Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[NotWorthy]

We are not chess pieces fooled about by Zeus and his like for amusement.

Well, I didn’t mean to intimate that we were. I often get that impression when I talk to Calvinists, so I understand your angst about the old Yahweh, the Puppetmaster Theology.

What I think you are interpreting my words a little incorrectly. Think of it this way. Say a person is in a house with a long hallway. There are ten doors that the person is allowed to enter. This is perfect free will.

Now say, I tell the person you can enter any of the nine doors - the tenth one is off limits. The person is still exercising their free will, but they only have 9 options instead of 10. I think this is the case in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. The Church is free to do anything other than teach a false teaching.

If there were not this divine Promise with Divine Guidance, then the Church that Jesus established would have no more authority than any of the numerous denominations that claim to teach the Truth.

If you will allow me another analysis to illustrate. In Exodus, didn’t God influence Pharaoh’s decision making process by making him hard-hearted? How is this different from preventing a Pope to present a false teaching.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

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?

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

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Well, I didn’t mean to intimate that we were. I often get that impression when I talk to Calvinists, so I understand your angst about the old Yahweh, the Puppetmaster Theology.

What I think you are interpreting my words a little incorrectly. Think of it this way. Say a person is in a house with a long hallway. There are ten doors that the person is allowed to enter. This is perfect free will.

Dear Friend,
I think we are here on a hiding to nothing.
To you this is an article of faith, to me it is an article of doubt.
It does indeed come very close to denial.
I cannot equate LIMITED freedom with free-will.
Slaves have limited freedom.

Now say, I tell the person you can enter any of the nine doors - the tenth one is off limits. The person is still exercising their free will, but they only have 9 options instead of 10. I think this is the case in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. The Church is free to do anything other than teach a false teaching.

Yet Adam was told by G_d not to eat the apple, and warned of the consequences.
Adam was not prevented from eating it, though it broke G_d’s heart.
G_d could have prevented, but did not.
That is free-will.

If there were not this divine Promise with Divine Guidance, then the Church that Jesus established would have no more authority than any of the numerous denominations that claim to teach the Truth.

That indeed is a moot point.

If you will allow me another analysis to illustrate. In Exodus, didn’t God influence Pharaoh’s decision making process by making him hard-hearted? How is this different from preventing a Pope to present a false teaching.

How much of Exodus is the Word of G_d, and how much is Jewish party political propaganda is anorher moot point.

The final word for me is in Our Lord’s warnings that we must be alert and watch, and judge trees by their fruits.
If the church was utterly guaranteed to be inerrant, none of this advice would be needful, all we would need would be to obey.
But then we would be no better than slaves.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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

Hi Jolly Joe,
I’ve been down that road, and many like it.
The only conclusion I can come to is that this is a reference to a particularly Jewish tradition, which is a part of the Bar Mitzvah, where the Father of the graduant son, says:
Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.
There is no place in Jewish law for the concept of adoption.
The son acknowledged by the Father is the son, every bit as much as a son born of blood.
At least that is how it was in biblical times.
Thus the rite of ‘begetting’ is in this context, actually an acknowledgement.
Now what is the difference between King David and Our Lord?
Well David was acknowledged in a personal dream or vision.
Our Lord was acknowledged publickly.
In this sense He is unique.
He is the only publickly acknowledged Son of G_d.
This then also makes sense of Our Lord’s promise to acknowledge His followers before His Father.
This wrongly understood to be an act of adoption.
The concept of adoption never existed among these people.
We are ALL sons of G_d.
When Our Lord acknowledges us, we too will be acknowledged Sons of G_d.
This too Our Lord promised.
But that must wait until the Last Day.
So I add the word ‘acknowledged’ before ‘Son of G_d’ in the Apostles’ Crede.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear Friend,
I think we are here on a hiding to nothing.
To you this is an article of faith, to me it is an article of doubt.
It does indeed come very close to denial.
I cannot equate LIMITED freedom with free-will.
Slaves have limited freedom.

I’ll agree with the article of doubt, problem. I can’t help you with that.

The slave’s limited freedom is not the same and you know it.

Yet Adam was told by G_d not to eat the apple, and warned of the consequences.
Adam was not prevented from eating it, though it broke G_d’s heart.
G_d could have prevented, but did not.
That is free-will.

But God never promised to send the Holy Spirit to prevent Adam from eating the apple.

(Regarding the Church being no better than the other denominations, you responded) That indeed is a moot point.

Except that only one Church was established by Christ. To us, it is anything but a moot point. To lump this Church with all the other man-made institutions and classify it as a moot point is rather insulting

How much of Exodus is the Word of G_d, and how much is Jewish party political propaganda is anorher moot point.

Voco, I can’t even argue with this. If you don’t accept the words of Exodus as the Word of God, then I can’t convince you. Only the Holy Spirit and you can work that out.

The final word for me is in Our Lord’s warnings that we must be alert and watch, and judge trees by their fruits.
If the church was utterly guaranteed to be inerrant, none of this advice would be needful, all we would need would be to obey.
But then we would be no better than slaves.

I am a slave to Christ.

I don’t get the point of your final word, though.

 

[add1967]

Well, I didn’t mean to intimate that we were. I often get that impression when I talk to Calvinists, so I understand your angst about the old Yahweh, the Puppetmaster Theology.

What I think you are interpreting my words a little incorrectly. Think of it this way. Say a person is in a house with a long hallway. There are ten doors that the person is allowed to enter. This is perfect free will.

Now say, I tell the person you can enter any of the nine doors - the tenth one is off limits. The person is still exercising their free will, but they only have 9 options instead of 10. I think this is the case in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. The Church is free to do anything other than teach a false teaching.

Pease excuse my ignorance, but it seems rather plain to me that the argument that you have just put forward for your case is in fact
(Genesis),the very same one put forward by the great deciever himself.

In Spirit & Truth…add1967

 

[NotWorthy]

Pease excuse my ignorance, but it seems rather plain to me that the argument that you have just put forward for your case is in fact
(Genesis),the very same one put forward by the great deciever himself.

In Spirit & Truth…add1967

Please excuse my ignorance, but it seems rather plain that I have no clue what you are talking about, then.
Can you point out the Satanic meanderings in my words? Shed a little light on the subject?

Let’s try a different illustration, but it will take a little common sense.

A) Jesus told Peter, and then the Apostles as a group, that “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”. This, as the Jews already knew, was the authority to make laws on the faithful to determine sinful and nonsinful things.

B) Peter, and his successors can then make up a Church Law that can be totally ridiculous and make it binding. For example, “one must run naked through the streets each Monday morning, or else one is sinful”.

C) I hope to God that there is a restraint on the Pope and the Magisterium to prevent some lunacy like that taking over the Church, even though the Church has the full Divine Authority to make this rule affective on the faithful.

BTW, Welcome to the Forums!!! ( I think )

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Notworthy,

[sign]
The final word for me is in Our Lord’s warnings that we must be alert and watch, and judge trees by their fruits.
If the church was utterly guaranteed to be inerrant, none of this advice would be needful, all we would need would be to obey.
But then we would be no better than slaves.[/sign]
I am a slave to Christ.

I don’t get the point of your final word, though.

I thought the above was quite clear.
If the Church is utterly inerrant, then following the Church without thought would be enough, so why did Our Lord give us guidance on how to avoid error. It would thus be utterly irrelevant, or at least redundant.

That Our Lord gives us this guidance, is in itself, a warning, that with the best will in the world/universe, mistakes will occur, and with this guidance, we can catch them before they do too much damage. Thus we too are part of the error tolerant system we call the Church.

Thus without everyone playing their part in scrutinizing, errors might stand. Mother Church, in her hierarchy is the first defence, but the laiety must form the back-stop.
This is not a call for democracy, but it is a call for judgement by the people, as indeed commended by Our Lord in the guidance and warning: Watch!

 

[davidv]

Dear Notworthy,

I thought the above was quite clear.
If the Church is utterly inerrant, then following the Church without thought would be enough, so why did Our Lord give us guidance on how to avoid error. It would thus be utterly irrelevant, or at least redundant.

How do you draw this conclusion? I am a cradle Catholic and I was never taught that I shouldn’t think for myself. Like the Bible the Church’s teachings are not in the form of a recipe book. Your statement above implies that they are.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dear Notworthy,

I thought the above was quite clear.
If the Church is utterly inerrant, then following the Church without thought would be enough, so why did Our Lord give us guidance on how to avoid error. It would thus be utterly irrelevant, or at least redundant.

The problem is, I judge and find the Church in line with Christ, just as He promised.

You’ve judged, and found the Church not in line, so you choose to remain without.

That Our Lord gives us this guidance, is in itself, a warning, that with the best will in the world/universe, mistakes will occur, and with this guidance, we can catch them before they do too much damage. Thus we too are part of the error tolerant system we call the Church.

But you are judging things that have already been judged. You try to re-invent the wheel.

Thus without everyone playing their part in scrutinizing, errors might stand. Mother Church, in her hierarchy is the first defence, but the laiety must form the back-stop.
This is not a call for democracy, but it is a call for judgement by the people, as indeed commended by Our Lord in the guidance and warning: Watch!

Trust,but verify, eh?

It seems that you lack the first part, or you would be verifying form within, not without.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The problem is, I judge and find the Church in line with Christ, just as He promised.

You’ve judged, and found the Church not in line, so you choose to remain without.

No, I do not say the Church is at fault, I just say that Our Lord’s promise does not guarantee that it cannot be.
Indeed, Our Lord’s warning implies that it can be.

But you are judging things that have already been judged. You try to re-invent the wheel.

Trust, but verify, eh?

Trust in the first approximation, yes.
But in the finer detail, where the errors may appear, if there appears to be paradox, then examine closer.
I do trust that all the coarse errors have been eliminated, but the devil is in the detail.

It seems that you lack the first part, or you would be verifying from within, not without.

Sometimes when you are inside, your view is limited by the walls you have built around yourself.
Sometimes you need to stand outside to see the whole world.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us. (R Burns)

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore,
I do not make a distinction in type between the members of the Church, and the body of the Church. One is made up of the other. The whole may be more than the sum of its parts, but is not of a different essence.

This is the essential aspect. Indeed, the Whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, which is the only reason she cannot err. The Head is Christ, and that is why the Church is infallible.

If sufficient of its parts fail, the whole will fail.

This would be true if it were of human origin, but since it is not, no degree of human failure can undo what God has done. He will always have a remnant. Jesus founded His Church, not people.

The multiplicity of self supporting parts has the effect of reducing to near zero, the effect of individual failures, but does not eliminate them.

It is true that the error and sins of men do damage to the Body, but cannot change the core identity of the purified Bride.

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?

Of course! Just as Ezek. was a son of man. Would you not agree, though that Jesus was a son of a different nature?

 

[guanophore]

2/ G_d does not prevent anything.
G_d teaches us how to see the difference between right and wrong, and guides us on how to set up institutions and mechanisms which are ‘fault tolerant’, so that individual failures are unlikely to cause total failures.

What do you make of the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church?

I agree that God does set up institutions and to know the difference between right and wrong. However, He does “prevent” things, especially for those who walk in His ways. He keeps their feet from evil.

G_d does not force the outcome.
We are given free-will, and that means that any institution or mechanism we set up has that free-will, though we can reduce the fault sensitivity of those institutions and mechanisms.
We are autonomous and responsible human beings, responsible to each-other, and to G_d for our actions and inactions.
We are not chess pieces fooled about by Zeus and his like for amusement.

I agree with this principle, but note that the Church is not an institution set up by man, and therefore the principle does not apply.

Yet Adam was told by G_d not to eat the apple, and warned of the consequences.
Adam was not prevented from eating it, though it broke G_d’s heart.
G_d could have prevented, but did not.
That is free-will.

But where did God promise He would lead Adam and Eve into all truth?

The final word for me is in Our Lord’s warnings that we must be alert and watch, and judge trees by their fruits.
If the church was utterly guaranteed to be inerrant, none of this advice would be needful, all we would need would be to obey.
But then we would be no better than slaves.

Yes, we need discernment, because there are errant members attached to the Holy Bride. However, Jesus is clear that we not judge the church, but only make discernment about the members thereof. Even then, we are to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the end, when the Angels will sort them out.

 

[guanophore]

Dear Notworthy,

I thought the above was quite clear.
If the Church is utterly inerrant, then following the Church without thought would be enough, so why did Our Lord give us guidance on how to avoid error. It would thus be utterly irrelevant, or at least redundant.

The Church herself is inerrant, but the fallible members of her are not. I think the problem you are having lies in the apparent lack of recognition of the fact that there is a solid and holy core. It is this sanctified apostolic part of the church that does not err.

That Our Lord gives us this guidance, is in itself, a warning, that with the best will in the world/universe, mistakes will occur, and with this guidance, we can catch them before they do too much damage. Thus we too are part of the error tolerant system we call the Church.

Then your concept of Church is different than that which is taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

Thus without everyone playing their part in scrutinizing, errors might stand. Mother Church, in her hierarchy is the first defence, but the laiety must form the back-stop.

I agree that we are each, every, and all called to the truth individually. However the promise was not made to us as individuals. It was made to those who are in perfect unity with Christ. To the extent that any of us are not, the promise does not hold.

John 17:11-13
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves".

Jesus did not leave us ophans.

This is not a call for democracy, but it is a call for judgement by the people, as indeed commended by Our Lord in the guidance and warning: Watch!

Yes, we are called to watch. But in our watching, we are called to acknowledge that an entity exists that is created by God, holy, spotless, and without blemish.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I do not say the Church is at fault, I just say that Our Lord’s promise does not guarantee that it cannot be.
Indeed, Our Lord’s warning implies that it can be.

Our Lord implies that individuals in the Church will try to teach false doctrines. That’s been demonstrated from the very beginning. But the Church Herself has not. That’s been demonstrated for 2000 years.

Trust in the first approximation, yes.
But in the finer detail, where the errors may appear, if there appears to be paradox, then examine closer.
I do trust that all the coarse errors have been eliminated, but the devil is in the detail.

Again, Individuals can err. The Church will not.

Sometimes when you are inside, your view is limited by the walls you have built around yourself.
Sometimes you need to stand outside to see the whole world.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us. (R Burns)

Thanks for that quote.

But the stained glass windows present their true beauty only when viewing them from the inside.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Church herself is inerrant, but the fallible members of her are not. I think the problem you are having lies in the apparent lack of recognition of the fact that there is a solid and holy core. It is this sanctified apostolic part of the church that does not err.

I think you have put your finger on the main difference:
You see the Holy Spirit as the solid and Holy core of the Church.
I see the Holy Spirit dispersed among the members of the Church.
You see his Holiness, and the Magisterium as specially guided by the Holy spirit.
I see them as the organisers of the system, responsible for tuning in the whole Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The word ‘bishop’ comes from the Greek ‘episcopos’ meaning overseer, or manager. It is a concept that first arises in the Dead Sea Community. Not an especially holy person, just a good organiser.

Then your concept of Church is different than that which is taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

Yes.

I agree that we are each, every, and all called to the truth individually. However the promise was not made to us as individuals. It was made to those who are in perfect unity with Christ. To the extent that any of us are not, the promise does not hold.

I disagree:
Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the Earth.
This was not just addressed to Peter,
Not just to the Twelve, or the Seventy two,
But to all his listeners, direct, and indirect.

John 17:11-13
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves".

Jesus did not leave us orphans.

Neither did he make us slaves

Yes, we are called to watch. But in our watching, we are called to acknowledge that an entity exists that is created by God, holy, spotless, and without blemish.

If this entity is guaranteed, without any effort from us, to remain holy spotless and without blemish, then our watch is pointless.
But Our Lord commanded us to watch, and watch carefully.
The only reasonable conclusion is that our watchfulness is needed to keep the Church Holy, spotless and without blemish.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Our Lord implies that individuals in the Church will try to teach false doctrines. That’s been demonstrated from the very beginning. But the Church Herself has not. That’s been demonstrated for 2000 years.

Again, Individuals can err. The Church will not.

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.

Thanks for that quote.

But the stained glass windows present their true beauty only when viewing them from the inside.

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.

 

[guanophore]

I think you have put your finger on the main difference:
You see the Holy Spirit as the solid and Holy core of the Church.
I see the Holy Spirit dispersed among the members of the Church.
You see his Holiness, and the Magisterium as specially guided by the Holy spirit.
I see them as the organisers of the system, responsible for tuning in the whole Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The word ‘bishop’ comes from the Greek ‘episcopos’ meaning overseer, or manager. It is a concept that first arises in the Dead Sea Community. Not an especially holy person, just a good organiser.

These are not opposed to each other. Yes, the HS is dispersed among the members, and each member experiences leading and guidance to the best of their ability. However, it is only when they are together and in perfect unity are they able to say “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

The main charge of the bishop is to organize and teach the doctrine. They are to oversee the purity of the gospel message. This is why they are charged to “entrust what you have learned to faithful men, who are able to teach others also”. It is good to have good organizers and holy people in the same position

I disagree:
Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the Earth.
This was not just addressed to Peter,
Not just to the Twelve, or the Seventy two,
But to all his listeners, direct, and indirect.

Only to the extent that they each remain in unity with Him. As soon as one steps out of unity, then one steps away from Christ.

Neither did he make us slaves

Surely not, but the promise is clear that, to those who remain in union, His grace will protect.

If this entity is guaranteed, without any effort from us, to remain holy spotless and without blemish, then our watch is pointless.
But Our Lord commanded us to watch, and watch carefully.
The only reasonable conclusion is that our watchfulness is needed to keep the Church Holy, spotless and without blemish.

The watch is not on the entity, which needs no watching. The HS is the Soul of the Church, and Jesus her Head. Perfection requires no monitoring. Rather, we must be on our guard against ourselves, and one another, lest we fall.

 

[lanceg]

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.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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.

Dear Lance,
I could not disagree more profoundly.
That we can keep our disagreements polite is an important foundation.
Perhaps we will not change any minds.
That is not important.
What is important is that we might begin to understand how our colocutors think.
That is an important understanding.