Martin Luther "edited" The Word of God...

[Pwrlftr]

One of my unanswered posts…Does anybody have any evidence that a bible existed “before” the 16 century with only 66(6) books?

I don’t know of a bible that excluded the apocrypha there were several bibles out there that rejected the idea of the apocrypha being canonical such as the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire, and cardinal ximene’s bible.

 

[2ndGen]

I don’t know of a bible that excluded the apocrypha there were several bibles out there that rejected the idea of the apocrypha being canonical such as the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire, and cardinal ximene’s bible.

Thank you.

I was just wondering. I’ve never heard of of a 66 book version of The Holy Bible for Christians.

For one to believe that the 66 book version is a true bible, they’d have to:

A) Believe that The Holy Bible was “wrong” for over a thousand years.

B) Believe that King James’ Authority comes from God.

C) Believe that The Word of God didn’t exist until the 16th Century.

Pax.

D) The Pharisees version of The Old Testament supercedes the Christian Canon of The Old Testament.

 

[Ginger2]

Rev 22:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The warning not to change God’s word is found in both OT and NT

 

[2ndGen]

Rev 22:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The warning not to change God’s word is found in both OT and NT

Amen to that Ginger!

 

[Ginger2]

I have learned a lot about Martin Luther since joining this forum.

Luther was very pompous in his explanation, which did him no good service. But he explained that in the German language the word “alone” needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

Since I am not familiar with the German, I cannot speak as to whether he was telling the truth or justifying an unfortunate error. I will, however, take him at his word that he was not saying faith is all that one needs.

And in turn I would ask:

How do you feel about Jerome “editing” the Bible?

 

[2ndGen]

I have learned a lot about Martin Luther since joining this forum.

Luther was very pompous in his explanation, which did him no good service. But he explained that in the German language the word “alone” needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

Since I am not familiar with the German, I cannot speak as to whether he was telling the truth or justifying an unfortunate error. I will, however, take him at his word that he was not saying faith is all that one needs.

And in turn I would ask:

How do you feel about Jerome “editing” the Bible?

Now, in Luther’s case, there had already existed a German language Bible that never said “faith alone”, so there was no need for him to edit it.

He edited it to be able to have a foundation for his new doctrine of faith alone (which also didn’t exist in Christianity until he introduced it in his own church which he by the way didn’t name “The Jesus Church”, but “The Lutheran Church”).

As for Jerome, which words did he add?

 

[Ginger2]

He edited it to be able to have a foundation for his new doctrine of faith alone (which also didn’t exist in Christianity until he introduced it in his own church which he by the way didn’t name “The Jesus Church”, but “The Lutheran Church”).

I have not been able to find any document where ML taught “faith alone”

As for Jerome, which words did he add?

Genesis 3:15

 

[2ndGen]

I have not been able to find any document where ML taught “faith alone”

As for Jerome, which words did he add?

Genesis 3:15

But what is the word(s)?

What was the original verse and how did he change it?

As for Martin Luther…his doctrined is called “Sola Fide”.
Maybe Googling that term might help you find some history on it.

 

[Ginger2]

Genesis 3:15

But what is the word(s)?

What was the original verse and how did he change it?

As for Martin Luther…his doctrined is called “Sola Fide”.
Maybe Googling that term might help you find some history on it.



Gen 3:15 “he shall crush” was changed to “she shall crush”

 

[SyCarl]

I really don’t know that Luther named the Lutheran Church.

As for adding things to “clarify” Bible translations, it is all too common even today. For example, the Contemporary English Version adds the name Mary to John 2:1.

Three days later Mary, the mother of Jesus, was at a wedding feast in the village of Cana in Galilee.
(John 2:1 CEV)

While this doesn’t change the meaning it is still an addition to the text.

Luther was wrong to add alone, especially since he based his doctrine on the verse he changed. He did not have to change it as no present Bible contains it and Protestants still defend the doctrine.

I believe that this was discussed in another thread as Luther also defended his addition on the basis of a number of earlier commentators that used alone.

I have only been able to locate one example. John Chrysostom refers to faith only in Romans. He uses faith alone in other places.

But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.-John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed -John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

However, there is a great difference in using something in a homily or commentary and adding it in a translation.

 

[2ndGen]

I really don’t know that Luther named the Lutheran Church.

As for adding things to “clarify” Bible translations, it is all too common even today. For example, the Contemporary English Version adds the name Mary to John 2:1.

While this doesn’t change the meaning it is still an addition to the text.

Luther was wrong to add alone, especially since he based his doctrine on the verse he changed. He did not have to change it as no present Bible contains it and Protestants still defend the doctrine.

I believe that this was discussed in another thread as Luther also defended his addition on the basis of a number of earlier commentators that used alone.

I have only been able to locate one example. John Chrysostom refers to faith only in Romans. He uses faith alone in other places.

However, there is a great difference in using something in a homily or commentary and adding it in a translation.

There’s definately a difference between translation and altering meaning.

 

[Ginger2]

I

Luther was wrong to add alone,

I think we are all over-looking one point.

Assume for a moment that Luther’s German translation was the most accurate for clarity in the German language.

That does not mean a direct translation into English would have the same meaning.

This is the problem with translating from a translation.

While the German may be perfectly accurate in meaning, using it to translate to English has now created a new and false meaning.

 

[2ndGen]

But what is the word(s)?

What was the original verse and how did he change it?

As for Martin Luther…his doctrined is called “Sola Fide”.
Maybe Googling that term might help you find some history on it.

Gen 3:15 “he shall crush” was changed to “she shall crush”

I have…
enesis 3:14-15
14 And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Whatever was done a millenia and a half ago that “didn’t” end up in The Holy Bible doesn’t really bother me. There have to be literally thousands of examples of what was “not” included in The Holy Bible.

As for his doing it, it obviously doesn’t matter because it doesn’t exist today and no Christian doctrine is based on it.

 

[Benedict16]

People listen…In short, Luther not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith’, and fearing lest good works might creep in, he added the word ‘only’ after St. Paul’s words, making the sentence run: "We are justified by Faith ONLY’, and so it reads in the Lutheran bibles today. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us Catholics is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of a pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote,as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, INDIVIDUAL JUDGEMENT, NO AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF ONESELF. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. AND AS THE RESULT WE HAVE SEEN THE CORRUPTION OF GOD’S HOLY WORD.

 

[2ndGen]

I think we are all over-looking one point.

Assume for a moment that Luther’s German translation was the most accurate for clarity in the German language.

That does not mean a direct translation into English would have the same meaning.

This is the problem with translating from a translation.

While the German may be perfectly accurate in meaning, using it to translate to English has now created a new and false meaning.

There’s a great little book that I found in a Franciscan Book store that went into the explanations of the types of translations (literal vs meaning vs allegorical, etc…) and it explained how these translations were used.

For example, if one wanted a literal translation, they could buy a Bible with a literal translation and allow The Holy Spirit to educate them as to what it meant where as if someone wanted the meaning of the translation already done for them, they just had to focus on The Word without having to worry about their personal options as to how they were to understand it.

Which leads to a good question…which Bible would you want?

A literal translation leaving it up to you to decipher it’s meaning?

Or one where the translation has been recorded in what the translator believes is what is meant?

 

[SyCarl]

I think we are all over-looking one point.

Assume for a moment that Luther’s German translation was the most accurate for clarity in the German language.

That does not mean a direct translation into English would have the same meaning.

This is the problem with translating from a translation.

While the German may be perfectly accurate in meaning, using it to translate to English has now created a new and false meaning.

My question would be then, has any other translation subsequently added alone?

 

[2ndGen]

People listen…In short, Luther not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith’, and fearing lest good works might creep in, he added the word ‘only’ after St. Paul’s words, making the sentence run: "We are justified by Faith ONLY’, and so it reads in the Lutheran bibles today. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us Catholics is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of a pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote,as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, INDIVIDUAL JUDGEMENT, NO AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF ONESELF. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. AND AS THE RESULT WE HAVE SEEN THE CORRUPTION OF GOD’S HOLY WORD.

LOL!

Most definately Ben, but I’m trying to take baby steps here and built up a consensus of proofs to those who trust Luther.

I dont’ trust him on anything (except his love for Mary).

 

[2ndGen]

My question would be then, has any other translation subsequently added alone?

You be the judge…

Romans 3:28

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We conclude that a person has God’s approval by faith, not by his own efforts.

King James Bible
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

American Standard Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Bible in Basic English
For this reason, then, a man may get righteousness by faith without the works of the law.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Darby Bible Translation
for we reckon that a man is justified by faith, without works of law.

English Revised Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Tyndale New Testament
We suppose therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Weymouth New Testament
For we maintain that it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous, apart from actions done in obedience to Law.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

World English Bible
We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Young’s Literal Translation
therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

 

[Ginger2]

As for his doing it, it obviously doesn’t matter because it doesn’t exist today and no Christian doctrine is based on it.

It does still exist today in the Douay Rheims version. The Vatican corrected the error, but many Catholics still use the faulty translation.

They argue saying “he/she” doesn’t matter because it is Mary who crushes satan’s head through her son Jesus Christ.

This faulty translation is the reason we see endless statues and paintings of our blessed Virgin Mary standing on a snake.

Come to think of it…I don’t believe I have ever seen a statue or painting of Jesus crushing satan’s head. Do any exist?

 

[Ginger2]

My question would be then, has any other translation subsequently added alone?

Probably any that translated from ML’s German.

I don’t believe any of the Bibles I have include the word “alone”