King James Vs NAB Bible

[Phyllo]

Sorry .not technical again . Of course the twelve did not all write, and we aren’t sure which is the twelfth, after Judas( I say Paul). Would you not say, God, the Holy Spirit ,and in Paul’s case, maybe even Jesus inspired, moved, dictated told, led, etc., Matthew, Mark Luke and John and Paul and Peter and James and Jude to “write” ?.. Tradition has a role as long as it is written.

HUMM I thought that Tradition is something that is passed along by word of mouth and actions and not written down. That is why it is called tradition. If it is written down then it is not Tradition.

 

[david_ruiz]

HUMM I thought that Tradition is something that is passed along by word of mouth and actions and not written down. That is why it is called tradition. If it is written down then it is not Tradition.

Where does it say tradition can not be written down at some point ? Much of the written epistles deal with correcting some earleir “oral” started tradtions/practices

 

[Nicea325]

Where does it say tradition can not be written down at some point ? Much of the written epistles deal with correcting some earleir “oral” started tradtions/practices

Tell me what “oral” Tradition was corrected?

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry .not technical again . Of course the twelve did not all write, and we aren’t sure which is the twelfth, after Judas( I say Paul). Would you not say, God, the Holy Spirit ,and in Paul’s case, maybe even Jesus inspired, moved, dictated told, led, etc., Matthew, Mark Luke and John and Paul and Peter and James and Jude to “write” ?.. Tradition has a role as long as it is written.

My friend, even has always taught the Holy Spirit guided ALL authors of the Bible. Tradition has a role as long as it is written? Really? Which author of the Bible said such a comment or pushed it as a rule?

 

[Phyllo]

Where does it say tradition can not be written down at some point ? Much of the written epistles deal with correcting some earleir “oral” started tradtions/practices

Here is what the CC has for Tradition in the glossary:
The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit(Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scripture have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.

I, too, would be interested in what corrections were made.

 

[Nicea325]

Here is what the CC has for Tradition in the glossary:
The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit(Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scripture have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.

I, too, would be interested in what corrections were made.

This is the first I have heard of an oral Tradition needing to be corrected?

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn;9384707:

Really ? What is the Catechism say about our bible ,what Holy Scripture is ? Really ? So when Corinthians got a letter from St.Paul they trusted a church ? Yes, they trusted St Paul and the Holy Spirit,and then trusted His writing/letter, as holy scripture. Nowhere does Paul say He was what is referred today as Catholic ,Roman Catholic

Yes, Paul was a member of the church, an official representative of it, an apostle. The Corinthians trusted Paul, and accepted that he had the Holy Spirit behind him. At that time they didn’t think of his writings as holy scripture, that came later.

Your comment is odd about Paul not saying what is “referred today as Catholic, Roman Catholic.” Of course nowhere does Paul say that. Why on earth would he? Paul was an official evangelist of Christ’s church, and so his preaching and writing were done on behalf of that Church. Later that Church became called catholic or universal to distinguish it from rival heretical or apostate Christian sects that were not catholic but local.

All the New Testament writings were done by members of the Church, and therefore it is right to say the Church produced them. The Church also copied them, compiled them and decided they were truly inspired and put on the canonical list. Without the Church doing that they most likely would have been lost or submerged among the other mystery cults of the time.

Then I must do away with the trinity ,even salvation,baptism,heaven ,hell, for these are Catholic things also ? Just cause one is wrong on some things does not mean she is wrong on all. And just because she got some things right, was faithful in the beginning, does not mean her lampstand will be always bright. Vatican 2 has suggested that God gave us His Word , and to to say this is more accurate and less parochial sounding than to say "my "church gave us scripture. See, not everyone listens to the pope all the time, and you are still Catholic. So I can trust “your” scriptures, just not all your interpretations of them.

Yes, God gave us the scriptures. But that is simply a teaching of the Church. Without the Church, scripture would not have survived.

As far as believing the trinity, baptism, hell, etc, indeed these are Catholic things. And you’ve hit the nail on the head about doing away with them. Some groups, because these are realized to be Catholic things, have done exactly that, done away with them. You know who they are. And the final kicker is that modern liberals have done away with the last Catholic thing–belief that the bible is the word of God. That is where your type of thinking has led to. Reductionism until nothing is left.

This is not scriptural ,Men, guided by the Spirit gave us scripture. Men guided by the Spirit received, understood and believed in the scripture. There was no central church authority that did this until the end of the 4th century .By then, and before then ,bibles ,with the correct 27 NT books had acknowledged and compiled

Not scriptural? What do you mean? Of course not–this is outside of scripture. History and logic.

You must have written in white heat, because I have to study your sentence structure to try to comprehend your point here. Sure, men guided by the Spirit gave us scripture. However we must remember these men were of the Church and were writing to others who were also of the Church. They were not writing to those who were not of the Church. That is the mistake of the Gideons, and the American Bible Society, to think that disseminating bibles is the way to evangelize. Evangelization is the mission of Christ’s Church, using Tradition, scripture, and the writings of the apostles and the disciples. Those who read scripture who are not already of the Church are very likely to misunderstand. 2Peter 3:16.

We’re getting off topic here, but it is still about the bible, King James or NAB, and what the bible is for. In the early years the New Testament existed as isolated writings, mixed in with other Christian writings. Various lists were made by bishops as to what writings were to be read in church. Athanasius was the first bishop to make a list of our 27 books and only our 27 books. Local councils in the 4th century affirmed his list of 27. The rest of the church was happy to go along with these lists until Trent made it official.

So that’s how we have the bible, through the writing, affirmation, copying, and compiling done by the catholic church.

 

[Phyllo]

david ruiz;9387252:

mackbrislawn;9384707:

Yes, Paul was a member of the church, an official representative of it, an apostle. The Corinthians trusted Paul, and accepted that he had the Holy Spirit behind him. At that time they didn’t think of his writings as holy scripture, that came later.

Your comment is odd about Paul not saying what is “referred today as Catholic, Roman Catholic.” Of course nowhere does Paul say that. Why on earth would he? Paul was an official evangelist of Christ’s church, and so his preaching and writing were done on behalf of that Church. Later that Church became called catholic or universal to distinguish it from rival heretical or apostate Christian sects that were not catholic but local.

All the New Testament writings were done by members of the Church, and therefore it is right to say the Church produced them. The Church also copied them, compiled them and decided they were truly inspired and put on the canonical list. Without the Church doing that they most likely would have been lost or submerged among the other mystery cults of the time.

Yes, God gave us the scriptures. But that is simply a teaching of the Church. Without the Church, scripture would not have survived.

As far as believing the trinity, baptism, hell, etc, indeed these are Catholic things. And you’ve hit the nail on the head about doing away with them. Some groups, because these are realized to be Catholic things, have done exactly that, done away with them. You know who they are. And the final kicker is that modern liberals have done away with the last Catholic thing–belief that the bible is the word of God. That is where your type of thinking has led to. Reductionism until nothing is left.

Not scriptural? What do you mean? Of course not–this is outside of scripture. History and logic.

You must have written in white heat, because I have to study your sentence structure to try to comprehend your point here. Sure, men guided by the Spirit gave us scripture. However we must remember these men were of the Church and were writing to others who were also of the Church. They were not writing to those who were not of the Church. That is the mistake of the Gideons, and the American Bible Society, to think that disseminating bibles is the way to evangelize. Evangelization is the mission of Christ’s Church, using Tradition, scripture, and the writings of the apostles and the disciples. Those who read scripture who are not already of the Church are very likely to misunderstand. 2Peter 3:16.

We’re getting off topic here, but it is still about the bible, King James or NAB, and what the bible is for. In the early years the New Testament existed as isolated writings, mixed in with other Christian writings. Various lists were made by bishops as to what writings were to be read in church. Athanasius was the first bishop to make a list of our 27 books and only our 27 books. Local councils in the 4th century affirmed his list of 27. The rest of the church was happy to go along with these lists until Trent made it official.

So that’s how we have the bible, through the writing, affirmation, copying, and compiling done by the catholic church.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Really ? What is the Catechism say about our bible ,what Holy Scripture is ? Really ? So when Corinthians got a letter from St.Paul they trusted a church ? Yes, they trusted St Paul and the Holy Spirit,and then trusted His writing/letter, as holy scripture. Nowhere does Paul say He was what is referred today as Catholic ,Roman Catholic

This type of belief system is a Protestant one. And why? Due to the countless denominations within its circles. If you are claiming Paul did not refer to the Catholic Church,the more obvious he never refers to which Protestant church he belong to out of thousands.

It is foolish to believe Paul or any Apostle had to say the name of the Church they wrote for or attended.

 

[david_ruiz]

This type of belief system is a Protestant one. And why? Due to the countless denominations within its circles. If you are claiming Paul did not refer to the Catholic Church,the more obvious he never refers to which Protestant church he belong to out of thousands.

It is foolish to believe Paul or any Apostle had to say the name of the Church they wrote for or attended.

Just as foolish as to hold one church name above another .

 

[david_ruiz]

This type of belief system is a Protestant one. And why? Due to the countless denominations within its circles. If you are claiming Paul did not refer to the Catholic Church,the more obvious he never refers to which Protestant church he belong to out of thousands.

It is foolish to believe Paul or any Apostle had to say the name of the Church they wrote for or attended.

You spread inaccuracies .It is more than thousands ,it is tens of thousands .At least you do not say millions like some that every protestant is a denomination unto himself .Thank-you

 

[david_ruiz]

Here is what the CC has for Tradition in the glossary:
The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit(Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scripture have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.

I, too, would be interested in what corrections were made.

Perhaps we misunderstand .I am not saying Paul had to correct what he orally transmitted ,as if he said orally xyz but later wrote that he meant to say wxyz. I am saying he orally transmitted but the application/interpretation needed to be corrected ,as in speaking in tongues ,or the Day of the Lord,or does it matter who baptizes you etc .

 

[racing59]

What are reasons that someone would accept the King James Bible as Authoritative over the Latin Vulgate or NAB bible? Why is Textus Receptus the word of god over the Say Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus? My friend believes King James is the absolute word of god because it does not come from Egypt. Says its closest to Hebrew. I say it doesn’t have Apocrypha like original King James. Can anyone offer any scholarship on this issue. Thanks in advance…

I’m not a scholar and call me crazy, but I have read out of NAB,DR,KJ,NKJ,Ampliphied,NIB. I find them all to be the Word of God.

 

[Phyllo]

Perhaps we misunderstand .I am not saying Paul had to correct what he orally transmitted ,as if he said orally xyz but later wrote that he meant to say wxyz. I am saying he orally transmitted but the application/interpretation needed to be corrected ,as in speaking in tongues ,or the Day of the Lord,or does it matter who baptizes you etc .

Oh,

I think I understand what you mean now. Paul orally instructed his followers to do such and such this way and they did it a way that was not instructed by Paul. They didn’t follow Paul’s instructions to the letter. Is that what you mean? So then Paul would have to had “correct” them in their application of his teaching.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh,

I think I understand what you mean now. Paul orally instructed his followers to do such and such this way and they did it a way that was not instructed by Paul. They didn’t follow Paul’s instructions to the letter. Is that what you mean? So then Paul would have to had “correct” them in their application of his teaching.

No Not sure Paul had instructions to the letter. Are instructions given to the letter on how to react to the holy Spirit,to speak in tongues ?/ Did the apostles have oral instructions to the letter on how to speak in tongues on Pentecost ? Were there specific instructions on how to be joyfully exuberant on becoming baptized and being happy and proud to know an apostles, or one who walked and talked with Jesus ? When they were orally told to give all to the Lord and serve Him with all your might ,were there specific instructions not to divorce , and free yourself, to fully serve the Lord ? How do you explain the need for so much correction in the epistles ?