Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[lanceg]

Dave,

I very much appreciate your respectful tone and politeness throughout all of your posts, and also your willingness to challenge us and to be thoughtful.

I just think that this particular thread has run its course. the same points have been made over and over again.

My own opinion is, we can continue to debate in our friendly manner and cover more questions and threads. But this is my own opinion, and maybe others want to continue to debate.

I get the e-mail updates from this thread nearly everday, and we continue to all say the same things over and over again about the nature of the church, whether she is sinless or not, infallible or not, can make errors or not. It seems to me that people on all sides of the argument have posted the same redundant points over again.

I do enjoy your posting, and look forward to see what else you have to share with us on this forum.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dave,

I very much appreciate your respectful tone and politeness throughout all of your posts, and also your willingness to challenge us and to be thoughtful.

I just think that this particular thread has run its course. the same points have been made over and over again.

My own opinion is, we can continue to debate in our friendly manner and cover more questions and threads. But this is my own opinion, and maybe others want to continue to debate.

I get the e-mail updates from this thread nearly everday, and we continue to all say the same things over and over again about the nature of the church, whether she is sinless or not, infallible or not, can make errors or not. It seems to me that people on all sides of the argument have posted the same redundant points over again.

I do enjoy your posting, and look forward to see what else you have to share with us on this forum.

Dear Lance,
I think that this argument has drifted very much off topic, and should be moved elsewhere.
I do not think the drift was deliberate, I think it jut happened.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is the essence of infallibility.
It is a circuitous logic which goes something like this:
The Church is infallible, and the Church says that it is infallible.
Therefore the Church must be infallible.
The problem comes when the Church finds that something it has been teaching as fact, turns out to be scientifically incorrect.
Then the Church says that infallibility does not apply here, only to matters of doctrine and morals.
Infallibility is a petard with which the Church has allowed herself to be hoist.
The scope of that infallibility has been chiseled away, and the chiseling continues.

Except for two things:
Jesus told His Apostles, and hence the Church that He built, “whoever hears you, hears Me. Whoever rejects you, rejects Me” (paraphrasing). I would tread very lightly around those words if I found myself rejecting the Catholic Church, especially if I were to reject Her from within Her Church.

Has the Church changed Her teachings on Faith and Morals (yes, I understood your point on science, and I think I see where you’re going, but that’s another thread)? What other church have you seen hasn’t changed a teaching on morality and faith, due to public pressure? The circuitous reasoning has still proven to be consistent for 2000 years.

Yes but the engineer who designs and installs them needs to work from the outside of the building.
And the light which illuminates them comes not just from outside the building, but outside of the planet.

okay, I think we beat this platitude to death, eh?

 

[NotWorthy]

This thread needs to shut down. It is going nowhere. Every one is polite, but they disagree and it is getting so redundant. No one is going to change their minds. Just ridiculous.

That’s the wonderful thing about these threads. If you don’t care to read them, you don’t have to.

You can simply walk away form the thread, lanceg, and let us enjoy our beating our heads against the wall.

Besides, it’s kind of nice to be able to discuss this with Voco without the words “you filthy stinkin’ heretic” thrown around at least once or twice!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

What is important is that we might begin to understand how our colocutors think.

[sign]Colocutors UNITE!!![/sign]
Great, now I have to go look up yet another word that Voco has thrown around!

 

[NotWorthy]

This is the essence of infallibility.
It is a circuitous logic which goes something like this:
The Church is infallible, and the Church says that it is infallible.
Therefore the Church must be infallible.
** The problem comes when the Church finds that something it has been teaching as fact, turns out to be scientifically incorrect.
Then the Church says that infallibility does not apply here, only to matters of doctrine and morals.**
Infallibility is a petard with which the Church has allowed herself to be hoist.
The scope of that infallibility has been chiseled away, and the chiseling continues.

The more I think about this quote, the more I realize that this same argument can be said of the Bible.

Do you doubt the Bible, Voco?

 

[lanceg]

That’s the wonderful thing about these threads. If you don’t care to read them, you don’t have to.

You can simply walk away form the thread, lanceg, and let us enjoy our beating our heads against the wall.

Besides, it’s kind of nice to be able to discuss this with Voco without the words “you filthy stinkin’ heretic” thrown around at least once or twice!!!

I know I can walk away; to use another metaphor, I was trying to be the guy standing out side the car stuck in the mud, pointing out to the driver he is just spinning his wheels…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The more I think about this quote, the more I realize that this same argument can be said of the Bible.

Do you doubt the Bible, Voco?

In a word, yes.
Not that I doubt the whole Bible, but I find it is not inerrant.
There are copyists’ errors.
There are translators errors.
There are incorporated comments.
There are editing errors where a translator, not understanding a context, has made an incorrect conclusion, that what he sees is wrong, and ‘corrected’ it.
There is Divinely inspired word, and
there is political propaganda.
It is just a book.
Actually, it is a library of books.
Yes, it contains the word of G_d, but it also contains words and commentary of men.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Except for two things:
Jesus told His Apostles, and hence the Church that He built, “whoever hears you, hears Me. Whoever rejects you, rejects Me” (paraphrasing). I would tread very lightly around those words if I found myself rejecting the Catholic Church, especially if I were to reject Her from within Her Church.

Has the Church changed Her teachings on Faith and Morals (yes, I understood your point on science, and I think I see where you’re going, but that’s another thread)? What other church have you seen hasn’t changed a teaching on morality and faith, due to public pressure? The circuitous reasoning has still proven to be consistent for 2000 years.

I agree, as long as we stick to the basics, and first order derivatives of What Our Lord taught.
The problems are all based on fine detail, very little of which has any bearing on the central teaching.
As I understand the Gospel, as long as we Love Our Lord, and follow his commandment that we love one-another, and act according to that love, Then Our Lord will acknowledge us as one of His own, regardless of how we perceive His Divinity or His Humanity.
Yes, in a very real way, I am a fundamentalist, but the fundamentals are based on the well witnessed words of Our Lord, not the political diatribes of someone who had an axe to grind.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Oh dear,
Have I struck you all dumb with shock?
Yes, I have a certain disrespect for some of the words attributed to Saul.
I do not though trash all of the teachings of Paul.
Sometimes, reading words attributed to Paul, I see Saul writing.
Saul most definitely had a political axe to grind.
Paul was not always in control of Saul, and often said many Sauline things.

As for changes the catholics made to the Bible: well, I can speak only for the Gospels.
Consider the sons in the vinyard.
Who did the will of their father? The youngest, who said yes, but failed to fulfill his word, or the oldest who refused, but repented, and went to the task.
The Clementine says the oldest, but
The Stuttgart, and Fuldensis says the youngest.
If we consider Roman law, then under that law, the offence of the youngest equates to the military concept of ‘Failure to comply’, which is a trivial offence, whereas the offence of the oldest equates to ‘Disobedience of a lawful command’, which can be a capital offence.
We all know that justice was served by the elder, but the Jews, in exonerating the younger, were quoting Roman law, as the Quislings they were.
Hence Our Lords condemnation.
Thus Context, Stuttgart, and Fuldensis accuse Rome of altering the Gospel.

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh dear,
Have I struck you all dumb with shock?
Yes, I have a certain disrespect for some of the words attributed to Saul.
I do not though trash all of the teachings of Paul.
Sometimes, reading words attributed to Paul, I see Saul writing.
Saul most definitely had a political axe to grind.
Paul was not always in control of Saul, and often said many Sauline things.

As for changes the catholics made to the Bible: well, I can speak only for the Gospels.
Consider the sons in the vinyard.
Who did the will of their father? The youngest, who said yes, but failed to fulfill his word, or the oldest who refused, but repented, and went to the task.
The Clementine says the oldest, but
The Stuttgart, and Fuldensis says the youngest.
If we consider Roman law, then under that law, the offence of the youngest equates to the military concept of ‘Failure to comply’, which is a trivial offence, whereas the offence of the oldest equates to ‘Disobedience of a lawful command’, which can be a capital offence.
We all know that justice was served by the elder, but the Jews, in exonerating the younger, were quoting Roman law, as the Quislings they were.
Hence Our Lords condemnation.
Thus Context, Stuttgart, and Fuldensis accuse Rome of altering the Gospel.

Except that the point of the oldest son’s hesitance to come into the feast is all relevant to the scene that Jesus is in when telling the story.

What preceded this parable and the two short ones before it? The Pharisees are chastising Jesus for eating with sinners. Jesus is asking the Pharisees to come in and join the feast (even with the sinners there) just as the Father is asking his oldest son to come in and join the feast (even with the sinful son there).

The Pharisees, who kept the letter of the law but lack love of neighbor, are portrayed by the son, who obeys his father to the letter, but lacks love for his wayward brother.

The other stuff, stutgard and Fuldensis… I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. This charge of changing the Gospels is still outlandish. Some proof would need to be provided, or else is sounds as far-fetched as the church of Culdee or the Trail of Blood.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Except that the point of the oldest son’s hesitance to come into the feast is all relevant to the scene that Jesus is in when telling the story.

What preceded this parable and the two short ones before it? The Pharisees are chastising Jesus for eating with sinners. Jesus is asking the Pharisees to come in and join the feast (even with the sinners there) just as the Father is asking his oldest son to come in and join the feast (even with the sinful son there).

The Pharisees, who kept the letter of the law but lack love of neighbor, are portrayed by the son, who obeys his father to the letter, but lacks love for his wayward brother.

The other stuff, stutgard and Fuldensis… I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. This charge of changing the Gospels is still outlandish. Some proof would need to be provided, or else is sounds as far-fetched as the church of Culdee or the Trail of Blood.

Dear NotWorthy,
You seem to be reading the wrong parable: this is not the prodigal son tale, but the tale of the two sons sent to work in their father’s vinyard.

Matthew 21: 28 - 31
I will give first the complete tale as in Douay:

But what think you?
**A certain man had **
two sons:
and coming to the first,
he said:
Son,
go work to day
in my vineyard.
And he answering,
said:
I will not.
But afterwards,
being moved with repentance,
he went.
And coming
to the other,
he said in like manner.
And he answering
said:
I go, Sir.
And he went not.
Which of the two
did the father’s will?
They say to him:
**The first. **
Jesus saith to them:
Amen I say to you
that the publicans
and the harlots
shall go into the kingdom of God before you.

Next how the tale appears in Stuttgart and Fuldensis, (translated in the style of Douay):

But what think you?
**A man had **
two sons:
and coming to the first,
he said:
Son,
go work to day
in my vineyard.
And he answering,
said:
I will not.
But afterwards,
being moved with repentance,
he went.
And coming
to the other,
he said in like manner.
And he answering
said:
I go, Sir.
And he went not.
Which of the two
did the father’s will?
They say:
The youngest.
Jesus saith to them:
Amen I say to you
that the publicans
and the harlots
shall be **within the kingdom **of God, before you.

In the first difference, which is trivial: Clementine has ‘Homo quidam habebat’ : ‘A certain man had’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘homo habebat’: ‘A man had’.
Fuldensis supports Stuttgart

In the second difference, which is substantive: Clementine has ‘Dicunt ei ‘ : ‘They say to him’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘dicunt’ : ‘They say’, and,
Clementine has ‘Primus’ : ‘first’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘novissimus’ : ‘youngest’,
and in a third difference: Clementine has ‘in regnum’ : ‘into the kingdom’ , hence ‘go’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘in regno’ : ‘within the kingdom’, hence ‘be’.
Fuldensis supports Stuttgart in all cases.

Thus much of the meaning has been change, and not by a little.

Brief history:
Stuttgart is a scholastic reconstruction of St Jerome’s Vulgate, based mainly upon Codex Amiatinus, the purest extant version of the Vulgate.
Fuldensis is a Vetus Latina New Testament Vulgate constructed by Victor, Bishop of Capua in about AD 540, using an ancient harmonized Gospel, which was reputed to be the work of Ammonius Saccas, based heavily upon the work of Tatian.
My personal theory is that both of these were aliases of the same man, who therefore must have lived to the ripe old age of 120 years.
Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear NotWorthy,
You seem to be reading the wrong parable: this is not the prodigal son tale, but the tale of the two sons sent to work in their father’s vinyard.

Matthew 21: 28 - 31
I will give first the complete tale as in Douay:

Dear Voco, you seem to think I’m reading the wrong parable.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus ends the Parable by inviting the oldest Son into the feast. He leaves it hanging without telling the ending of the parable. This oldest son is the one who always followed his father’s rules, but seemed to lack love, for he refused to welcome his brother back, instead he shunned him.

In Luke, chapter 15, how does the chapter begin. *** The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them***.”

The parable ends with He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. Then the Father tells the son that they must celebrate because the (wayward) son is back.

Jesus is feasting with sinners. The Father is feasting with his wayward son.

The Pharicees refuse to join in the banquet. The oldest son refuses to join in the banquet.

I have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about in your parable. Why should the “more accurate” version say that the son who said “yes” but then disobeyed is the one who will did the Father’s will?

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh dear,
Have I struck you all dumb with shock?
Yes, I have a certain disrespect for some of the words attributed to Saul.
I do not though trash all of the teachings of Paul.
Sometimes, reading words attributed to Paul, I see Saul writing.
Saul most definitely had a political axe to grind.
Paul was not always in control of Saul, and often said many Sauline things.

As for changes the catholics made to the Bible: well, I can speak only for the Gospels.
Consider the sons in the vinyard.
Who did the will of their father? The youngest, who said yes, but failed to fulfill his word, or the oldest who refused, but repented, and went to the task.
The Clementine says the oldest, but
The Stuttgart, and Fuldensis says the youngest.
If we consider Roman law, then under that law, the offence of the youngest equates to the military concept of ‘Failure to comply’, which is a trivial offence, whereas the offence of the oldest equates to ‘Disobedience of a lawful command’, which can be a capital offence.
We all know that justice was served by the elder, but the Jews, in exonerating the younger, were quoting Roman law, as the Quislings they were.
Hence Our Lords condemnation.
Thus Context, Stuttgart, and Fuldensis accuse Rome of altering the Gospel.

OK, Voco? I was confused between the two parables. Sorry about that. But I’m even further confused at this explanation.

Sometimes I feel like you are trying to use Calculus to explain why 2+2 = 4.

This disobedience question makes absolutely no sense. How could anyone under any circumstances claim that the youngest is the one who did the Father’s Will. Everything else Jesus taught began with what in our heart. The first son demonstrated this, while the second didn’t.

But you’ve given me enough to go on to research this further. In that I give you thanks.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, Voco? I was confused between the two parables. Sorry about that. But I’m even further confused at this explanation.

Sometimes I feel like you are trying to use Calculus to explain why 2+2 = 4.

This disobedience question makes absolutely no sense. How could anyone under any circumstances claim that the youngest is the one who did the Father’s Will. Everything else Jesus taught began with what in our heart. The first son demonstrated this, while the second didn’t.

Yes, I understand.
To a conscientious, and honest person, it would be a dishonesty to accept a task, then fail to substanciate the acceptance: surely better to refuse the task so that the taskmaster could make alternative arrangements. This it seems was Our Lord’s attitude.
However, under Roman Law, and under our Military Law, which is derived from Roman Law, The act of refusal is a serious matter in its own right, and can in certain circumstances merit the death penalty, whereas, to accept a task, then fail to carry it out, is a fairly trivial matter.
Who knows, there might have been a perfectly good reason.
He might have been taken suddenly ill, or suffered an accident, or fallen among thieves.
We are not told.

As I have said before, generally, if not exclusively, in the Gospels, the word translated as ‘Jew’, should be read as ‘Judean’, or citizen of the Roman puppet state of Judea.
Our Lord is here criticizing the inteligentzia of Judea, those we would now call Quislings.
He is demonstrating their loyaty to Rome, and criticizing their abdication of justice.

But you’ve given me enough to go on to research this further. In that I give you thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

As I have said before, generally, if not exclusively, in the Gospels, the word translated as ‘Jew’, should be read as ‘Judean’, or citizen of the Roman puppet state of Judea.
Our Lord is here criticizing the inteligentzia of Judea, those we would now call Quislings.
He is demonstrating their loyaty to Rome, and criticizing their abdication of justice.

When our Lord is talking to the intelligentsia of Judea, wouldn’t this be the Pharisees and scribes? Isn’t that how the authors of the Gospel would refer to them?

I’m still having a difficult time swallowing this.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

When our Lord is talking to the intelligentsia of Judea, wouldn’t this be the Pharisees and scribes? Isn’t that how the authors of the Gospel would refer to them?

I’m still having a difficult time swallowing this.

I do understand.
You have to get out of the present day mindset.
Think about Norway under NAZI occupation.
There was a so-called Norwegian government, which was a NAZI puppet, and there were some Poles who, for a quiet life, co-operated with it. These are the Quislings.
Among these Quislings were those who took an active part in the puppet government, manning the police force and judiciary.
So it was in Judea.
Judea was primarily a Quisling state. Most of the population just wanted a quiet life under Roman occupation. They did not want trouble makers. They knew what happened after trouble, and had no taste for it.
The Scribes, Pharisees, and Elders were instruments of the Quisling government. But they were not the only Quislings.
A sizeable portion, it seems, of the population, were also Quislings.
This is the context.
This is the odium of the Judeans, called Jews in the English Gospels.
We must remember this, or we are in danger of condemning Jews for the actions of Judeans.
That a number of Jews happily allign themselves with these Quisling Judeans is a tragedy of their own making.

 

[Safe_Eagle]

The canon was decided in holy counsel. 397 AD and 419 AD both in Carthage. St. Augusine presided at the second. The initial collection of scriptures were placed in three groups:

1: Known Cannonical which included the four gospels and the letters of St. Paul

2: This was the unsure group which included 1st, 2nd and 3rd book of John, Hebrews, St. Pauls letter to Laodocia amoung others.

3: Known heretical which included gospel of Thomas, gospel of James etc.

After the counsel we have inspired and uninspired.

Thanks to the Holy Spirit

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The canon was decided in holy counsel. 397 AD and 419 AD both in Carthage. St. Augusine presided at the second. The initial collection of scriptures were placed in three groups:

1: Known Cannonical which included the four gospels and the letters of St. Paul

2: This was the unsure group which included 1st, 2nd and 3rd book of John, Hebrews, St. Pauls letter to Laodocia amoung others.

3: Known heretical which included gospel of Thomas, gospel of James etc.

After the counsel we have inspired and uninspired.

Thanks to the Holy Spirit

Hi Safe Eagle,
I do not get the relevance of this reply.
Is it in regard of some specific point, or is it a generality.

I am not arguing as to which books be in or out, but that copying errors have crept into the accounts, for whatever reason.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Actually, in deepest conscience, yes, I am troubled by the Apostle’s crede.
Was not King David also a Son of G_d
Psalm 2 Verse 7.
Or was he a liar?[/sign]
I can understand your concern, I’ve done a bit of study in this and I think what is going on is you are misinterpreting the English, not like you’ve never heard that before but here goes.

You can actually follow this “problem” in the various Bibles if you have them.

Anyway if we go back to the Greek and Latin we see what was originally intended. The Greek says that Jesus is the monogenes of God, just like John 3:16. The Latin says unicum, basically our English word unique.

If you take the Old Latin manuscripts, they uniformly translate monogenes as unicum, both of course have form variations.

Anyway, along come Jerome, and he changes things. He leaves references to monogenes concerning human children as unicum, but he changes the references to Jesus to unigenitum which would literally be translated as “only begotten” some theorize he was influenced by another author he had read just before doing his translation.

Anyway this gives us only begotten for several references to Jesus, a change.which other translations followed right up to modern times.

It’s really a mistake, and word studies have shown that monogenes is based on mono or one, and genes but that genes is not from the word for begotten, gennao, but rather for the word for kind genus. And so we see translatons correcting that.

There’s been a general problem though. Only works very well for most human children. Monogenes is used to refer in scripture to several only children, they are unique, only really is an interpretation of how they are unique.

Problem is, we have two cases of monogenes where the person is not the only child. We have Jesus who is the only Son who is God, but not really the only son. Jesus is unique, one of a kind. And we have Isaac which really gives us understanding in scripture.
Heb 11:17 ESV
(17) By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

Only son is monogenes again. The problem is Isaac is not Abraham’s only son, his is however Abraham’s unique, one of a kind son, the son of the promise of God.

And so unique, just as it was done in the Latin in the Apostle’s Creed and just as done in the Old Latin was really the correct word.

As far as I know, only the ISV uses the word unique for monogenes at this time. And they are being criticized so vehemently for it that they are considering changing it. People don’t like it when you change their bible even when you are correct.

So anyway, i would at this point go back to the Creed and encourage you to realize that in it you are not confessing that Jesus is the only son of God, but rather that he is the monogenes Son, the unique Son, one of a kind.

Hope that helps.

JJ

Maybe, but look at this posting in another place:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=44629
I have to confess that prior to finding the quoted reference, I too considered that possibility, basing the idea on the German used to translate ‘unigenitun’ = ‘eingeboren’.
This caused be to translate ‘only begotten son’ as ‘true son’, and to substitute ‘only son of G_d’ with ‘son of G_d alone’.

If now, thinking back to Abraham and Isaak, remembering Jacob and Esau, note that Isaak was acknowledged by Abraham, whereas Ishmael, his biological offspring by Sarah’s slave girl was not, thus by ‘Jewish’ lore of the time, Isaak was Abraham’s only begotten, (acknowledged), son.

This concept even makes sense of Ps2: 7, for here David is acknowledged in a personal dream, or vision, whereas Our Lord was publicly acknowledged on two occasions, the baptism, and the transfiguration.