Translations of Bible

[Cranch]

Jesus did not start a Church. He came to provide the Atonement for our sins and while He was here He taught us about the Kingdom of God.

*** Folks, that is not synonymous with the Catholic Church! ***

It was the later teachings of the Apostles that began to put the formal Church together.

“Jesus did not start a Church.” The Catechism disagrees with you:

The Church - instituted by Christ Jesus

763 It was the Son’s task to accomplish the Father’s plan of salvation in the fullness of time. Its accomplishment was the reason for his being sent. "The Lord Jesus inaugurated his Church by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Reign of God, promised over the ages in the scriptures."To fulfill the Father’s will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church “is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery.”

764 "This Kingdom shines out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ."To welcome Jesus’ word is to welcome “the Kingdom itself.” The seed and beginning of the Kingdom are the “little flock” of those whom Jesus came to gather around him, the flock whose shepherd he is. They form Jesus’ true family. To those whom he thus gathered around him, he taught a new “way of acting” and a prayer of their own.

765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also in his lot. By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

…thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.

When Jesus provided the Eucharist at the last supper and the Crucifix at His death, that is the point at which the Apostles and New Testament Authors became Catholic, but they wrote them BEFORE they were Catholic.

Are you not aware that no part of the New Testament was written until decades after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Before the Lord died, the Church was no different than a protestant church. They taught the scriptures, taught and practiced Baptism etc. If any of you were ever protestants, you will know what I mean.

After the death of Christ on the Cross we had a totally different situation. At that point we had the Eucharist, the Precious Blood, and the Crucifix. AND if you remember, we also had the Holy Spirit who had been freed up to come to earth when Christ left and returned to Heaven!

I’m sorry, but remove the Eucharist and Precious Blood AND the Crucifixion that rendered the Eucharist VALID and there goes the Catholic Church! It simply doesn’t exist without those things!! You would not have recognised the service in the New Testament Church until AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION.

What “service” are you referring to? What need of a service while the Master was present? Before his death, Jesus taught in the synagogues and sent the apostles to preach and heal among the Jews, not the Greeks (Matthew 10, Mark 6); but the New Testament churches were planted among all nations at Christ’s command after His resurrection.

 

[bengland]

For those who are interested in the scholarship behind the transmission of the New Testament texts, you can read Bruce Metzger’s works in this field. He’s written several books on the subject, most of which are minor updates over time, and you can probably find it in your local public library. The information he provides clues you in to the methods that they use in determining which variations are earlier, comparing them to one another and looking for regional qualities and adaptations, along with stylistic modifications that match various languages.

To the OP - Your friend needs to consider the source that they are reading and to look for solid scholarship and to choose the right material, looking for factual evidence instead of one man’s musings. If your friend is reading Bart Ehrmann, then it’s important to read the right things. He’s very knowledgeable on this topic, but is agnostic. That in itself isn’t bad (in the academic sense), but it is bad when the criticism ignores positive points or attempts to overshadow the positive with undue skepticism, and that’s the sense I get from certain of his presentations. Muslims also present quite a bit of questionable information in their apologetic outreaches and their material often requires extensive investigation of the underlying languages from other than Islamic sources to test their validity, which most people are unprepared to do.

As for the Bible being Catholic. The NT is the product of the Catholic Church.

edit to rephrase where it seemed to read as a promotion of agnosticism.

 

[rinkevichjm]

“Jesus did not start a Church.” The Catechism disagrees with you:

The Church - instituted by Christ Jesus

763 It was the Son’s task to accomplish the Father’s plan of salvation in the fullness of time. Its accomplishment was the reason for his being sent. "The Lord Jesus inaugurated his Church by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Reign of God, promised over the ages in the scriptures."To fulfill the Father’s will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church “is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery.”

764 "This Kingdom shines out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ."To welcome Jesus’ word is to welcome “the Kingdom itself.” The seed and beginning of the Kingdom are the “little flock” of those whom Jesus came to gather around him, the flock whose shepherd he is. They form Jesus’ true family. To those whom he thus gathered around him, he taught a new “way of acting” and a prayer of their own.

765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also in his lot. By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

…thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.

Are you not aware that no part of the New Testament was written until decades after the death and resurrection of Christ?

What “service” are you referring to? What need of a service while the Master was present? Before his death, Jesus taught in the synagogues and sent the apostles to preach and heal among the Jews, not the Greeks (Matthew 10, Mark 6); but the New Testament churches were planted among all nations at Christ’s command after His resurrection.

The Jewish Temple services were significantly different from Protestant services: for one thing they had sacrifices. The synagogue was a poor substitute for those services. You were still expected to offer sacrifices.

 

[diggerdomer]

Jerry-Jet said:

I know that you get tired of me saying this but the Church was called “Christian” from the time of the Church in Antioch. Not Catholic, but Christian. There was NO Eucharist,…NO Precious Blood, No Crucifix…nothing that identifies us as Catholic until AFTER the Crucifixion and death of Christ. It did not exist before that.

When Jesus provided the Eucharist at the last supper and the Crucifix at His death, that is the point at which the Apostles and New Testament Authors became Catholic, but they wrote them BEFORE they were Catholic.

So,…technically, all of these people, the Apostles included were Christian until after the death of Christ!

DesertSister62

Are you saying the New Testament was written by non-Christians?

And what do you mean the Apostles were Christian until after the death of Christ?

Neither of those makes any sense to me but I have no idea how else to interpret what you’re writing. Please clarify. It would probably help, too, if you would choose to use either “Catholic” or “Christian” to refer to the early Church members as there’s no difference between the two terms. Or are you implying that in the first century we should understand that there were both Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians?

Thank you.

 

[David_Zampino]

I’m a little confused here as well.

Pentecost is usually considered to be the “Birthday of the Church”. According to the Acts of the Apostles, followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in Antioch. The earliest portions of the New Testament were most likely some of the Pauline epistles, some of which may have been composed as early as the late AD '40s – some 18 years after the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus.

To the best of our current knowledge, the word “Catholic” first appears in a surviving written document in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in AD 117. His use of the word clearly presupposes that his audience understands and is familiar with the term.

The first *major, permanent, *schism of the Church was most likely the Nestorian controversy in the third and fourth decades of the 5th century.

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983:

I will reiterate:

Before the Lord died, the Church was no different than a protestant church. They taught the scriptures, taught and practiced Baptism etc. If any of you were ever protestants, you will know what I mean.

After the death of Christ on the Cross we had a totally different situation. At that point we had the Eucharist, the Precious Blood, and the Crucifix. AND if you remember, we also had the Holy Spirit who had been freed up to come to earth when Christ left and returned to Heaven!

I’m sorry, but remove the Eucharist and Precious Blood AND the Crucifixion that rendered the Eucharist VALID and there goes the Catholic Church! It simply doesn’t exist without those things!! You would not have recognised the service in the New Testament Church until AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION.

DesertSister62

I really don’t understand what your on about here. It may be me(probably is), but your stating the painfully obvious that without the eucharist, the crucifixion and the precious blood there is no church. Ofcourse there is no church without the eucharist! To say “before the lord died the church was different than a protestant” i think is incorrect. Did the lord not institute the priesthood at the last supper? Did the lord not celebrate the first mass at the last supper? are these a part of the protestant belief today? No! it was never like a protestant church! It was the Catholic church from the beginning (ok, it was called Christianity before changing to Catholicism) but it was the same church and was always going to be the same church after our lord ascended into heaven. Nothing “changed”, it’s just that our lord decided to reveal more of the faith after (pentecost).

 

[Manfred]

mystagogia said:

Jesus did not start a Church. He came to provide the Atonement for our sins and while He was here He taught us about the Kingdom of God.

from Matthew 16:

[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Looks to me like Jesus DID start the Church.

Wanna hear more? This is from Ephesians 5:

[21] Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
[22] Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
[24] As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
[26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
[27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
[28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
[29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
[30] because we are members of his body.

Now, again, WHO started the Church?

 

[Manfred]

Just wondering: I thought we were discussing “translations of the Bible”.

Can we please get back to that topic?

 

[aball1035]

So if the Bible has changed over time due to numerous little errors with each translation, how does one know that we are reading the origional message of the Bible instead of a faulty one?

 

[Ron_Conte]

So if the Bible has changed over time due to numerous little errors with each translation, how does one know that we are reading the origional message of the Bible instead of a faulty one?

The Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Tradition and of Scripture, such that any particular errors in particular editions (copyist, translator, or editor errors) never reach to such an extent that all the truths of Scripture remain accessible to the faithful. By comparing the many different versions and editions in many languages, the faithful can always find the true sense of Scripture, despite particular errors. And so Scripture itself remains inerrant, despite errors in particular editions.

 

[Manfred]

The Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Tradition and of Scripture, such that any particular errors in particular editions (copyist, translator, or editor errors) never reach to such an extent that all the truths of Scripture remain accessible to the faithful. By comparing the many different versions and editions in many languages, the faithful can always find the true sense of Scripture, despite particular errors. And so Scripture itself remains inerrant, despite errors in particular editions.

Ron,

The “conventional” answer is that we have the CHURCH to give us the true sense of Scripture. However, when we dig deeper into this, we find that the CHURCH has ruled definitively on only an extremely small number of passages of Scripture. So, then, we are left to delve through “the many different versions and editions in many languages,… (to)… find the true sense of Scripture”, where these versions and editions are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. But, if I may ask, how does one discern which among all the variants are the “correct” readings?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

The “conventional” answer is that we have the CHURCH to give us the true sense of Scripture. However, when we dig deeper into this, we find that the CHURCH has ruled definitively on only an extremely small number of passages of Scripture. So, then, we are left to delve through “the many different versions and editions in many languages,… (to)… find the true sense of Scripture”, where these versions and editions are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. But, if I may ask, how does one discern which among all the variants are the “correct” readings?

We, the faithful, are the Church. The Catholic Faith does not offer absolute certitude on every point of belief, such that the faithful would merely memorize a series of infallible teachings and that would be the entire Faith. The faithful are called to continually meditate on Scripture, and seek its truths. They are able to find truth in Scripture. Despite our fallibility, it is essential to the Faith that we live not merely by what is infallible, but also by non-infallible teachings, and by our own fallible understanding of Divine Revelation.

We discern between difference in versions of Scripture by prayer, grace, reason, study, personal interpretion, by interpreting in the light of the teachings of Tradition, of other passages of Scripture, of magisterial teachings. The Bible reains free from error, even though our own interpretations are subject to error. But we each have the Holy Spirit to guide us, so we are not lost even though we are fallible.

Most textual variants have no substantial affect on the doctrine taught by Scripture.

 

[aball1035]

Ron,
I’m actually interested in your quote:

“nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.)

But couldn’t some verses lead you to error if taken literally?

 

[David_Zampino]

Ron,
I’m actually interested in your quote:

“nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.)

But couldn’t some verses lead you to error if taken literally?

An excellent question!

And the answer is a resounding YES!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The literal sense of Scripture includes figures of speech:

Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

It is always possible for us to misinterpret Scripture, perhaps thinking that a figure is literal, or that a literal assertion is a figure. But every verse of Scripture has a literal level of meaning, and that literal or figurative assertion is never false.