written between 200 bce and 68 ad....

do a google, it is interesting!

I dont see how that is possible considering the dead sea scrolls consist of only a few gospels, of which dozens of pieces are missing. So identical, would not be the right word for this situation. Perhaps, identical to other copies but not to the scrolls because they were heavily damaged and fragmented over the course of 2 thousand years.

 

[plt42]

"Most of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, although a few chapters of Ezra and Daniel were recorded in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The books of the New Testament were first written in Greek."

"The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (SEP-too-a-jint) was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible."

"The first written English translations of the Bible were made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew and Greek languages."

Ref: Three Early Biblical Translations

This site also goes on to list the many versions of the bible, many of which most have never heard of. Interesting if you're so inclined.

I was raised Catholic and got most of my pre-college education with the nuns of the Incarnate Word. Later, I found that it was not a religion I could embrace without question but I never lost my curiosity about the bible, it's origin, and history.

 

[plt42]

I dont see how that is possible considering the dead sea scrolls consist of only a few gospels, of which dozens of pieces are missing. So identical, would not be the right word for this situation. Perhaps, identical to other copies but not to the scrolls because they were heavily damaged and fragmented over the course of 2 thousand years.

Absolute fact. Thank you for bringing that up. By the time they got around to compiling the first bible, it was from copies of copies of copies.
--------------------------------
I tend to get very involved on the subject of the bible. I find that a book that so completely consumes lives deserves investigation and I often go overboard with the research I've done... to the point of boring people to death or pissing them off. So, I'll take my leave of this thread. Thanks for the opportunity to have my say.

 

[Vintij]

"Most of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, although a few chapters of Ezra and Daniel were recorded in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The books of the New Testament were first written in Greek."

"The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (SEP-too-a-jint) was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible."

"The first written English translations of the Bible were made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew and Greek languages."

Ref: Three Early Biblical Translations

This site also goes on to list the many versions of the bible, many of which most have never heard of. Interesting if you're so inclined.

I was raised Catholic and got most of my pre-college education with the nuns of the Incarnate Word. Later, I found that it was not a religion I could embrace without question but I never lost my curiosity about the bible, it's origin, and history.

Interesting. What I find a good read also is the history of Pope reign. From the first pope Snt. Paul who allegedly spoke directly with Jesus after he rose from the dead and was told to lead the church, to the time when Popes actually held military and political power (most of them abused that power) to modern times in which popes became little more than figure heads. Its fascinating.

 

[plt42]

Interesting. What I find a good read also is the history of Pope reign. From the first pope Snt. Paul who allegedly spoke directly with Jesus after he rose from the dead and was told to lead the church, to the time when Popes actually held military and political power (most of them abused that power) to modern times in which popes became little more than figure heads. Its fascinating.

Don't EVEN get me started on that.

 

[glockmail]

Uhh......no.

Most of the translations that we have today are very far removed from the original language, which is Hebrew. Therefore, any translation is suspect.

Why people don't know Hebrew anymore? Face it biker you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Diuretic]

Absolute fact. Thank you for bringing that up. By the time they got around to compiling the first bible, it was from copies of copies of copies.
.....

Well how come, if it's copies of copies of copies, it's not all faint and stuff? It's got really black writing in it now, if it was copies of copies of copies wouldn't it be sort of faded like when the photocopier they use goes all sort of washed out?

 

[glockmail]

They had awesome mimeograph machines back then.

 

[ABikerSailor]

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

No....it doesn't mention homosexuality repeatedly in the Bible. You are wrong (as usual) Glockmail. Probably one of the more blinded idiots that I've seen in a while.

 

[jillian]

Why people don't know Hebrew anymore? Face it biker you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

There are differences between contemporary Hebrew and biblical Hebrew. And, frankly, if you knew Hebrew, you'd know that there are mistakes in the translation of the Bible. Not earthshattering mistakes, but mistakes that absolutely change the meaning of the text.

One is the translation of the term "B'reishis"... which is generally translated as "In the beginning". Apparently, in the actual old Hebrew, the true translation is "In A beginning. A subtle difference, but one which given different constructions can explain the world seen by the literalists and new earthers and reconcile it with scientific concepts to correct their misconceptions.

Another is the translation of Ehyeh asher ehyeh ... אהיה אשר אהיה
or "I am that I am" as it it commonly translated. That implies a set form to the creator. However, in Hebrew, there is no first person present for the verb "to be", therefore, the correct translation is "I will be what I will be" which implies a far more expansive form.

Now, minor points? Maybe. Or maybe the difference between seeing a tiny universe with tiny beginnings and seeing an expansive universe that is more in keeping with a great G-d, rather than a pedestrian, manlike G-d... something more in keeping with Stephen Hawkings view of the universe, perhaps?

Just saying... cause my feeling is, if the Bible is inerrant, then G-d should have made sure it was translated properly.

 

[Anguille]

Interesting.

 

[glockmail]

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
......

Didn't you say only three times earlier? Get your story straight man!

Besides, my source says it's referenced many more times than that, and that source ain't exactly trying to condemn homosexuality.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, if you'd like to see how much you're wrong Glock (I just think I'm gonna start calling you Crock, cuz you're full of it), then tune in to Universal Torah Network - Teaching and Relating Torah Principles, Views and Understanding To The World and see how much you are in error.

Face it Crockmail, you're more full of shit than most on this board.

 

[ABikerSailor]

BTW Crock, can you provide more than 5 sources? I don't think you can. You're too much of an idiot.