Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

I’m sorry but neither of us is a Greek scholar. This is a linguistic spin on your part. The committees that translate scripture generally do a very good job. Many bibles use the terms damnation or condemnation and they do so because it fits the meaning of the Greek and it fits the context.

I’ll take the translations of these scholarly groups over yours or mine any day of the week.

No offense intended. I’m sure that your efforts are sincere. I think they are, unfortunately, influenced by your theology as opposed to a clear understanding of the language.

What’s funny is that I choose to post from the KJV to avoid precisely the dodges Sandusky takes in his post. “Drink judgment on yourself” is somehow completely different than “Drink damnation upon yourself” in meaning? Please!

There is simply no concession in apologetics which Protestants will graciously take. We routinely argue from Scripture alone, despite believing Scripture alone to be complete bunk and heresy. We post using Protestant translations of Scripture. We post limiting ourselves to the New Testament, despite the fact that it is one Bible, and one God. Within the New Testament, we post largely from the Epistles, although we make no such distinction between the authority of books of the Bible. Within the Epistles, we give preeminence to St Paul, although the other Epistles are equally valid and offer compelling evidence all their own. We post routinely the teachings of the Catechism—have Sandusky or Moondweller posted any official catechism from their own communities for review and discussion? No.

As lopsided as we tilt the field in their favor, they insist that they will fare better if only we tilt it a bit more.

 

[guanophore]

And, if I envied you at all, I would be guilty of that sin.

this is an interesting statement. How does one determine that envy is a sin? If the commandments no longer apply to Christians…

Scripture is full of the role of the commandments in giving insight to human conscience:

Ps 19:8
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

I am thinking this morning about how the Commandments give light and insight to man, so that we have a holy standard against which to discern right conduct.

Moondweller seems to think that this is not a purpose or ministry of the Law, or that this tutoring provided by it somehow ceased at the death of Christ.

Ps 119:105-106
05 Thy word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.
106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it,
to observe thy righteous ordinances.

Did the death of Christ make the lamp go out?

I was thinking about something Apophasis wrote last year, all scripture was written for our instruction. But,now all scripture is “about” us. I did not agree with how he was applying this principle in the context at the time, but I cannot help but think that it does apply here. Although we are not under Law, the Law is there for us as a source of instruction. How else can we know that envy is a sin, or pride?

Thank you for telling me what I’m sure I’ve known for much longer than you’ve known it.

This sounds the least bit condescending. I just finished reading a post where you “lovingly” told Teflon that he was not your brother, and you could know this because he does not agree with your soteriology. It did not surprise me, because I believed you thought that before I read it.

He certainly told the young ruler to keep the commandments to enter eternal life; however, the young ruler was self-deceived in thinking that he had.

Actually, the text no where points to this. Jesus does not condemn him for not keeping the commandments. On the contrary, “he loved him”. Does God love a liar? Jesus extends the commandment for him, so that he can have an even more fuller experience of abundant life. He instructs him to part with his possessions. This is not part of the 10 commandments. In fact, the Jews believed that wealth was a sign of God’s favor and blessing.

My interpretation of scripture is accurate enough to know that I have eternal life, and that eternal life once given is not rescinded, and that sacrament-keeping is not a means to eternal life, but grace.

I agree that eternal life is never “rescinded”. The gifts and call of God are irrevocable. The gift remains there, even if a person refuses to accept it. Just as the father was always ready to receive back the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, so is God always ready to receive us back into eternal life.

You apparently misunderstand sacraments. Sacraments are signs that effect what they symbolize. They are a means through which grace flows. It is an error to separate them from the grace that makes them effective. I suppose, for the unbeliever, they may appear only as empty rituals, but for those who come in faith, the grace flows in.

IMO, the notion of invincible ignorance is, in itself, ignorant in that it falsely assumes that God, who created all things, and who upholds all things by the word of His power, is unable to ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He has chosen to save (Acts 16:9-10; 18:9-10), while at the same time, withholding it from others (Acts 16:6-8).

I think it seems this way because you believe differently about free will than what the Apostles taught. The teaching we have from God is that everyone can choose to participate in the grace, or reject it. Since you apparently believe differently (the unsaved are chosen for perdidtion?) then it seems that God is weak, maybe? On the contrary, He is strong enough to tolerate making us in His image and likeness, with the ability to choose right and wrong, eternal life, or eternal death.

 

[BRB]

Sure—Scripture please.

Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t accept Paul quoting himself in his letters

But, you would accept Church Tradition and the Church Fathers ??

Teflon93 … Legalism is Mosaic Hebrew, Libertinism is Greek tradition, Militarism was Roman rule, but Christianity is the only Way to lasting peace/security via love.

As a military man … surely you can appreciate

 

[Teflon93]

Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t accept Paul quoting himself in his letters

But, you would accept Church Tradition and the Church Fathers ??

Teflon93 … Legalism is Mosaic Hebrew, Libertinism is Greek tradition, Militarism was Roman rule, but Christianity is the only Way to lasting peace/security via love.

As a military man … surely you can appreciate

I don’t see any Scripture, writings of the ECFs, or Church documents in the above, just your opinion.

Unfortunately, I’m not prepared to accept your authority, as you are not in the divine chain-of-command.

As a military man, I appreciate chain of command, unity of command, and related concepts.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

I’m sorry but neither of us is a Greek scholar. This is a linguistic spin on your part. The committees that translate scripture generally do a very good job. Many bibles use the terms damnation or condemnation and they do so because it fits the meaning of the Greek and it fits the context.

I’ll take the translations of these scholarly groups over yours or mine any day of the week.

No offense intended. I’m sure that your efforts are sincere. I think they are, unfortunately, influenced by your theology as opposed to a clear understanding of the language.

No offense taken, Pax, but your mistrust of what I say breaks my heart.

You always respond with the “canned” response you’ve given above.

Beginning with the “hina clause,” it’s basic Greek grammar, and valuable for you to know.

With respect the KJV translation of “damnation,” instead of “judgment,” I cited your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

How suspicious can you be, Pax, that you reject even that Catholic Bible?

Without going into the backgrounds of the words, Pax, the following is all the scholarship that you need to verify what I said concerning the bad translation of krema as damnation in the King James Version in 1 Cor 11:29, a translation which should be judgment and NOT damnation: simply check other translations and compare them with the KJV.

What you’ll find is that the King James Version is the only version that translates “krema” as damnation.

Let me say that again:

What you’ll find is that the King James Version is the only version that translates “krema” as damnation.

I’m the first to admit that I’ve not checked every translation that is available; however, to the best of my recollection, I’ve compared more than 30 translations to the KJV and my findings are stated above.

That’s not scholarship, Pax, but personal initiative driven by a personal desire to know why I believe what I believe rather than to simply know it because, as Teflon93 stated in an earlier post, "I know because the Church as so defined it, based upon Scripture and Tradition."

I understand that what I’ve presented to you concerning 1 Cor 11:29-32 is disconcerting to you, but then, God’s truth has that effect.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

He certainly told the young ruler to keep the commandments to enter eternal life; however, the young ruler was self-deceived in thinking that he had. Where exactly does this opinion appear in scripture? The self-deception came in because he was convinced the he already had a saving faith.

My interpretation of scripture (is fallable) is accurate enough to know that I have eternal life, So you have removed yourself from the final judgement? good luck with that, you’ll need it and that eternal life once given is not rescinded, and that sacrament-keeping is not a means to eternal life,
but grace. Grace comes to you thru the Sacraments. It’s your free will that rejects that grace, a gift from God.

IMO, the notion of invincible ignorance is, in itself, ignorant in that it falsely assumes that God, who created all things, and who upholds all things by the word of His power, is unable to ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He has chosen to save (Acts 16:9-10; 18:9-10), while at the same time, withholding it from others (Acts 16:6-8). It remains a good way to describe the possiblility for God’s mercy for the “saved” who remove themselves from the final judgement by their own “pronouncement” of a saving faith.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

What’s funny is that I choose to post from the KJV to avoid precisely the dodges Sandusky takes in his post. “Drink judgment on yourself” is somehow completely different than “Drink damnation upon yourself” in meaning? Please!

That demonstrates only that your reasoning and choice in the matter are faulty.

My recommendation is that you get away from the KJV, and use the NASB95, a very literal, word for word translation.

Also, see my post #703 above.

 

[Pax]

No offense taken, Pax, but your mistrust of what I say breaks my heart.

You always respond with the “canned” response you’ve given above.

Beginning with the “hina clause,” it’s basic Greek grammar, and valuable for you to know.

With respect the KJV translation of “damnation,” instead of “judgment,” I cited your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

How suspicious can you be, Pax, that you reject even that Catholic Bible?

Without going into the backgrounds of the words, Pax, the following is all the scholarship that you need to verify what I said concerning the bad translation of krema as damnation in the King James Version in 1 Cor 11:29, a translation which should be judgment and NOT damnation: simply check other translations and compare them with the KJV.

What you’ll find is that the King James Version is the only version that translates “krema” as damnation.

Let me say that again:

What you’ll find is that the King James Version is the only version that translates “krema” as damnation.

I’m the first to admit that I’ve not checked every translation that is available; however, to the best of my recollection, I’ve compared more than 30 translations to the KJV and my findings are stated above.

That’s not scholarship, Pax, but personal initiative driven by a personal desire to know why I believe what I believe rather than to simply know it because, as Teflon93 stated in an earlier post, "I know because the Church as so defined it, based upon Scripture and Tradition."

I understand that what I’ve presented to you concerning 1 Cor 11:29-32 is disconcerting to you, but then, God’s truth has that effect.

NIce try, but I pointed out that the word is also translated as “condemnation” and there are a number of English translations that use that word.

Moreover, verse 27 says:

– King James
1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be** guilty **of the body and blood of the Lord.

Most use the word guilty and some will also include the term profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

If you do not believe that this brings condemnation then please read this:

Hebrews 10:26-31
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Teflon93]

That demonstrates only that your reasoning and choice in the matter are faulty.

My recommendation is that you get away from the KJV, and use the NASB95, a very literal, word for word translation.

Also, see my post #703 above.

At which point the KJV-only Fundamentalists attack en masse.

Sorry, but I’m only willing to accommodate you so far, and having to post multiple versions is a bridge too far.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s not scholarship, Pax, but personal initiative driven by a personal desire to know why I believe what I believe rather than to simply know it because, as Teflon93 stated in an earlier post, "I know because the Church as so defined it, based upon Scripture and Tradition."

Absolutely—I’ll take the scholarship over centuries of men who are fluent in the languages and steeped in the theology of the Church over your Internet search any day. They’ve devoted their lives to this task, and have been scrutinized by their peers and the Pope in so doing.

Sorry, but I don’t possess enough pride to fail to defer to those who know far more than I do.

I understand that what I’ve presented to you concerning 1 Cor 11:29-32 is disconcerting to you, but then, God’s truth has that effect.

What, speaking with the mouth of Christ, are we?

Pride, dear Sandusky, pride. :tsktsk:

 

[Wild_Bill]

:yup: God’s grace is more than necessary to salvation; it’s all that’s needed (sufficient) for salvation. Therein lies the disagreement/difference between the Catholic and me.

The Catholic church is the only, repeat, only church which can prove they were in exixtance from the time of Jesus. All the other religions have come from those spliting off and starting their own religions, because they dissagreed with the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Peter was the rock, upon which Jesus started Mother Church, Peter was the first Pope and the 11 Disciples were the first Bishops. The Pope is the leader of Mother church. God gives him divine grace to lead the entire church. Just like the US has the constitution and needs the Supreme Court to interpet the laws, the Bible needs a Supreme Being (The Pope and his Cardinals) to correctly interpet Word of God.

Every religion which is splintered off of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church is heading down the wrong roads. We all want to have Eternal Life in Heaven so we must all seek the truth and not try to misinterpet the word. His Will be done, not ours.
Wild Bill

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

this is an interesting statement. How does one determine that envy is a sin?

Teflon93 told me it was.

guanophore:

I was thinking about something Apophasis wrote last year, all scripture was written for our instruction

FYI, Paul first wrote that (Rom 4:23; 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11).

guanophore:

But,now all scripture is “about” us. I did not agree with how he was applying this principle in the context at the time, but I cannot help but think that it does apply here. Although we are not under Law, the Law is there for us as a source of instruction.

guanophore, the NT is not one of the Letter (Law), but of the Spirit.

The Spirit convicts the world ”concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (Jn 16:8); ”the Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” and fellow heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16f); the Spirit ”is given as a pledge of our inheritance” (a very significant statement) (Eph 1:14), and this is the promise which He Himself promised us: eternal life” (1 Jn 2:25); the Spirit is given to the believer as an anointing to teach the believer (Jn 14:16; 1 Jn 2:20, 27), and so on.

The NT is a ministry of the Spirit, and not the Letter (2 Cor 3:4-11 linger on that passage for as long as it takes you to understand, guanophore).

guanophore:

You apparently misunderstand sacraments. Sacraments are signs that effect what they symbolize. They are a means through which grace flows. It is an error to separate them from the grace that makes them effective. I suppose, for the unbeliever, they may appear only as empty rituals, but for those who come in faith, the grace flows in.

I completely understand the Catholic view of the sacraments (that’s one of the many reasons I’m no longer Catholic).

guanophore:

Actually, the text no where points to this. Jesus does not condemn him for not keeping the commandments.

If you believe that the young man had successfully kept all of the commandments up to the moment in which he declared that he had, there’s nothing I can say that would, in any way, be meaningful to you concerning anything having to do with the law.

guanophore:

I agree that eternal life is never “rescinded”. The gifts and call of God are irrevocable. The gift remains there, even if a person refuses to accept it. Just as the father was always ready to receive back the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, so is God always ready to receive us back into eternal life.

In order for something to be “rescinded,” it must have been “given and accepted” in the first place; however, thank you for stringing all of those words together in your post.

guanophore:

I think it seems this way because you believe differently about free will than what the Apostles taught.

In fact, I believe exactly what the apostles, and the Lord taught concerning one’s freedom in coming to Christ.

What Christ taught is that while everyone is “free” to come to Him, no one, in himself “has the ability to do so” (Jn 6:37, 44, 65). That’s because they’re dead (Eph 2; Col 2).

So we see that not only can’t dead man dance, they also can’t come to Christ.

You would do well to consider that in light of your idea of “prevenient grace”—to paraphrase Monty Python, **a nod’s as good as a wink to a dead man—**so too is prevenient grace.

Without being alive, nothing avails a dead man; once God regenerates him, God justifies him; and those justified by God, are also glorified by God (Rom 8:30).

 

[sandusky]

NIce try, but I pointed out that the word is also translated as “condemnation” and there are a number of English translations that use that word.

You are “free” to believe what you will, Pax; thanks for the response.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93 told me it was.

That’s Pope Teflon the 93rd to you, my son.

And quit gazing longingly at my hat.

 

[BRB]

This is a good point. If sin is to miss the mark, how is one to know where the “mark” is without knowing the standards? I know that OSAS believe that sin cannot keep one out of heaven, but if one is in Christ, and one is still expected to cease from sin, how is one to know what the sins are?

The Beatitudes are the standards. You / I better hope that our sins won’t keep us out of heaven !!

We all sin daily (hourly) … ‘even the just man sins 7 times before sundown’.

Its the ‘unconfessed’ sins that will be our downfall and require Purgatorial actions. David sinned mightily of ‘mortal’ variety … yet he found favor with the Lord because he would promptly confess / repent of his error.

This is why we all need the Church to supply our weekly graces via Eucharist. And, why we all need to daily confess our errors via personal prayer … just like David.

And, the more we forgive others and incorporate Beatitudes into our lives … the better will be our judgement & possible rewards.

Perfection in law is only possible via graces of Christ.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Absolutely—I’ll take the scholarship over centuries of men who are fluent in the languages and steeped in the theology of the Church over your Internet search any day. They’ve devoted their lives to this task, and have been scrutinized by their peers and the Pope in so doing.

List all of those centuries of men who were fluent in the Greek and the Hebrew, Teflon93, and then list all of the men who wrote anything, so that we can compare the number of those fluent in the Greek and Hebrew, with the number of those who were not.

If you don’t, I have no reason to believe your statement.

Please begin with the description of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and move forward from Him.

Teflon93:

What, speaking with the mouth of Christ, are we?

Not the mouth, but the mind (1 Cor 2:14-16); I have no difficulty saying that, but apparently,
you do; are you superstitious?

Teflon93:

Pride, dear Sandusky, pride.

Boasting in the Lord is not pride, Teflon (1 Cor 1:31), if one understands what that means,
and I do.

 

[Teflon93]

List all of those centuries of men who were fluent in the Greek and the Hebrew, Teflon93, and then list all of the men who wrote anything, so that we can compare the number of those fluent in the Greek and Hebrew, with the number of those who were not.

Wouldn’t it be easier for you to list your bona fides? Do you speak Greek and Hebrew?

Qualifications, please.

If you don’t, I have no reason to believe your statement.

Fortunately for me, your unbelief has no impact whatsoever on my salvation.

Please begin with the description of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and move forward from Him.

An odd place to start, given the good Doctor didn’t come along until the 4th century.

Why don’t we work backward from you instead? Share your qualifications as a linguist, theologian, and Biblical scholar. I’ll then produce a list of Catholic clergy whose qualifications exceed your own.

Not the mouth, but the mind (1 Cor 2:14-16); I have no difficulty saying that, but apparently,
you do; are you superstitious?

I get all tingly in my Spider-Sense whenever you refer to Scripture but don’t even quote it; perhaps its my mojo hand picking up the bad juju waves.

1 Corinthians 2:

1: And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3: And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6: Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Is that “we” in the last sentence plural or singular? If it happens to be plural, St Paul is referring to the Church, the Body of Christ.

In which case, you might consider yourself to be The Atomic Church of Sandusky, but you surely don’t expect us to think that you have the mind of Christ.

Boasting in the Lord is not pride, Teflon (1 Cor 1:31), if one understands what that means,
and I do.

I’d better look that up too, huh?

1 Corinthians 1:

1: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2: Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4: I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5: That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6: Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11: For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13: Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14: I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15: Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16: And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17: For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22: For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30: But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Seems to me that there’s a difference between glorying in the Lord and claiming you personally have the mind of Christ.

Keep working on that sanctification—check that pride!

 

[sandusky]

Wouldn’t it be easier for you to list your bona fides? Do you speak Greek and Hebrew?

Qualifications, please.

As I figured, Teflon93, you can’t deliver.

And yes, it would be easier; nevertheless, I’m not the subject of my inquiry to you; that concerned your statement about “all the men through the centuries of your church.”

 

[BRB]

Please begin with the description of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and move forward from Him.

.

Augustine relied heavily on Jerome [re: former languages] … and Jerome has been shown to have made many errors.

Always go to the earliest source for info …until they be proven wrong.

 

[sandusky]

Augustine relied heavily on Jerome [re: former languages] … and Jerome has been shown to have made many errors.

Always go to the earliest source for info …until they be proven wrong.

Augustine had little, if any knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew.