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

[Benedict16]

Also…people outside the Catholic faith would do well to ask themselve this question: Which Christian body really loves and reveres Scriptures most? Which has proved by its actions, its love and veneration? And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life?

 

[SyCarl]

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.

I did know the answer as to every translation I have seen, which is about 60.

 

[2ndGen]

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?

Those are all excellent points Ginger!

And a great foundation as to why Protestantism is wrong. It was based on Martin Luther’s teachings of faith alone.

And I agree with you on the misdirection that led Catholics into error. The difference between Luther and Catholicism is that Luther never corrected himself and his folllowers are just as guilty of obeying him where Catholicism did correct that error (which was definately wrong). The statues however are just Christian artwork and are “not” what we place our faith on. Even the Doughy-Rheims version has been corrected. It is like any other Bible in the world…different. Words here, words there…no written text by man will ever be perfect.

However, The Holy Bible had “he” before Jerome and “he” after Jerome and “that’s” the version we use officially.

You chose the perfect example of to prove why we need a group of men dedicated to God to help us as the sheep that we are…we need pastors.

The only “alone” that there should be should be “God alone”.

 

[2ndGen]

Those are all excellent points Ginger!

And a great foundation as to why Protestantism is wrong. It was based on Martin Luther’s teachings of faith alone.

And I agree with you on the misdirection that led Catholics into error. The difference between Luther and Catholicism is that Luther never corrected himself and his folllowers are just as guilty of obeying him where Catholicism did correct that error (which was definately wrong). The statues however are just Christian artwork and are “not” what we place our faith on. Even the Doughy-Rheims version has been corrected. It is like any other Bible in the world…different. Words here, words there…no written text by man will ever be perfect.

However, The Holy Bible had “he” before Jerome and “he” after Jerome and “that’s” the version we use officially.

You chose the perfect example of to prove why we need a group of men dedicated to God to help us as the sheep that we are…we need pastors.

The only “alone” that there should be should be “God alone”.

A related point…Jesus is almost always shown to have been impaled through His hands, yet history tells us that He was impaled through His wrists (the hands couldn’t have held up His weight, the Romans knew this so they always impaled through the wrist).

But why does Christian art use the image of the hands being pierced? To keep the image in line with the scriptural prophecy that “His hands would be pierced”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

It isn’t the “Holy Bible” that was wrong but those who included the deutero’s in the canon who are wrong.

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

King James has nothing to do with this. Even at Trent we find Catholic cardinals rejecting the canonical status of the deutero’s.

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

So all the folks who rejected the deutero’s and lived between Jesus and the 16th century believe the Word of God existed? This makes no sense.

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

The Pharisees canon matches the Christian canon of the OT, it’s just that your church has added a few additional books to the canon.

 

[2ndGen]

It isn’t the “Holy Bible” that was wrong but those who included the deutero’s in the canon who are wrong.

Really? Like what?

King James has nothing to do with this. Even at Trent we find Catholic cardinals rejecting the canonical status of the deutero’s.

That’s the great thing about The Church…everybody’s opinon is heard out, but it is The Holy Spirit that has the final word. And thus, The Holy Bible was born. Besides, it was Jesus who confirmed for The Church that it was The Septugaint that was worthy of faith (since He Himself used it and didn’t use the Pharisees’ canon which was canonized 60 years after His death that the Protestants chose to use when they created their bible).

So all the folks who rejected the deutero’s and lived between Jesus and the 16th century believe the Word of God existed? This makes no sense.

All those that didn’t believe in it didn’t believe in The Holy Bible. Jesus believed in them.

The Pharisees canon matches the Christian canon of the OT, it’s just that your church has added a few additional books to the canon.

No, The Pharisees canon didn’t even exist until “after” Jesus died and left us so The Apostles or Jesus couldn’t have used it. They used the canon in existance 200 years before Jesus was even born.

The Pharisees removed the books out of the Septugaint to create their canon because they professed the Messiahship of Jesus.

 

[Pwrlftr]

That’s the great thing about The Church…everybody’s opinon is heard out, but it is The Holy Spirit that has the final word. And thus, The Holy Bible was born. Besides, it was Jesus who confirmed for The Church that it was The Septugaint that was worthy of faith (since He Himself used it and didn’t use the Pharisees’ canon which was canonized 60 years after His death that the Protestants chose to use when they created their bible).

I think I asked you this last night before the thread disappeard, but please tell us what books the septuagint that Jesus used contained and tell us how we know this. Did he use the codex Vaticanus (for example)? If you can do this I have another question or two for you but will wait to see what you can do.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Pharisees removed the books out of the Septugaint to create their canon because they professed the Messiahship of Jesus.

When did the Pharisees do this?

 

[Ginger2]

Well said 2ndGen.

The Holy Bible had “he” before Jerome and “he” after Jerome and “that’s” the version we use officially.

The only “alone” that there should be should be “God alone”.

And as has been pointed out clearly in this thread, Protestant Bibles do not contain the word “alone”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well said 2ndGen.

And as has been pointed out clearly in this thread, Protestant Bibles do not contain the word “alone”

Ginger,

Not sure if you know this or not, but do you realize that there were other before Luther who interpreted Romans 3:28 with the “alone” added in there?

 

[Ginger2]

A related point…Jesus is almost always shown to have been impaled through His hands, yet history tells us that He was impaled through His wrists (the hands couldn’t have held up His weight, the Romans knew this so they always impaled through the wrist).

But why does Christian art use the image of the hands being pierced? To keep the image in line with the scriptural prophecy that “His hands would be pierced”.

The word used in the OT that is translated “hands” can also mean wrists.

But I hardly think that is a equal comparison. It is a minor detail that is relatively unimportant. Jesus was crucified regardless of where they placed the nails.

 

[Ginger2]

Really? Like what?

The Pharisees removed the books out of the Septugaint to create their canon because they professed the Messiahship of Jesus.

Excuse me, but this is such nonsense. If they were going to remove some books that contained prophecy pointing to Jesus as Messiah,

Why wouldn’t they take out all of them?

 

[SyCarl]

Really? Like what?

That’s the great thing about The Church…everybody’s opinon is heard out, but it is The Holy Spirit that has the final word. And thus, The Holy Bible was born. Besides, it was Jesus who confirmed for The Church that it was The Septugaint that was worthy of faith (since He Himself used it and didn’t use the Pharisees’ canon which was canonized 60 years after His death that the Protestants chose to use when they created their bible).

Isn’t interesting then that Jerome translated the Vulgate, which was confirmed by Trent, from the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint? And of course there is the matter that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the entire Septuagint. The Orthodox are consistent by accepting the whole thing. The Orthodox-Catholic split took place in 1054, after the canon was supposedly set. Why do the canons of the two churches differ.

Protestants use the Jewish canon, the Orthodox use the Septuagint canon. The Catholic Church uses neither.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Isn’t interesting then that Jerome translated the Vulgate, which was confirmed by Trent, from the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint? And of course there is the matter that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the entire Septuagint. The Orthodox are consistent by accepting the whole thing. The Orthodox-Catholic split took place in 1054, after the canon was supposedly set. Why do the canons of the two churches differ.

Protestants use the Jewish canon, the Orthodox use the Septuagint canon. The Catholic Church uses neither.

The church also used the vulgate which included Jeromes negative comments as to their canonocity at the preface of each deuterocanonical book.

 

[ralphinal]

I must say that even though I am as “hardcore” a Catholic as they come, the cow is out of the barn on this one. Even if you can show that ML did this (and he did), it is not going to matter.

First, many protestants do not know who Luther is other than the one who showed the Roman Church the error of their ways. They do not consider him their “Spiritual father” or the founder of their faith.

Second, you are fighting against too many years of ingrained misunderstandings on both sides. They will not move by your will or proof. All you can do is hope Go pushes as well.

 

[2ndGen]

I think I asked you this last night before the thread disappeard, but please tell us what books the septuagint that Jesus used contained and tell us how we know this. Did he use the codex Vaticanus (for example)? If you can do this I have another question or two for you but will wait to see what you can do.

Sorry if I missed your request. I answer that question so many times that maybe I thought I answered it. Again, forgive me my friend.

Books of the Septuagint
See also Table of books below.
All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the modern ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (5th century).[4]

Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called Βασιλειῶν (“Of Reigns”); scholars believe that this is the original arrangement before the book was divided for readability. In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (Παραλειπομένων—things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve.[4]

Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These include additions to Daniel and Esther. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.

The New Testament makes a number of allusions to and may quote the additional books (as Orthodox Christians aver).
The books are
Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon,
Wisdom of Jesus Seirach,
Baruch,
Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon),
additions to Esther,
1 Maccabees,
2 Maccabees,
3 Maccabees,
4 Maccabees,
1 Esdras,
Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and
Psalm 151.

The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint; for a discussion see the article on Biblical apocrypha.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Books_of_the_Septuagint

 

[2ndGen]

Hebrew Scriptures And Deuterocanonicals
What is the Hebrew canon and are the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha a part of it?
.
During Jesus’ time, the Jews, as a whole, did not officially have a list of inspired books or canon. For example, the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as Scriptures while the Pharisees accepted prophetic writings as well as other wisdom books, like Job and Proverbs as inspired.

Which canon of Scriptures was known to Jesus, His followers and the first Christians? The answer is that they knew both Palestinian Canon and the Greek Septuagint translation. Greek-speaking Jews also lived in Palestine and were known as Hellenists (Acts 6:1).

However all New Testament writers mostly used Septuagint whenever they quoted from Old Testament. It is not a matter of convenience (even though both used Greek), because at few places in the New Testament, the inspired authors still quoted from the Hebrew text. The Septuagint has textual differences compared to Palestinian canon. A good example is the famous prophecy about Jesus’ virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Palestinian canon does not say “virgin” but “young woman” while the Septuagint does say “virgin” (note that both Hebrew and Greek have different words for virgin and young woman). Countless other examples abound throughout the New Testament. Given that the entire New Testament was written in Greek, it is perhaps certain that the Alexandrian canon as reflected in the Greek Septuagint was also used by the Catholic Church right from the beginning as was the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint version used by the early Christians (presumably inspired by the Holy Spirit on this matter) was the acknowledged translation for all the “Jews of the Dispersion” in Asia, as well as in Egypt, and it was used not only by Christ, His Apostles and Evangelists but by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in the early days of Christianity. It is from this list of 46 books that Christ and the New Testament writers and speakers quote when referring to the Old Testament. Of the 350 quotations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament, 300 are taken directly from the Greek Septuagint Bible.

speroforum.com/site/wiki.asp?id=HebrewScripturesAndDeuterocanonicals

 

[2ndGen]

When did the Pharisees do this?

Council of Jamnia, 90 AD

 

[Pwrlftr]

Sorry if I missed your request. I answer that question so many times that maybe I thought I answered it. Again, forgive me my friend.

No problem. One of the threads disappeared completely last night. I think it was the one “P’s vs C’s” or something.

Books of the Septuagint
See also Table of books below.
All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the modern ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (5th century).[4]

The bold part is what I am questioning. As far as I know the septuagint’s that we posses copies of or have knowledge of are all Christian copies that date back to around the 4th or 5th centures. If this is correct, we don’t appear to know for certain what books were contained in the Jewish septuagint before this time.

Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called Βασιλειῶν (“Of Reigns”); scholars believe that this is the original arrangement before the book was divided for readability. In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (Παραλειπομένων—things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve.[4]

Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These include additions to Daniel and Esther. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.

The New Testament makes a number of allusions to and may quote the additional books (as Orthodox Christians aver).
The books are
Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon,
Wisdom of Jesus Seirach,
Baruch,
Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon),
additions to Esther,
1 Maccabees,
2 Maccabees,
3 Maccabees,
4 Maccabees,
1 Esdras,
Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and
Psalm 151.

The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint; for a discussion see the article on Biblical apocrypha.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Books_of_the_Septuagint

I appreciate your post but I am still looking for whether or not we know what is contained in the early Jewish versions of the septuagint. The three codices we have; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and I don’t remember the third one and may not have spelled the other two correctly…anyway, the three codices we have of the septuagint are all Christian copies from several centuries after Jesus and the apostles.

I don’t know of anyone such as a Josephus or Philo that lists which books made up the Jewish septuagint.

It seems that the Jewish septuagint is somewhat of a mystery at this point.

 

[2ndGen]

Well said 2ndGen.

And as has been pointed out clearly in this thread, Protestant Bibles do not contain the word “alone”

That’s why it’s good to have debates.

I learned something new.

The Protestants were honest enough to do the right thing (as was The Church with Jerome’s err).

I never knew that they used the correct translation. My Priest always did tell me that the New Testaments in both books were identical.

But they (The Protestants) still stuck to the doctrine of Luther’s (which is to me bothersome because he was wrong in so many ways).

The heart of the doctrine is beautiful, don’t get me wrong. The idea of it is beautiful, that we only need The Bible and nothing else, but the Bible says we need alot of things without ever mentioning “The Bible” at all.

I hate the doctrine because it was used as a basis for separating us. And that’s the truth and God knows my heart when I tell you this.

It’s not because it’s a Protestant creation, but because it’s fruits didn’t reform or build The Church…it chipped away at it. I love many things that are Protestant creations. We sing many Protestant Hymnals in Catholic Masses. I just don’t agree with the ones that counter Christianity.



I hope you understand.