Dr. Jack Moorman help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Acecrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Acecrusader

Guest
I was presented with this chart one day by a “Dr. Jack Moorman” that showed the KJV and protestants came from a seperate timeline then the Catholics way did. He presented the Catholics as part of the “Alexendria textline” and protestants as part of the “Antioch textline”. Is their any easy way to explain or debunk this? Also KJV onlyism in general?
 
Ask them where they got the King James in the first place?

The Bible is a Catholic book made available to the world through the Catholic translation and scholarship. They changes the parts they didn’t like. Not terribly “authentic”.
 
I can see Catholic claim on the New Testament.
The Old Testament predates Christianity by a century or more.
 
The OT was written by “Jews” for “Jews” compiled by “Jews” and preserved by “Jews”.
 
Re: “Antioch” and “Alexandria” – There was a general tendency for the Alexandrian school of theology to be more allegorical about their Biblical interpretation, and for the folks from Antioch and Berytus (ancient Beirut) to be more literal. But there wasn’t any real difference in the Greek (Septuagint OT and Greek NT) Biblical texts that they were using.

I guess they could be talking about some difference in the Greek received texts, but… I never heard there was any difference between what Greek texts that Protestants were using for the KJV translation, and what Catholics were using for the original Douay-Rheims. Obviously Douay-Rheims was using the Latin Vulgate for its main source, but they were taking the various Greek mss into account, just like the (slightly later) KJV folks were.

Shrug. It doesn’t sound like the man’s point was explained very well, whatever it was.
 
Anyway, you only need one argument against KJV onlyism.

Jesus Christ did not choose to be born an English speaker in the modern Anglosphere, or to give us the Gospel in English.
 
The Christian version of the OT is Catholic – ie, the “whole, complete” version of the OT. We didn’t dump the books written in Greek or Aramaic, while the later Jewish groups did. But it is also correct to call them the Jewish Scriptures, because all the OT books were written and transmitted by Jews.

This is something of an important point, because all Christian churches necessarily must believe that they possess the true continuity of Jewish faith, whereas contemporary Jews are in the same boat as the Samaritans – ie, they have resisted further revelation from God.

The Greek word for church, “ekklesia,” is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word “qahal”, the assembly of all God’s people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top