Pastoral Epistles

Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
I’d say the Vulgate is NOT an inspired translation.

Only Matthew’s Greek translation of his Aramaic-written Gospel is inspired.

There are ACCURATE translations but not inspired, as I understand it.
Click to expand...
What makes one translation inspired and another not, then?

And by the way, the idea that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic is uncertain.
 
jmcrae said:
You are reading the translation of an inspired text.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks.

By that thought, though, aren’t all Bibles in existence today uninspired? How does THAT fit with the idea of inspiration?
 
Vince1022 said:
What makes one translation inspired and another not, then?

And by the way, the idea that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic is uncertain.
Click to expand...
Its uncertain that he wrote an Aramaic version? Or its uncertain that he wrote it first?

St. Jerome certainly felt that he wrote one in Aramaic. I value his opinion over anyone in the 20th and 21st century. It’s hard to prove a negative, especially when a positive has already been declared.
 
diggerdomer said:
Why does that matter? I don’t see how it does.
Click to expand...
It’s simply a joke… notice the wink?

I’ve heard several of our separated brethren claim that the King James Version is the only true bible today, no matter what language. That kind of logic tickles me.
 
diggerdomer said:
Yes, thanks.

By that thought, though, aren’t all Bibles in existence today uninspired? How does THAT fit with the idea of inspiration?
Click to expand...
It fits in very well. Only the original authors of the Bible were inspired.

Every translation since then is man’s attempt to recapture the original text. Some do it by word-to-word translation. Others do it by trying to duplicate the author’s original intent. Hence, the various variations.
 
NotWorthy said:
Its uncertain that he wrote an Aramaic version? Or its uncertain that he wrote it first?

St. Jerome certainly felt that he wrote one in Aramaic. I value his opinion over anyone in the 20th and 21st century. It’s hard to prove a negative, especially when a positive has already been declared.
Click to expand...
It’s uncertain that there was an Aramaic version of Matthew’s Gospel. that’s simply a fact accepted by the Catholic Church.
 
diggerdomer said:
Yes, thanks.

By that thought, though, aren’t all Bibles in existence today uninspired? How does THAT fit with the idea of inspiration?
Click to expand...
All of the Bibles in existence today are translations from the original inspired works.

Some of the translations are better than others. Look to your local Bishop for guidance on which translations to get, for various different purposes - home study, devotion, Catechism classes, the Lectionary readings, and so on. He knows which of the translations available in your area are suitable for you to use, and which ones are the better translations.

None of them, in and of themselves, are inspired, as such - but they are important because they have a close connection to the inspired text, in that they are translations from it. A Bible should not be treated like an icon, however - Bibles are intended to be opened and read. We should take good care of our Bibles, while at the same time ensuring that we open them and read them, as well.
 
jmcrae
Thanks for your recent post.

You wrote:
Look to your local Bishop for guidance on which translations to get, for various different purposes
Click to expand...
I do not think this is practicable, as bishops now have so many more serious issues to contend with.

My favorite Bibles, in order, are NRSV (Catholic Version), New American Bible and the New American Standard Bible.

At Mass here in we use the Jerusalem Bible, and I believe you use th NAB.
 
NotWorthy said:
It’s simply a joke… notice the wink?

I’ve heard several of our separated brethren claim that the King James Version is the only true bible today, no matter what language. That kind of logic tickles me.
Click to expand...
ok, thanks…didn’t catch the wink…not as computer savvy LOL
 
NotWorthy said:
It fits in very well. Only the original authors of the Bible were inspired.

Every translation since then is man’s attempt to recapture the original text. Some do it by word-to-word translation. Others do it by trying to duplicate the author’s original intent. Hence, the various variations.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking about the inspired people, but the inspired text.

Are you saying that the Church does not possess an inspired text of the Bible?
 
diggerdomer said:
I’m not asking about the inspired people, but the inspired text.

Are you saying that the Church does not possess an inspired text of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am saying that the Church does not possess an inspired text of the Bible. We have, in the Greek, a copy of the inspired text that is considered to be over 99.99% accurate.

But inspiration does not follow through with the translators. So, in the English text (for example), we DO NOT have an inspired text of the Scriptures. For that matter, in the Latin texts, we do not have an inspired text of the Scriptures.
 
diggerdomer said:
I’m not asking about the inspired people, but the inspired text.

Are you saying that the Church does not possess an inspired text of the Bible?
Click to expand...
I am trying to get my head around the phrase “inspired text.”

It was the authors who were divinely inspired - the perfect object that they created (which only exists today in copies) was the offspring of their inspiration, but the object itself was not “inspired” - it had no soul of its own.
 
Did you hear about the person who claimed that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it was good enough for him?
 
To erase any doubts about whether any translations are inspired, one simply needs to look at the words of Jesus during the Last Supper - “Do this in memory of me”. If you study the original words, you’ll find that translating Jesus’ words to “Do this in memory of me” is like saying “the Titanic” is a movie where a ship departs, then sinks, and almost everybody dies.
 
NoelFitz said:
Did you hear about the person who claimed that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it was good enough for him?
Click to expand...
Diggerdomer, just for the record, Noel Fitz is joking! 😉

Sorry, I couldn’t resist, brother!
 
NoelFitz said:
Did you hear about the person who claimed that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it was good enough for him?
Click to expand...
That was my Dad. 😃

He seriously thought that King James of England was James Zebedee who was an Apostle of Jesus Christ - and he thought that the guy was writing the Bible as an eye-witness report. :o
 
NotWorthy said:
And, my friend, St. Jerome’s testimony is enough for me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Just curious, though, are you aware of the most famous mistake St. Jerome made in his translation? Has to do with Exodus, when Moses came down from the mountain. The Hebrew said is “face shone” but Jerome unfortunately translated it as his face “had horns.” That’s why so much artwork depicts Moses has having horns on his head.
 
jmcrae said:
I am trying to get my head around the phrase “inspired text.”

It was the authors who were divinely inspired - the perfect object that they created (which only exists today in copies) was the offspring of their inspiration, but the object itself was not “inspired” - it had no soul of its own.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I understand, thanks. Sounds like folks are agreeing here that the Church does not have an inspired Bible text. Interesting. I wonder how may Christians would agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top