Had a brain fade

[Philthy]

Shibboleth:

In reference to the NAB, I just pointed out one instance. The whole NAB Bible is such that it adds many words for the purpose of clarification. It was not meant to be a literal translation.

Luther’s bible was not meant to be a direct literal translation either. I can certainly see where a Catholic would disagree with Luther’s translation, but Luther himself stated that ‘alone’ was not in the Greek text. He didn’t even try to claim that a word in the verse could be interpreted as ‘alone’. He stated that he believed based on his studies that ‘alone’ although not stated was implied. There are many places in the Bible where one could put the word ‘alone’ and it would be completely acceptable, provided that one stated that they were not doing a literal translation.

In reference to the Books removed. There have been many threads on the topic, but I will add that Luther was not the first to feel that these books were not canonical. **There is a reason why they are referred to as deutercanonical. Deuter – means secondary. **

I agree that Luther was wrong about James and Luther later agreed that he was most likely wrong about the book of James.

The book of James does not contradict the theology that Luther put forth.

A) You’re probably right regarding Luther’s admitting it was simply his interpretation. The blame for the proliferation of “faith alone” rests squarely on all those after him who continue to support it.

B) I never said others didn’t discuss the canon, but we’re talking about the 16th century here. Again, that’s not the issue, the issue is placing the books into a separate category in the bible. I don’t think too many people were doing that.There is a reason they are called deuterocanonical, canonical - means part of the canon.

C) Perhaps there are interpretations of the Book of James that"don’t contradict the theology that Luther put forth" but that doesn’t make them valid (Luther obviously didn’t feel that way initially). And unless you have some divine knowledge that gives you the "correct " interpretation of this book, I’ll stand by the obvious statement that "As the body without spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." I know, even though the same word for justification appears in James as it does throughout the NT, we’re supposed to believe that James is talking about something slightly different: not actual, spiritual justification but the demonstration of it publicly. The public demonstration of righteousness is such an important topic that God felt compelled to include it in the book of James despite all the confusion it would cause regarding actual spiritual justification which controls our eternal destiny. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.