It has nothing to do with “like” or “dislike.” I’m simply pointing out that translations have theological bias, and sixteenth-century ones more so than modern ones (though the NIV is pretty bad that way among modern translations, and the NRSV muddles the meaning by its use of gender-neutral language).
So? Do you care to address the specific issue I raised?
Repeating this, in complete disregard for what Luther actually said about German use of “allein” to denote contrast, accomplishes nothing.
So now you are claiming that translation of the Bible can be doctrinally neutral? If you believe that, you’re a real-estate agent’s dream. Certainly one can be fairer and more neutral than Luther, and one should be. I’m not defending the translation; I’m pointing out the bankruptcy of the accusation of deliberate dishonesty.
Why would this not equally apply to everyone else in the sixteenth century? Do you have any evidence that the way Luther was treated was unusual for that time and place?
Yeaahh…that’s why you never hear anything negative in the press about Protestant fundamentalists or evangelicals or about Protestant preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson…their follies are always ignored…yeaahh…The media attacks the Catholic Church more than the Protestant Church, or any other religion for that matter, simply because the devil controls this world and he knows the Catholic Church is the Truth and the primary thing between him and total word domination. The devil is smart and cunning enough to go after the juggular, so to speak, of churches.
Well, I’m not the only one arguing this with you.
Their follies may not be ignored, but that’s about the only negative or derogatory press the Protestants get in this land. Also, why do you think it’s been 46 YEARS since we elected a Catholic for President??? Just a coincidence huh? YEAH RIGHT!Yeaahh…that’s why you never hear anything negative in the press about Protestant fundamentalists or evangelicals or about Protestant preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson…their follies are always ignored…yeaahh…
OK, the Paulists aka those saved by faith alone as well as the OSAS crowd can prattle on and on and on… BUT, what they always seem to forget is this: Belief in GOD as a Christian, who declares that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of GOD…requires that you BELIEVE all that is contained within the BIBLE. You are not permitted to treat Christianity or the believe thereof as a “Burger King” menu where you get to have it your way. Nor are you granted the “luxury” of assigning grades or importance points to different Apostles or writers of different books within the BIBLE. Were they not ALL INSPIRED BY GOD to write what they did. This being the case, are not all of their writings equally as important? You either believe it all, or not at all. To not accept all, is to deny GOD, and thus condemn yourself to hell.
I am certainly not convinced that Luther’s linguistic argument was correct. It does sound very convenient. But I don’t know enough about sixteenth-century colloquial German to be sure. I’d like to have a look at those other German translations that were around in the 16th century, but they aren’t as easy to find as Luther’s!
No “sliding” involved at all. I never said I agreed with Luther’s translation–I have repeatedly pointed this out.
No bother, no confusion. I can live within the boundaries of this forum. Black and white is not as simplistic as you believe. You ought to try it. Charity and truth go hand in hand.
Just what Catholic are you proposing should have been elected in this country since JFK absent “blatant” prejudice on the part of the media and public? Let’s hear names.Their follies may not be ignored, but that’s about the only negative or derogatory press the Protestants get in this land. Also, why do you think it’s been 46 YEARS since we elected a Catholic for President??? Just a coincidence huh? YEAH RIGHT!
I think the main reason there hasn’t been a Catholic president since Kennedy is that Northeasterners generally have lost much of their political clout. The only Northeasterner to be elected president since Kennedy was George H.W. Bush, and his earlier political career was based in Texas so he doesn’t really count. Because the Northeast is much more liberal than the rest of the country, candidates from there tend not to do too well in general elections. I think Giuliani stands a much better chance than many others precisely because he’s a Republican–if he gets the nomination, he could pull in a lot of Northeasterners who wouldn’t normally vote Republican.
Bankerhead was a little inaccurate: There are twice as many pedophiles in non-Catholic “churches” (ecclessial communities as the One Church calls them) than in the Catholic Church. I have gotten this info not only from one reliable source but TWO.
I believe most pedophile priests are actually Masons… In any case, they constitute less than 2% of the priesthood, so maybe it is time we began to focus on the other 98%? ? Do you think??