Islam

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Because the term [begottem] is not in English. You are not arguing the validity and accuracy of the original term but the choice of various translators. Please find out what the original term is and why it has no direct translation into English.

I’m not interested in quibbling about English translations of the New Testament because the original was not written in English. It would be like me arguing understanding of the Quran based solely on English translations.

I will therefore, respectfully ask you again:
is the term referring to Jesus as God’s ‘only begotten Son’ in Hebrew? Yes or No.

Once you learned that there no such UNIQUENESS attached to the term “The Only Begotten” from New Testament point of view, it is meaningless to see whether it is also mentioned in the Old Testament in Hebrew. By the way almost all books of the New Testament are written in Greek. And Greek was not the native language or mother tongue of Jesus to know what exactly he and his disciples spoke and what precise word they used for Begotten.

Now let me qoute something that may enlighten you more:

** *Only Begotten Son * **: The word ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God’s “only begotten son” - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John.

The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, ** monogenes **. Monos means “single” or “one” and genos means “kind”. So the Greek translation originally was with “one-of-a-kind”.

So where does ‘begotten’ come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means “to beget”. Thus, to translate monogenes as “only begotten” is improper and incorrect–which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be** “unique son”** or **“one-of-a-kind”. **

The Aramaic word ehedaya means “sole heir” and **“the beloved”. ** So when we combine **monogenes ** ehedaya we get **“one-of-a-kind, beloved son”. ** That’s **considerably different ** from ‘only begotten son’.

Thats why in the latest Catholic Bible (The New American Bible) the word “Begotten” is mysteriously disappeared even from John 3:16.

I hope this helps you in seeing the things AS THEY ARE.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

Because the term [begottem] is not in English. You are not arguing the validity and accuracy of the original term but the choice of various translators. Please find out what the original term is and why it has no direct translation into English.

I’m not interested in quibbling about English translations of the New Testament because the original was not written in English. It would be like me arguing understanding of the Quran based solely on English translations.

I will therefore, respectfully ask you again:
is the term referring to Jesus as God’s ‘only begotten Son’ in Hebrew? Yes or No.

Once you learned that there no such UNIQUENESS attached to the term “The Only Begotten” from New Testament point of view, it is meaningless to see whether it is also mentioned in the Old Testament in Hebrew.

I beg to differ. The term monogenes huios is only used in the Gospel of John – see your David Icke reference below:

“When we read that Jesus was God’s “only begotten son” - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John.”

What does ‘found exclusively in the Gospel of John’ mean?

You are again confusing the OT phrase ‘son of God’ with the NT phrase ‘only begotten son’. They are NOT the same.

Justice2006:

By the way almost all books of the New Testament are written in Greek. And Greek was not the native language or mother tongue of Jesus to know what exactly he and his disciples spoke and what precise word they used for Begotten.

However, that is the original language that most of the NT books were written. Therefore, that is all we have. To argue what the term could have been in Aramaic is pure speculation as we have no surviving Aramaic texts, only the Greek original (i.e. the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek).

If you can argue the meaning of ‘son of God’ from the English, don’t be too quick to cast aspersions to my arguing the ‘Only Begotten Son’ from the Greek. After all, my Greek translation predates your English translations by at least 13 centuries.

Justice2006:

Now let me qoute something that may enlighten you more:

Your sarcasm is misplaced. You’ll see I already knew the answer before I asked the question.

You’ll also note I have given you many clues in my previous post – such as ‘unique’ and ‘special meaning’.

Justice2006:

Only Begotten Son : The word ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God’s “only begotten son” - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John.

The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes . Monos means “single” or “one” and genos means “kind”. So the Greek translation originally was with “one-of-a-kind”.

So where does ‘begotten’ come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means “to beget”. Thus, to translate monogenes as “only begotten” is improper and incorrect–which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be “unique son” or “one-of-a-kind”.

The Aramaic word ehedaya means “sole heir” and “the beloved”. So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get “one-of-a-kind, beloved son”. That’s considerably different from ‘only begotten son’.

Thats why in the latest Catholic Bible (The New American Bible) the word “Begotten” is mysteriously disappeared even from John 3:16.

I hope this helps you in seeing the things AS THEY ARE.

I think this is your source: davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/piousfraud.html

We need to discuss this as it doesn’t at all support your case.

cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Here are your errors:

1. You relied on David Icke without checking his facts. The term μονογενης υιος ‘monogenes huios’ in reference to Jesus is only in the Gospel of John. However, the original language of this gospel is Greek, not Aramaic. The oldest surviving fragment of the Gospel of John is in Greek: Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and conventional wisdom is that the gospel was originally written in Greek. Thus I think Icke’s ehedaya explanation is incorrect.
2. While it is true that the word ‘monogenes’ is disputed as to meaning ‘unique’ or ‘only begotten’ (note I already provided you the clues in my earlier post), the Christian understanding is not flawed as you suggest. This has been debated in Christian circles for a long time. The phrase ‘only begotten son’ is presently used because it is doctrinally correct – please refer to the Nicene Creed. After all, language is defined by usage and the usage in this case carries a specific meaning, and it is not ‘God’s sole progeny’ as you seem to suggest.
3. Comparison of the English translation with other ‘sons of God’ in either the OT or NT is false because of the specificity of this phrase.
4. Likewise, you cannot compare other ‘begottens’ with ‘only begotten son’ because you have just discovered that the ‘begottens’ are not the same. This one in reference to Jesus was used in accordance to the Nicene Creed – in that the term begotten when used in relation to Jesus is not the same as when used for other people.
5. The issue of why some translations omit the ‘begotten’ is beside the point. They are English translations after all. One might just as easily quibble about why Pickthall used a certain phrase while Shakir used another or that Sher Ali used yet another. What is relevant is that most of the English translators use the phrase ‘only begotten son’ to mean ‘monogenes huios’, and the term monogenes huios has already been clarified in the Nicene Creed.

Thus, there is nothing at all wrong with the view that Jesus was the ‘only begotten son’. Christians have read the Bible for centuries and know for a fact that Jesus was not the only son and that ordinary people can be beloved and begotten by god. However, I hope I make it clear that the phrase when used in relation to Jesus carries its own special meaning that does not apply to other contexts. Thus, your initial attempt to cast aspersions on the Apostle’s Creed because there are other ‘sons of God’ mentioned in the Bible shows a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

And I do hope I have helped you see ‘only beloved son’ as it is, not as you think it is.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[melbourne_guy]

rodrigo may i ask what religion you are?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I have no religion. But that doesn’t mean I have no knowledge of religions.

 

[freesoulhope]

What has drawn you to this site? you seem to have knowledge, What are your intentions? who knows, maybe the more knowledge you aquire, the closer you will be to finding the true God, even if at first you dont believe. What ever your intentions. God bless you, live long and prosper.

p.s, what ever happens, try to be good!

 

[freesoulhope]

Catholic by name, but not catholic by nature.
Muslim by name, but not muslim by nature.

people use names, they use banners. The devil is forever working to decieve by throwing dirt and making things look dirty. He uses people who claim to represent the intrests of christ to cuase devision and sow seeds of confuesion. I dont think that there is a link between the muslim religion and the suicide bombers, i believe satan is smart in mixing the two, because it paints a picture of good versus evil. A child or man who has been brainwashed to commit suicide for god by blowing up a bus, thinks that their doing a great thing for God. Emotional black mail and fear of hell can be twisted to serve an evil purpose. Unless someone is crazy anough to do it fo the politcal reasons that thier leaders really encourage it for, you need somthing to inspire the heart, and nothing is more inspiring then dying for god if you can twist the truth just enough. What you really need to define, is whether or not suicide bombing is rooted in the religion or rather rooted in the desire to be free from oppression.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear freesoulhope,
I disagree. Whilst not all suicide bombers are Muslim (note the Tamil Tigers), most of them are. The Tamil Tiger issue is different in that it is nationalistic/racial rather than religious. However, Muslim suicide bombers kill because of their religion. The concepts of martyrdom and reward from God in paradise for martydom are readily found within the Quran and Muhammad’s example.

Muslims are in conflict with their neighbors almost everywhere in the world. Why is that? Are they so oppressed when they are the majority and have ruled their countries for generations? How do the West oppress Muslims? By supporting Israel’s right to exist? By buying oil from Arab countries? It is not clear to me how exactly the West oppresses Muslims.

Believe me: Islam is like no other religion in the world. Read the Quran and make up your own mind.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

freesoulhope:

What has drawn you to this site?

Friendship. Strictly invited to help clarify some misconceptions.

freesoulhope:

you seem to have knowledge,

Only a little as far as Catholicism goes.

freesoulhope:

What are your intentions?

I’m here to spread goodness and light.

freesoulhope:

who knows, maybe the more knowledge you aquire, the closer you will be to finding the true God, even if at first you dont believe. What ever your intentions. God bless you, live long and prosper.

Thanks. And to you too.

freesoulhope:

p.s, what ever happens, try to be good!

I’m always good, unless I’m bad. Then I’m great at being bad.

PS Justice2006,
If you have no further questions regarding ‘only begotten son’ perhaps we can move on with the rest of the Apostles’ Creed. I, too, have much to learn.

Nos vemos despues,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

However, that [Greek] is the original language that most of the NT books were written. Therefore, that is all we have. To argue what the term could have been in Aramaic is pure speculation as we have no surviving Aramaic texts, only the Greek original (i.e. the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek).

Well, since what all you have in Greek is not the actual langauge of Jesus Christ nor his disciples thus there is no way to figure it out the precise words uttered by them in their native langauge.

So, criticising either so-called “originals” Greek’s terms or terms used in their further re-translations in various langauges is same. Because neither Greek nor their further translations are original terms.

So what you are looking for the term “the only begotten Son” is in fact a useless effort to “justify” by hook or by crook, a preconceived idea of Catholic Church that doesn’t even found/exist even in the corrupted text of the so-called “original” MSS of NT and OT.

Not to mention, according to the New American Bible of Catholics:

"the Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels.It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels.
"To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

P.S: By the way according to Rev. John O’Brien (Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X):
2. In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?
**They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. **
[* A Catechism Of The Bible]](* A Catechism Of The Bible])

 

[freesoulhope]

I respect your reply, in the majority of what you are saying is true.
But you have to undestand that the conflicts that happen in this world need excuses to happen. The truth is, whether or not the tables where turned at one point doesnt matter, that doesnt justify or some how proves that there is no oppression in the world. in order for capitilisom to work, sombody has to be opressed, its a competion, in every aspect of life, there is competion. When you apply for a job you are competing with other employees. You might be chosen for your skill and experience, but there where also others that where just as qualified. The truth is, it doesnt have to be like this, world powers, struggle agaist eachother to control resorces, while ordinary people keep them in power working minimum wage. Education is a competion, everybody cannot come out of school with top grades, people have to fail, there has to be people around to work the factorys and be willing to work for low wage. Its very well fought out and constructed system created to keep the rich rich and the poor, poor. Goverments fight for power and possibly world domination, and poor people that have been oppresed( because of the game), get
caught in the cross fire.

Isnt it possible my freind, that muslims who seek power, simply interpret the koran to suit there ends? this is the Qeustion i give you. God bless.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

However, that [Greek] is the original language that most of the NT books were written. Therefore, that is all we have. To argue what the term could have been in Aramaic is pure speculation as we have no surviving Aramaic texts, only the Greek original (i.e. the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek).

Well, since what all you have in Greek is not the actual langauge of Jesus Christ nor his disciples thus there is no way to figure it out the precise words uttered by them in their native langauge.

Au contraire Mr Justice2006. It is believed that the disciple(s) who wrote the Gospel of John spoke Greek. I doubt there is any evidence for any predecessor source in Aramaic but you’re welcome to furnish if you can find them. I would be most interested. You’d be really doing Biblical research a great service – it would be the find of the century in the field.

Justice2006:

So, criticising either so-called “originals” Greek’s terms or terms used in their further re-translations in various langauges is same. Because neither Greek nor their further translations are original terms.

See the above. I suggest you check out the origin of the Gospel of John.

Justice2006:

So what you are looking for the term “the only begotten Son” is in fact a useless effort to “justify” by hook or by crook, a preconceived idea of Catholic Church that doesn’t even found/exist even in the corrupted text of the so-called “original” MSS of NT and OT.

No. It is a specific term only used in the Gospel of John. Thus, any comparison with similar, but not identical, terms such as ‘son of God’ or ‘begotted by God’ is meaningless.

Justice2006:

Not to mention, according to the New American Bible of Catholics:

"the Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels.It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels.
"To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.”

Read carefully – this source doubts that it was written by one person. It doesn’t disprove the Gospel of John at all. Are you saying that only works written by a single person have any validity? I hope not.

Justice2006:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

P.S: By the way according to Rev. John O’Brien (Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X):
2. In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?
They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
[* A Catechism Of The Bible]](* A Catechism Of The Bible])

Hmmm… I already knew this but thank you. Note the Gospel of Matthew doesn’t carry the term, ‘only begotten son’, so it proves my point that the Gospel of John was written in Greek.

Chau,
Cid

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Here are your errors:

1. You relied on David Icke without checking his facts. The term μονογενης υιος ‘monogenes huios’ in reference to Jesus is only in the Gospel of John. However, the original language of this gospel is Greek, not Aramaic. The oldest surviving fragment of the Gospel of John is in Greek: Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and conventional wisdom is that the gospel was originally written in Greek. Thus I think Icke’s ehedaya explanation is incorrect.

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

I don’t care about your “conventional wisdom”. You should have atleast read what The New American Bible of Catholics has to say about the Gospel according to St. John.

Here again I qoute:

"the Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels.It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels.
"To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Read carefully – this source doubts that it was written by one person. It doesn’t disprove the Gospel of John at all. Are you saying that only works written by a single person have any validity? I hope not.

Mr. Bivar,
What I am saying is “John’s Gospel” which is believed to be written according to an **uncertain ** Saint John is not even a sole work of that **uncertain ** man.

Thus there is no way to know which part of it is written by that uncertain man and which is not. Plus keep in mind this gospel’s amazing non-synoptic nature

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

freesoulhope:

I respect your reply, in the majority of what you are saying is true.
But you have to undestand that the conflicts that happen in this world need excuses to happen. The truth is, whether or not the tables where turned at one point doesnt matter, that doesnt justify or some how proves that there is no oporesion in the world. in order for capitilisom to work, sombody has to be opressed, its a competion, in every aspect of life, there is competion. When you apply for a job you are competing with other employees. You might be chosen for your skill and experience, but there where also others that where just as qualified. The truth is, it doesnt have to be like this, world powers, struggle agaist eachother to control resorces, while ordinary people keep them in power working minimum wage. Education is a competion, everybody cannot come out of school with top grades, people have to fail, there has to be people around to work the factorys and be willing to work for low wage. Its very well fought out and constructed system created to keep the rich rich and the poor, poor. Goverments fight for power and possibly world domination, and poor people that have been oppresed( because of the game), get
caught in the cross fire.

Isnt it possible my freind, that muslims who seek power, simply interpret the koran to suit there ends? this is the Qeustion i give you. God bless.

Hola freesoulhope,
I don’t think competition is the cause of oppression. I don’t think capitalism is the cause of oppression. For the simple reason that the West competes against itself and against all third-world countries. But only Muslims feel oppressed.

Do poor non-Muslim Africans or South Americans not feel similarly oppressed by the West to become suicide bombers? No. Only Muslims do that because they have religious reasons to do so.

I also don’t think Muslim leaders simply interpret the Quran for their own nefarious ends. That would be putting too much onus on the powerful and absolving the less powerful of responsibility for evil acts. There is no reason for ordinary Muslims to be hoodwinked about their own religion by their own leaders. After all, they can just as readily read the Quran for themselves to find out if their leaders are lying to them or not. The truth is, all such acts of violence committed by Muslims can be justified by the Quran and hadiths.

What do you think Muslims do when they grow up? They learn their religion. The inordinate amount of time spent by Muslims learning Islam would astonish most Westerners. If you have lived in a Muslim country you would realize the all-consuming all-pervading influence of Islam on the daily lives of Muslims. One can’t even go to the toilet without reference to the Sunnah.

You did mention earlier that you think it is the Devil that corrupts some people to commit evil. I ask you why the Devil is having so much success with Muslims as compared to Hare Krishnas and Buddhists and anti-war pacifists?

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

Read carefully – this source doubts that it was written by one person. It doesn’t disprove the Gospel of John at all. Are you saying that only works written by a single person have any validity? I hope not.

Mr. Bivar,
What I am saying is “John’s Gospel” which is believed to be written according to an uncertain Saint John is not even a sole work of that uncertain man.

Thus there is no way to know which part of it is written by that uncertain man and which is not. Plus keep in mind this gospel’s amazing non-synoptic nature

Hola Mr Justice2006,
Please put aside your Islamic concept of authorship – i.e. the isnad. This doesn’t exist in Christianity. Your criticism above can be leveled against all the Gospels. Nobody knows for sure who wrote the Gospels. The attribution of all the Gospels is in doubt, but nobody cares because Christians don’t consider the canonical Gospels to be apocryphal, including John’s. Just because it wasn’t written by a person who was a direct disciple of Jesus doesn’t mean the Gospel isn’t true (from a Christian viewpoint).

The facts remain thus:

1. the scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of John was originally written by person or persons unknown in Greek, not in Aramaic.
2. the oldest surviving fragments and manuscripts of this Gospel are in Greek.
3. this is the only place where monogenes huios appears in the entire Bible.
4. The meaning of monogenes huios is specific and is different from the ‘son of God’ and ‘begotten by God’ in other parts of the Bible. In effect, one can think of monogenes huios as a title that applies only to Jesus.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

I don’t care about your “conventional wisdom”. You should have atleast read what The New American Bible of Catholics has to say about the Gospel according to St. John.

Here again I qoute:

"the Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels.It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels.
"To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

With due respect, I already know the fourth Gospel is non-synoptic.

How does it change our discussion of ‘only begotten son’? I think you’re going down a different path which I’m unclear of.

The point remains that whoever wrote the Gospel of John wrote it in Greek. The term ‘only begotten son’ is only found in this Gospel and no other. The meaning of ‘only begotten son’ is a specific term: Christians already know that God had other sons but this is irrelevant to them because of the specificity of the term ‘only begotten son’ or monogenes huios.

With due respect, you should care about the conventional wisdom of the original language of the Gospel of John because we are talking about the meaning of the term, ‘monogenes huios’ and not some speculative Aramaic predecessor made up by David Icke. Please get over David Icke’s speculation. If you want to argue his case then it is up to you to show that he is correct in that the original phrase was in Aramaic. This is very difficult to believe as all the evidence suggest that the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek and not Aramaic.

Ciubate,
Rodrigo

 

[inJESUS]

Hey Rodrigo what about taking this discussion to a new thread and leave this one to islam coz Justice did not answer any of my questions yet? :

Jesus’ crucifixion from islamic perspective
Why allah allowed his book to be corrupt?
was the Bible at mohammads time trustworthy?
didnt allah promise to preserve the Bible?

much appreciated

 

[inJESUS]

this might help about Who wrote John’s Gospel :

newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Hola Mr Justice2006,
Please put aside your Islamic concept of authorship – i.e. the isnad. This doesn’t exist in Christianity. Your criticism above can be leveled against all the Gospels. Nobody knows for sure who wrote the Gospels. The attribution of all the Gospels is in doubt, but nobody cares because Christians don’t consider the canonical Gospels to be apocryphal, including John’s. Just because it wasn’t written by a person who was a direct disciple of Jesus doesn’t mean the Gospel isn’t true (from a Christian viewpoint).

The facts remain thus:

1. the scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of John was originally written by person or persons unknown in Greek, not in Aramaic.
2. the oldest surviving fragments and manuscripts of this Gospel are in Greek.
3. this is the only place where monogenes huios appears in the entire Bible.
4. The meaning of monogenes huios is specific and is different from the ‘son of God’ and ‘begotten by God’ in other parts of the Bible. In effect, one can think of monogenes huios as a title that applies only to Jesus.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Your facts are actually “facts”. The qoute I gave you was from the Catholic Bible (The New American Bible). It clearly tells you that:

"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel [of John] as it now stands was written by one person."

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

Now, this is not me telling you, it is what the learned scholars of Catholic Bible, approved by the Holy Papacy/Magisterium is telling YOU and all the Catholics.

In 1943 Pope Pius XII ordered to produce a new translation of the Bible. He wrote:

“We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill **in literary criticism ** of the same text.”

Then New American Bible was produced which is an achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work.The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that "all Christians may be able to use them."

for details see, the Preface of the New American Bible ]

Mr. Bivar, are you saying that all these scholars had no idea what they are talking/writing in the very introduction of Gospel of John in their official Catholic Bible?

Now please qoute 1 John 5:7 from two Catholic Bibles, The New American Bible and Douay Rheims BIible.

And lets see what is really gpoing on. Please make sure you are not qouting the verses I did not want you to qoute.

All I am asking you to qoute only Verse 7 of Chapter 5 of First Epistle of Saint John ( 1 John 5:7 ) from **The New American Bible ** and the Douay Rheims Bible. These both are Catholic Bibles.