Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Voco_proTatiano]

But here’s the rub.

The Roman authorities, while actively seeking to destroy a religious sect, takes its writings and, instead of wiping out the writings (which would be what you want to do in order to destroy a culture), they simply re-wrote it in Latin so that it could spread to the common man? This does not make much sense.

And to think that they were able to completely destroy all the existing Greek manuscripts is asking a little too much. For instance, you agree that there are fragments from the year 115ad and later of the Greek texts. Wouldn’t you agree that there were be exponentially more around the 4th century when Jerome translated?

No, it was not like that.
The Latin Translations were universally accepted as the standard texts, and the regional versions were not destroyed so much as that they were “corrected” to match the new Greek, or Syriac, taken from the authoritative Latin.
I only have to hold up the case of the original Diatessaron, witnessed by Ephrem Syrus.
There were over 400 copies which were witnessed as destroyed.
A massive number of manuscripts.
Yet not a single survivor has been found.
It can only be understood when you see that a newer and authoritative version had appeared in Latin, that the original was accepted to be obsolete, and as it could not be revised, it was discarded.
Not even used as book covers, but rather as fire lighters.

As for the AD 115 fragments, were they fragments of something broken, or were they the bricks which had never been assembled.
Were these parts of Gospels, or were they the analects which comprised “Q”?

 

[sterryfamily]

Of course there cannot be any doubt on Our Lord’s teachings.
I was concerned only with the teachings developed and amplified therefrom.
These excressences or outgrowths are NOT core teachings, and though they may be useful to some, to others they are a stumbling block.

Trouble is, our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time. He didn’t say He would lead her into “all truth” only once and then it is up to us to figure it out. Instead He promised He would never leave us orphaned. Just as God guided His people in the Old Testament and protected the Scriptures from teaching doctrinal error, so Jesus is the true head of the Church and has promised to continue to do the same.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Trouble is, our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time. He didn’t say He would lead her into “all truth” only once and then it is up to us to figure it out. Instead He promised He would never leave us orphaned. Just as God guided His people in the Old Testament and protected the Scriptures from teaching doctrinal error, so Jesus is the true head of the Church and has promised to continue to do the same.

Our Lord promised to guide the Church.
He did not promise to force the Church to follow his guidance.
Free will still exists, hence error is still possible.

 

[davidv]

Our Lord promised to guide the Church.
He did not promise to force the Church to follow his guidance.
Free will still exists, hence error is still possible.

Free will exists for individuals, but it is limited for the Church. When it is teaching on faith and morals it is prevented from error. Prevented is much different than being “forced” as you imply above.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Our Lord promised to guide the Church.
He did not promise to force the Church to follow his guidance.
Free will still exists, hence error is still possible.[/sign]
Free will exists for individuals, but it is limited for the Church. When it is teaching on faith and morals it is prevented from error. Prevented is much different than being “forced” as you imply above.

That, I accept, for you, and for the Church, is an article of faith.
For me, it is an article of doubt.
I do not believe in ‘Impossible’.
The Universe is impossible, yet it exists.

 

[sterryfamily]

Our Lord promised to guide the Church.
He did not promise to force the Church to follow his guidance.
Free will still exists, hence error is still possible.

Let me ask you a couple of questions;

Why do you suppose our Lord commanded his disciples to do what the pharisees told them (Matt 23:2-3)for the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat (cathedra)? Why did He ratify their decisions?

When the Old Testament prophets sinned, did the words of God issued through them cease to be inerrant?

Why did Jesus promise to guide His Church into “all truth” (he did not simply promise to guide her - He promised to guide her into all truth)? Why did He tell His Church leaders that anything they bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Why did He promise to be with her until the end of time?

Do you suppose God changed from the Old Testament times to the New Testament times? Why, by any imagination, would God permit His Church to teach doctrinal error when He never did before? Why would He want His followers to go about believing and teaching, willy-nilly, whatever they deemed appropriate? Or teaching their own personal interpretations of Scripture?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Let me ask you a couple of questions;

Why do you suppose our Lord commanded his disciples to do what the pharisees told them (Matt 23:2-3)for the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat (cathedra)? Why did He ratify their decisions?

When the Old Testament prophets sinned, did the words of God issued through them cease to be inerrant?

Why did Jesus promise to guide His Church into “all truth” (he did not simply promise to guide her - He promised to guide her into all truth)? Why did He tell His Church leaders that anything they bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Why did He promise to be with her until the end of time?

Do you suppose God changed from the Old Testament times to the New Testament times? Why, by any imagination, would God permit His Church to teach doctrinal error when He never did before? Why would He want His followers to go about believing and teaching, willy-nilly, whatever they deemed appropriate? Or teaching their own personal interpretations of Scripture?

A loving father guides his children, and prays that they follow his guidance.
He shows them the cost of not following his guidance, and hopes that they will have the wisdom to learn.
When they rebel he weeps, but he does not bind them into slavery.

 

[sterryfamily]

A loving father guides his children, and prays that they follow his guidance.
He shows them the cost of not following his guidance, and hopes that they will have the wisdom to learn.
When they rebel he weeps, but he does not bind them into slavery.

You’re not going to address the questions, huh?

 

[NotWorthy]

A loving father guides his children, and prays that they follow his guidance.
He shows them the cost of not following his guidance, and hopes that they will have the wisdom to learn.
When they rebel he weeps, but he does not bind them into slavery.

No, they willingly go into slavery on their own. And Satan is certainly willing to accommodate them.

Don’t forget, the Old Testament is a roadmap for what happens to us. When Israel turned away from God, they were led into slavery.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You’re not going to address the questions, huh?

Sorry, I thought that covered it.
However should it be a little to deep for you, then I’ll try to keep it simple.[sign]Do you suppose God changed from the Old Testament times to the New Testament times? Why, by any imagination, would God permit His Church to teach doctrinal error when He never did before? Why would He want His followers to go about believing and teaching, willy-nilly, whatever they deemed appropriate? Or teaching their own personal interpretations of Scripture?[/sign]
No, the doctrine was not changed, but G_d allowed the scribes, pharisees and elders to interpret the scriptures in a way which can only be described as perverted.
The same still hold true.
It is the teacher who define what is taught.
We hope the teachers will teach according to the doctrine of the Church, and we might punish those who do not, but there are no guarantees.[sign]Why did Jesus promise to guide His Church into “all truth” (he did not simply promise to guide her - He promised to guide her into all truth)? Why did He tell His Church leaders that anything they bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Why did He promise to be with her until the end of time?[/sign]
He did not say how long it would take, some believe it might take until the end of days.
Neither did he promise that he would bind his followers to follow his guidance, only that he would deny those who denied him, or his teaching.[sign] When the Old Testament prophets sinned, did the words of God issued through them cease to be inerrant?
[/sign]
Were they ever inerrant.
What the prophets heard from the mouth of G_d was inerrant, but how they reported, or interpreted it was the work of man, and fallible.[sign] Why do you suppose our Lord commanded his disciples to do what the pharisees told them (Matt 23:2-3)for the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat (cathedra)? Why did He ratify their decisions?
[/sign]
When the pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, they read from the Torah.
It is the Torah that is inerrant.
The pharisees read the Torah from the seat, they do not interpret it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, they willingly go into slavery on their own. And Satan is certainly willing to accommodate them.

Don’t forget, the Old Testament is a roadmap for what happens to us. When Israel turned away from God, they were led into slavery.

Yes G_d allowed the Children of Irael to reject his guidance.
Do we expect the same G_d to behave differently to His Church.

 

[lanceg]

Yes G_d allowed the Children of Irael to reject his guidance.
Do we expect the same G_d to behave differently to His Church.

It is not a matter of God behaving differently, but a matter of God gracing the Church in a different way. Jesus says Lo, I am with you, even until the end of the age.

God tells us that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and that She is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.

God does not guarantee individual members in the Church will not be lost, for only he who endures to the end will be saved.

Furthermore, St. John the theologian tells us that we know in part the spirit of truth from the spirit of error in that those who listen “to us,” the Church, are following the truth.

No such graces were given Israel of the Old Covenant.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes G_d allowed the Children of Irael to reject his guidance.
Do we expect the same G_d to behave differently to His Church.

The Church? Yes, I do believe the same G_d behaves differently.

What did He call Israel? A harlot, a prostitute, etc. etc.

What does God call His Church? His Bride. And He said through St. Paul that the Church will always be devoted to Her Groom.

Now, the children can be led into wrongdoing, and members of the Church can be led into wrongdoing, but the Church will not teach in error.

 

[NotWorthy]

Voco, going back to your statement of the Greek being back-translated. Here’s something from Jerome in his writings to Pope Damascus discussing the translation of the Vulgate.

Jerome was personally selected by Pope Damasus to make an accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. Jerome had been his secretary at the Council held at Rome in 382, and continued in the Pope’s service until Damasus’ death in 385, at which time Jerome went to the Holy Land to continue his work, living in a cave next to Jesus’ birth cave in Bethlehem. Jerome had unique qualifications which made him the perfect choice to produce an accurate Latin translation of Sacred Scripture which was as true to the original Hebrew and Greek Koine texts as possible.

In AD 383 Jerome wrote to the Pope: “You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and carry it back to the early days of its infancy? …].

Now there are two consoling reflections which enable me to bear the odium—in the first place, the command is given by you who are the supreme bishop; and secondly, even on the showing of those who revile us, readings at variance with the early copies cannot be right. For if we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. ****If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes ****introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alternations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that he been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?

I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders [here Jerome is writing about the Greek Septuagint translation used by Jesus and the New Testament inspired writers], and has reached us by a descent of three steps. …]. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judea in Hebrew characters. …]

I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used (**Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 6: Jerome, Letters and Selected Works, “Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament; The Four Gospels, addressed to Pope Damasus” , Hendrickson Publishers, 1995, **pages 487-88. It would seem that not every Greek translation was destroyed by our good Roman army.

Besides, this theory still doesn’t make sense.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Yes G_d allowed the Children of Irael to reject his guidance.
Do we expect the same G_d to behave differently to His Church.[/sign]
The Church? Yes, I do believe the same G_d behaves differently.

So you believe that G_d is changed: this then is not the same G_d
That is a dangerous thought.

What did He call Israel? A harlot, a prostitute, etc. etc.

What does God call His Church? His Bride. And He said through St. Paul that the Church will always be devoted to Her Groom.

So G_d loves the Children less than the Bride.
I cannot accept that.
The Love of G_d is one love.
The same for all, including the enemies.
This love prevented G_d to enslaving the Children to the Divine Guidance.
The same love prevents G_d from enslaving the Bride to the Divine Guidance.
Slavery is slavery, even when the intent is benificent.
A good outcome cannot be made by an evil cause.

Now, the children can be led into wrongdoing, and members of the Church can be led into wrongdoing, but the Church will not teach in error.

No, but the teachers in the Church may err.
The probability that ALL the teachers might err similarly is remote, but yet it exists.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco, going back to your statement of the Greek being back-translated. Here’s something from Jerome in his writings to Pope Damascus discussing the translation of the Vulgate.[sign]
I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders [here Jerome is writing about the Greek Septuagint translation used by Jesus and the New Testament inspired writers], and has reached us by a descent of three steps. …]. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judea in Hebrew characters. …]

I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 6: Jerome, Letters and Selected Works, “Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament; The Four Gospels, addressed to Pope Damasus” , Hendrickson Publishers, 1995,pages 487-88.[/sign]

What I was asserting was back-translated applies only to the Gospels.
As far as I can tell, only the Gospels were translated into Latin on the command of Pope Victorius Africanus.
My belief is that this translation, like the LXX was performed in Alexandria, in the Great Library, using the best scholars of the time. That seems to have included Ammonius Saccas, who, Victor of Capua heard, had compiled the Latin Diatessaron.
In tge same way that the Latin Diatessaron superceded the Syriac, which disappeared, so the new Latin superseded the old source texts, which were of a variety in dialect and content, which was harmonized into the Latin, to form a master text.
This master text was then the ‘textus receptus’ of its day, and was taken as the authority for new translations into regional languages, including Greek and Syriac.

It would seem that not every Greek translation was destroyed by our good Roman army.

Besides, this theory still doesn’t make sense.

No, the old texts were not destroyed, but they were edited and corrected to comply with the new standard.
This was the common practice of the day.

 

[NotWorthy]

So you believe that G_d is changed: this then is not the same G_d
That is a dangerous thought.

Yes, that would be a dangerous thought, but it is not my thoughts.

NO, I don’t think God has changed. When did I say that?

So G_d loves the Children less than the Bride.
I cannot accept that.
The Love of G_d is one love.
The same for all, including the enemies.
This love prevented G_d to enslaving the Children to the Divine Guidance.
The same love prevents G_d from enslaving the Bride to the Divine Guidance.
Slavery is slavery, even when the intent is benificent.
A good outcome cannot be made by an evil cause.

The God of Israel was a God of Children. He had to teach them like children.

The God of the New Covenant (the exact same God) is the God of an older person (teen-ager? Senior Citizen? who knows?). Do you teach your kids exactly the same as you teach adults?

No, but the teachers in the Church may err.
The probability that ALL the teachers might err similarly is remote, but yet it exists.

But All Things are Possible With God.

The only piece you are leaving out is that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, His Bride.

The Possiblility that Jesus lied is an impossibility.

 

[NotWorthy]

What I was asserting was back-translated applies only to the Gospels.
As far as I can tell, only the Gospels were translated into Latin on the command of Pope Victorius Africanus.
My belief is that this translation, like the LXX was performed in Alexandria, in the Great Library, using the best scholars of the time. That seems to have included Ammonius Saccas, who, Victor of Capua heard, had compiled the Latin Diatessaron.
In tge same way that the Latin Diatessaron superceded the Syriac, which disappeared, so the new Latin superseded the old source texts, which were of a variety in dialect and content, which was harmonized into the Latin, to form a master text.
This master text was then the ‘textus receptus’ of its day, and was taken as the authority for new translations into regional languages, including Greek and Syriac.

No, the old texts were not destroyed, but they were edited and corrected to comply with the new standard.
This was the common practice of the day.

Then read Jerome’s words again. He knows of copyists errors and he knows of the originals. He agrees that converting incorrect Greek into Latin will happen incorrectly, so he went to the originals.

BTW, it seemed like you originally said this was done intentionally, not mistakes, but on purpose.

 

[NotWorthy]

So you believe that G_d is changed: this then is not the same G_d
That is a dangerous thought.

"Notworthy:

What did He call Israel? A harlot, a prostitute, etc. etc.

What does God call His Church? His Bride. And He said through St. Paul that the Church will always be devoted to Her Groom.

So G_d loves the Children less than the Bride.
I cannot accept that.

Voco, then you cannot accept Scripture. I wasn’t making those words up, I was simply relating what is found in Scripture. If you can’t accept that…

But the point was, God loved Israel and the New Covenant Church the same. As you correctly noted, God is the same God. But the child has grown into an adult, and thus the same parent treats the same person (Israel - New Israel) in different ways.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books. They do not disagree with many familiar Latin readings, as we have kept our pen in control, but only those in which the sense will have been seen to have changed (from the Greek) are corrected; the rest remain as they have been.[/sign]
Then read Jerome’s words again. He knows of copyists errors and he knows of the originals. He agrees that converting incorrect Greek into Latin will happen incorrectly, so he went to the originals.

As I read this, he took the best available Latin, which, in fact was the generally accepted and beloved Latin of the day, and, keeping his pen under strict control, altered only those rare places where the Latin difered from the oldest and best Greek he had to hand.
A better translation can be found at:
earlychurchtexts.com/main/jerome/preface_to_four_gospels.shtml
It gives both the Latin original and also the English, in two columns.

BTW, it seemed like you originally said this was done intentionally, not mistakes, but on purpose.

No, I never intended to imply that anyone deliberately tried to falsify the documents. It was all done in good faith.
Jerome honestly believed, as did other scholars, that the Old Greek had precedence over the Old Latin.
It could be that the Old Greek was a better witness of the original Old Latin than some of the Old Latin that Jerome had to hand, so he may not have been completely mistaken in his belief.