Catholic Bible Gets an Update: U.S. Bishops Remove ‘Booty’ & ‘Virgin’
- Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:47pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has given its official translation of the Bible a little update. And while many of the changes will go unnoticed, there is one that could spark a lot of controversy.
“We needed a new translation because English is a living language,” retired auxiliary bishop of Milwaukee Richard Sklba, part of the review and editing team, told USA Today.
According to the paper, fifty scholars, translators, linguistics experts, theologians, and five bishops spent 17 years on the project. It’s the first update of the New American bible since 1970, and the group referenced everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to recent archaeological findings.
USA Today lists some of the more trivial changes:
But the one raising eyebrows deals with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and a prophecy regarding her in Isaiah 7:14. According to that verse, “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” And that’s the way the old version of the New American Bible phrased it.
The new version, however, swaps “the virgin” for ” the young woman.”
According to USA today, “It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.” Yet Sklba insists the Catholic church will not change any of its teaching related to the change.
According to the Messianic Jewish group Jews for Jesus, almah does sometimes refer to a “young woman. But the group explains even though the Hebrew word is used, the insinuation is that the woman referenced is “chaste”:
In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste. [Emphasis theirs]
“One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah,” the group’s site says. “Nor can a serious student lightly dismiss the word as having no possible reference to a miraculous conception.”
USA Today says Catholics can read from any of two dozen English translations, however the New American Bible is the official translation used by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 589 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (541)
urrybr
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:27pmLet‘s go through the Q’uran and do some editing. Infidel sounds so final, and scary. Let’s say, instead, those not of our faith. And dhimmi, which basically means slave, let’s make that one “person that helps us out.” It’s all good. ;)
Report Post »NICE NICE TACO
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:26pmThe apostate catholic church strikes again. Very unfortunate for them.
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:26pmCheck out the Koine Greek Bible, translated from the “common greek” of the time Jesus was alive. Old testament words were guessed out previously, since we did not understand this different style of Greek language. When determining the background of “everyday” Greek used to scribe the greek translation of the Hebrew in the “old” testament in the past, less than accurate words were used (the KJV being the closest). The intent is still present, but clearer and more meaningful words help us as we “mature” into God’s Knowledge, the “meat” of the Word instead of constant Milk!
The current Canon of the Bible as we know it today was decided in the fourth century by the Catholic Church of that time. Books that are included in the Jewish “treasured writings” were included, until they were removed a number of years AFTER the Reformation.
We see through a “glass darkly,“ but soon we shall see ”Face to face.” Maranatha!
Report Post »riaf-decnalab
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:02pmVery cool!
I heard the Catholic Church described as a young teenager just growing out of puberty relative to it’s knowlege of God. What does that make other religions that have been around for a couple of hundred years or just started yesterday (coming to a church near you).
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:00pmActually, the basics remain the same: Salvation through the perfect sacrifice of the Son to the Father (Perfect Love), personal salvation through that payment for sin, promise of eternal life through the miracle of the Resurrection, eternity with God through The Word as witnessed in the Assension, and a personal responsibility to remember Jesus’ two Commandments: (1) The Shema–”Love the Lord your God with all your mind, body, spirit and soul”; (2) “and the second AS the first” (on the same level with the first), “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This is a love of WHOMEVER your neighbor is, friend or not, and a complete love as Jesus exampled in his sacrifice on the cross.
Without the above following any or all of the rubrics of the Church is dust in the wind.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:23pmUSA Today says Catholics can read from any of two dozen English translations, however the New American Bible is the official translation used by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.
Real Catholics left the Catholic church decades ago
Report Post »riaf-decnalab
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:31pmIgnorance abounds !!!!!
The Catholic Church compiled the Bible, the Bishops decided what Books, Gospels, and Letters would be included in the cannon at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The translation of the Bible wasn’t finished until 382-405 AD. this was mainly do to disagreements between the Bishops. Before the Vulgate Bible there were the codex manuscripts but these manuscripts were not the universal Bible of the Church.
Lots of folks want to create their own version of the Truth, but there’s only one.
Report Post »BMMiller1975
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 11:37amReal Catholics don’t leave the Church. Ignorant Catholics do.
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:44pm@BMMiller1975
AMEN!!!
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:45pm@BMMiller1975
AMEN
Report Post »urrybr
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:21pmSo who assigned them to retranslate the Bible?
Report Post »proliance
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 9:19pmThe Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, and it has protected it for almost 2,000 years. If the Church wants to change a word because the meaning is currently different than it was many years ago, then it certainly has the privilege.
Report Post »Stopit
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:24pm@Proliance
Report Post »By “protected” according to HISTORY you mean confiscated and torched so no one would be able read it, be saved by grace, and not be dependant on a theocratic church state that killed anyone that didn‘t follow it’s hellish decrees…hum, seems like similar problems we’re having with theocracies now.
RightPolitically
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:20pmYeah, good idea! Because of “booty” nobody even knows a virgin…..Just sayin’.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:19pmCatholics have been screwing up since Vatican II that liberalized their theology and made man equal to God.
Report Post »It’s the reason their churches are empty and will continue to be
judyod
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:38pmVatican 11 was a horrific event. The Catholic Church will always be alive but not always well. The Bible of the Catholic is the Douay-Rheims version. No changes, no “updates”. Please, never allow the actions on man keep you from God. There are Traditional Catholic Churches in every state, find one and experience pre-Vatican 11 Catholicism.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:19pmEveryone do yourselves a favor and leave any church that brings this Bible into their supposed houses of God’. Because anyone who change the text of Religion for political correctness isn‘t God’s servent they serve a different master.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:09pmPerhaps it is more than “political correctness”. The Catholic church proclaimed Mary to be Deipara, or “The Divine Virgin, The Mother of God” at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Their teaching has evolved from there. Then, at Vatican II Council they decreed that “The activity of God in all religions is recognized, notwithstanding the conviction that the Church was given the fullness of truth by and in Christ. All therefore deserve understanding and esteem. Moreover, the Church is linked to the Moslems in as much as Moslems honor Jesus and the prophets”.
Report Post »The NWO will also strive for a one world religion…..It would be hard to reconcile the church’s teaching on Mary with the Islam religion because Muhammad has no mother, and Islam does not honor women…so maybe those teachings need to be toned down for everyone to be sympatico. Just watch and see what happens.
vennoye
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:31pmSorry, not Muhammad, Allah has no mother…and also remember that their Jesus is not the son of God, just a prophet.
Report Post »Red Meat
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:17pmThe council of Bishops are Marxists that espouse Social Justice. Have been for decades.
Report Post »lainpa
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 1:19pmReally? It sure seems that way! I also do not know the difference between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops!
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:16pmIf its all the same to them,,,,,I‘ll keep my ’old’ Bible.
Report Post »Jesus warned those who may change his words, that they WILL suffer for it.
Pezman
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:11pmHaving been brought up Roman Catholic but now Episcopalian, I have no problem with the translation change. I only wish the Church would return to letting clergy be married, as was the case for the first millenia. I never did ‘get’ why I should consider talking to a man who has no point of reference about potential marital difficulties. It might also help with the whole ped/priests thing.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:25pmIn the western church priestly celibacy was the norm even before it became the established rule. Given the embrace of sexual immorality by rejecting sexual taboos in the Episcopal Church married clergy will not eliminate priestly sexual abuse. Bishop Paul Moore of New York was married with children and a closet homosexual and abuser of young men. Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire is a public homosexual with a male lover and he promotes a website that encourages pederasty as “sex education”.
It is married or unmarried clergy. It is sin, and the failure to take it seriously.
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:51pmIslefordian: And that is exactly why I left the Episcopal Church, along with my entire family – including my father who was an ordained Episcopal priest. The splintering of the Episcopal church was one of the saddest events ever.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:25pmWhere have you ended up, Sugabee? Did you go towards the Baptists or Catholics?
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:54pmDefinitely Catholic. Since we are all fallen human beings, our church has its “warts”, but I truly believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus when he proclaimed Peter the rock of the Church. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the scriptures we ALL now call the “Bible”. It was Luther who first, after he left the Church, re-wrote passages and included words that were not originally there. The vitriol that I’m reading here is really unnecessary. If you choose to be Catholic, that’s great; if you don’t, that’s your choice. Why all the hate (not you specifically, Islefordian)??
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:32pmWish I could join you Sugabee, but I’m still too much of a Protestant to believe in an infallible church. This keeps me from joining the east orthodox as well.
It sounds to me like you were always a very catholic Anglocatholic, so I guess the transistion was easy for you.
I don’t know about the accusation that Luther put words in his translation that were made up. That seems like anti-lutheran propaganda akin to anti-catholic propaganda with regard to translations. It is folly to worship the KJV and the Vulgate. Both have their flaws, and I‘m sure Luther’s German translation has ITS flaws. That‘s why it’s important to either read the original languages or have a variety of trustworthy translations and try to be aware of their editorial bias as well as hermeneutical techniques.
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:41pm@Sugabee – AMEN, the first church period, as with the USA, it may have faults, but it’s still the best place to be.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:11pmThe Catholic Church has enough worries besides changing the bible.
Report Post »flavsngrace
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:07pmKJV baby!!!! These changes are a perversion and Rothbardian, you are soooo funny!!! I shall go and sharpen my pillow!!!
Report Post »lainpa
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:04pmGood, Lord! Is time for me to leave the Catholic church?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:12pmYep
Report Post »sarg356
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:16pmhave done that already
Report Post »txblaze
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:20pmYes. Run.
Report Post »Paige47
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:05pmPlease no! Now is the time to defend your faith! The smoke in the sanctuary WANTS you (us) to turn our backs on our Catholic faith. If you do that now, you join the enemy in weakening our numbers. Stay strong. Just realize what’s happening and remain faithful to the end.
Report Post »Failsafe
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:41pmNo, it’s time for you to grow up, take some responsibility and actually learn what the Church teaches and why. How anyone can take what the media reports about the Church, or even the USCCB with out a huge lump of salt is beyond me. As an aside, it’s kind of odd that I never see any articles posted about LDSLCMSELCAOCCOCP, ETC., only the Catholic Church gets special attention. Weird.
Report Post »WISEPENNY
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:13pmThe revisions in their bible is nothing. Wait for the revised version of the “New World Order” church with a Roman Catholic flavor, soon to be served up ‘a la carte’ by the U.N. Coming soon, comrades.
Report Post »sarg356
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:01pmGods word never changes only mans. Leave the bible“The Book” alone. Get rid of all the getto talk.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:00pmThe word “holocaust,” now associated with World War II genocide, has been replaced by “burnt offering.”
Report Post »—————————————————————————————————————————-
Bull crap. Call it what it was. An offering to whom? 6 million plus offerings?
This makes me very angry.
caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:12pmUm … maybe I’m misunderstanding you … but you do realize that when the word “holocaust” is used in the Bible, it’s not used in reference to Hitler, who came around 1900 years after the Bible was written. When it’s used in the Bible, the word “holocaust” is referring to animal sacrifice, which is precisely why the translation was changed–to make that clearer. But maybe I misunderstood you?
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:30pmI am referring to WWII use, which some dumb idiot will take the bible change and start using *burnt offerings* in reference to WWII usage.
People need to just leave it all alone. It has been good enough for centuries, stop changing things to just be PC.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:57pmSo far as I am able to find out, the translation of the Hebrew word “olah” (meaning animal sacrifice) as “holocaust” goes back to before the Protestant Reformation. In the Greek Septuagint (ca. 200 B.C.)., the word “holokauston” was used, which then became “holocaust” when translated into English. It was the translators of the KJV who were the first to translate “olah” as “burnt offering,“ out of a belief that the word ”holocaust” was too obscure for a common reader to understand. So both translations–“holocaust” and “burnt offering”–go back centuries. Unfortunately, because of its use in reference to Nazi Germany, the word “holocaust” now has overtones that suggest something far different than Old Testament animal sacrifice. Words do change their meanings with time. The word “sensibility” doesn’t mean anything close to what it meant in the 18th century; and just think of the changes that have taken place with respect to the word “gay” over the last hundred years.
Report Post »WISEPENNY
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:59pmSorry! The word holocaust doesn’t occur in the KJV.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:42pm@Wisepenny
Report Post »Was that a reply to me? Read what I wrote again. I specifically said that “holocaust” was ***not*** in the KJV. Not only did I say it wasn’t in the KJV, I also gave the reason the KJV translators rejected that word.
biggreenboo
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:00pmO.K. let’s change “Angel of the Lord” to Cadillac… “In the begining” will be changed to “Sometime before yesterday”… and all references to “Jesus” will be know as “Franks Hot Sauce” … EXAMPLE: “Franks Hot Sauce wept”
Well done gentalmen… only 17 years to straighten everyone out… EXCELSOIR!!!!!!
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:59pmSo was Mary not a virgin? Dear Lord, I can‘t believe that these people think they are acting on God’s behalf.
Maybe they should spend this effort on the Koran instead. Replace “sword’ with “pillow”.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:07pmSince the Catholic Church teaches as infallible dogma (1) Mary was free of all original and actual sin, and (2) Mary remained a virgin her whole life, it is important not to read too much into this change. The Catholic Church doesn’t change its teaching. However, having said that, for the USCCB to insist on translating “almah” as “young woman” out of some prissy desire to be literal is just stupid.
Report Post »moriarty70
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:40pm@caitlynsdad
“(2) Mary remained a virgin her whole life”
Poor Joseph.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:05pmMoriarty says: “Poor Joseph.”
Sure … if you think that sex has a higher value than other things, like say being chosen by God to be Christ’s earthly father.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:43pmcaitlynsdad.
You said: Since the Catholic Church teaches as infallible dogma (1) Mary was free of all original and actual sin, and (2) Mary remained a virgin her whole life
Item 1, Mary offered at the Temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from her uncleanness as she had inherited sin and imperfection from Adam Luke 2:22-24; Leviticus 12:1-8
Item 2, Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph. Read Matthew 13:53-56, Mark 3:31-35
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:10pm@Bearfoot
(1) Mary’s offering in the temple was a ritual offering to be purified of the discharge of blood after giving birth, and had nothing to do with sin. I’d read Leviticus chapter 12 again. It’s not talking about sin; it’s talking about female discharge of blood after giving birth–that’s the sense in which Mary was “unclean.”
(2) because there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic or Hebrew, the word “brother” was used generically to mean “kinsman,” not merely strictly in the sense of siblings. James and Joses, who are typically claimed by Protestants to have been Jesus’s siblings, were actually the sons of another Mary. If you look at Matt. 27:55-56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, you’ll notice that there are three Marys who witness the crucifixion: (a) the Virgin Mary; (b) Mary Magdalene; and (c) Mary the wife of Clopas. The passages in Matthew and Mark indicate that James and Joses were the sons of the Mary who is identified as “wife of Clopas” in John, and the passage in John indicates that Mary wife of Clopas was the Virgin Mary’s “sister” (probably, more accurately, her sister-in-law, since Clopas is believed to have been Joseph’s brother.) That would make Mary wife of Clopas Jesus’s aunt, and hence James and Joses would be Jesus’s cousins. But again, since there was no word for “cousin” in Hebrew or Aramaic, the word “brother” sufficed to indicate kinsmen generally speaking rather than siblings specifically.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:20pm@Bearfoot
Report Post »P.S., of course, the reason I brought up the teachings about Mary in the first place was really just to explain why the different translation in the NAB doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is somehow implying that Christ was not a virgin birth.
Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:46pmRomans 3:23 informs us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This of course includes the wonderful young maiden, Mary, who was indeed a virgin when selected by God to bear the promised Messiah, the Christ of God.
Report Post »However, after the birth of Jesus, Mary was no longer a virgin, and she and Joseph continued on to produce other children. That is what the scriptures indicate, sorry if it does not go along with your preconceived ideas.
caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:38pm@Bearfoot
Since I cited Scripture to back up my point about Mary’s perpetual virginity, I’m not sure how you can call that a “preconceived idea.” Since, furthermore, I was once a Protestant who came to accept the perpetual virginity only after studying it, that’s quite the opposite of “preconceived.” Becoming Catholic was a process of abandoning preconceptions.
In terms of Romans 3:23, the problem Protestants have is the problem of excessive literalism. Does Paul really mean that “all” have sinned in the sense of every last human being? What about children who die before the age of reason? Have they sinned? By definition, they cannot–for to be guilty of sin, you have to have both the ability to reason and the intent to sin. Or what about people who are born retarded? So Paul can’t possibly mean that every last human being has sinned. The more accurate understanding would be to say that by “all” Paul simply means the mass of humanity, not necessarly every last person without exception.
Of course, by itself, this doesn’t prove that Mary was sinless. What it does indicate, however, is that Romans 3:23 is not an adequate objection to the doctrine.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:39pmCaytlandsdad,
Report Post »It is not possible for anyone (including Mary) to escape the effects of sin.
King David in Psalms 51:5 says “Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.”
Everyone who is born has inherited imperfection and sin! Little babies cannot escape their imperfection either. Just because a newborn has not yet sinned, they will, won’t they? Of Course they will. And Mary could not forever be a virgin or sinless. You know that is impossible.
You have to understand that we all inherited sin and death from our parents, Adam and Eve. Only through the sacrifice of God’s Son, Jesus can we hope to escape. Worship God with accurate understanding. Think it through.
caitlynsdad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:39pm@Bearfoot
Only problem with what you’ve just said is that it seems to be based on the presupposition (left unstated) that the Catholic Church somehow teaches that Mary remained free from sin solely by virtue of her own efforts. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was free of both original and actual sin solely by virtue of a special grace from God–which He gave to her in anticipation of her becoming Christ’s mother. Because Christ was sinless, and Christ took all his human nature from Mary, it was not fitting that the perfect son of God should reside for nine months in a body corrupted by sin.
Taking just myself as an example for comparison–I know that I have sinned many times. I also know that there were many times when I could have sinned, but did not. However, it would be wrong for me to pat myself on the back for the times I resisted sin, because I know that the only reason I was able to resist at those moments was because of the grace of God working in me. The difference with Mary is that God’s grace was working thus in her at all times, and from the very moment of her conception. God doesn’t do that with just anyone, of course, but neither was Mary just anyone; God gave her that grace because of her special role in the history of redemption–and that is precisely why the angel Gabriel, at the Annunciation, referred to Mary as “full of grace.”
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 11:38amcaitlynsdad,
What I see here is your desire to elevate the righteous woman Mary to a position beyond what the scriptures actually teaches.
Report Post »No person can accuse Mary of being a unrighteous woman. Why, even the Pharisee‘s who were looking for any error in Jesus’ life, or in his genealogy, to destroy his qualifications of being the Messiah, never accused Mary of not being a virgin before she married Joseph. Her reputation was that good! But when a Catholic says she was without sin and a perpetual virgin is not scriptural. The Bible does not say that. Catholics say it, but not the Bible.
This is why Catholics are such easy targets for sincere Bible students. Catholics teach Catholicism accurately, but they not teachthe Bible accuratly.
caitlynsdad
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:17pm@Old Truckers
You do put your finger on the real nature of the difference between Protestants and Catholics, and that is the question of authority. Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible alone (sola scriptura), whereas Catholics believe in the authority of the Bible and the teaching Church. I used to believe in sola scriptura myself, until I realized the fundamental problem with it: It’s self-contradictory. It fails its own test. Nowhere in the Bible do you find the statement that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. If a doctrine fails its own test, it can’t possibly be true. Moreover, nowhere in the Bible do you find a list of what constitutes the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture itself was not derived from the Bible, but from the Church.
I also realized that if God granted the gift of infallibility to the writers of Scripture, it made no sense to deny that he could also grant the gift of infallibility to the teaching Church–certainly insofar as it comes to maintaining the unity of the faith by guiding Christians in the proper interpretation of Scripture. For when left to themselves, we know what happens: no one comes to an agreement as to the meaning of the Scripture, and as soon as there is a disagreement, you have to go and start your own church.
These are just a few thoughts on a very large topic. At any rate, my earlier discussions were not intended to prove the Immaculate Conception from Scripture (since I deny that Scripture is the sole standard of proof), but merely to illustrate that you can not disprove it from Scripture.
Report Post »jfreak13713
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:58pmIf you remove the Virgin Birth you destroy the faith!
Report Post »starman70
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:08pmThe plan of the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:10pmYep, you‘re witnessing the apostate church’s formation.
Report Post »Sagrim
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:36pmI thought it was without the resurrection Christianity would have nothing.
Report Post »Clive
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:38pm“born of the virgin mary” is in the catholic creed. get a grip. The other 10,000 mentions of “virgin” were left alone, get a grip and change your diaper.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:58pmThe truth has been changed so many times, over time, the truth has been lost
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:09pmNope, the truth is still there and it is THE TRUTH.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:12pmIt has not been lost, but you really have to search it out on your own…….read the King James Version, and believe what IT says, we have so many “traditions of men” in all religions that I think that the KJV is the only document I trust any more.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:27pmBUT, the best reference, if you want a Bible on CD is http://www.powerbible.com/.
Report Post »It also has the Hebrew and Greek lexicons ( you know, the people who wrote the Bible :-)) so you can see the original words and their meanings for yourself.
The Power Bible CD-ROM includes 22 Bible translations, over 10 Bible dictionaries, over 10 topical references, over 20 commentaries, and over 700,000 cross-references, all for only $19.00*, including postage!
I do use mine a lot when I don’t understand something in KJV.
Showtime
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:40pm@APatriotFirst
Report Post »Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:58pm
The truth has been changed so many times, over time, the truth has been lost
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That translates into “Liberals at work!”
WISEPENNY
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:42pm@ VENNOYE. Thanks for the link. I just ordered by phone and they are offering two CD’s for the price of one including postage! They look like a virtual library of scriptural information. They are offering 4 CD’s for under 19 bucks, postage included. The site says 1 for $19.00 but when I called to order they surprised me with the offors. AGAIN,THANKS FOR THAT LINK!!
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:16pm@WISEPENNY
Report Post »You are welcome. I hope you like yours as much as I do. I also got 4 when I ordered mine and I gave copies to my children and friends. We all use ours a lot. It is amazing how much we do not understand about our faith and take for granted what someone told us is right.
Gonzo
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:57pmThe new version, however, swaps “the virgin” for ” the young woman. Heresy. If you don’t have enough faith to believe that God is capable of the virgin birth, why would you believe any of it?
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:33pmNext they’ll change Jesus walked on the water to Jesus was an avid swimmer. And Jesus turned grapes,yeast,water,and sugar into wine and it only took two years.
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:04pmBut most non-Catholics believe it was grape juice, so who is changing the translation …
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:56pmOnly God’s enemies will pervert His Word.
Report Post »exdem
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:14pmAmen
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:16pmThe bible warns that this would happen. That the beast will perevrt the words of Christ. We now have Religion joining progressive government through “social justice” in an attempt at population control.
Report Post »When the traditional conservatives are out of the way who will be Progressives next target…..Religion.
They are making deals with their own enemies and are too ignorant to realize it.
REETZBEE
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:35pmAnother reason to believe the bible is a bunch of bunk. Seems like every religious organization has their own re-written version of the bible. Doesn’t one of the bible scripture say “do not change one word.”
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:57pmreetzbee,
The Bible is not bunk, but only the original manuscripts are inspired. No one changed any words of the Bible, only tried to find the best equivalent translation. Comprendo?
The problem non-believers have is they try to claim that if every single idea in the Bible is not 100% clear and unequivocal then you cannot “prove” anything and the Bible is bunk. But most of the Bible is written in such a way that you can interpret it in many different ways. I think God did this on purpose so we would always have something left to study and wonder about. The thing is, there is actually very little of the Bible that you need to understand to find Christ and receive salvation. These ideas are very basic and written many times in ways that cannot be misconstrued. John 3:13, Romans 3:10, 23, 6:23, Acts 16:31, John 3:36…These cannot be misconstrued. They present the simple gospel message that EVERY Christian believes. If you do not believe this message then you are NOT a Christian despite what you may call yourself. All have sinned. All are doomed to hell. Jesus died on the cross for your redemption. To accept this gift you only have to accept Him. That is really all there is to it. Everything else in the Bible can and will be argued but that is okay. As long as you believe the basic gospel message you are just as saved as I am. :-)
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:58pmREETZBEE, If you revere God, you wouldn’t want to say is Word is bunk. Modern translatations have been diluted, and produced by non Christians. The KJV is a good version to learn by, and sticks to the scriptures pretty closely.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:04pmtrolltrainer, You said, “If you do not believe this message then you are NOT a Christian despite what you may call yourself. All have sinned. All are doomed to hell.” That is not all true. Do you understand what the millennium is for? People will have another chance to accept Christ in the millennium.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:36pmCountry, this is the church age. In this age if you do not accept Christ you are doomed to hell. In the Millennium Christ will rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem. People will have to accept Him then also. That is why the Great White Throne judgment is AFTER the Millennium! The Church will be raptured and will stand before the Bema Seat before the Tribulation. We see at the end of the Millennium, when Satan is unloosed, that people will rebel against Christ yet again. They will certainly be sentenced to the lake of fire also.
Now, I will grant you that this is a premillennial, pretrib, dispensational eschatological view. There are other views and I am not going to argue that I am right and all others are wrong. The honest truth is we can all support our views with Scripture. I recognize that, do you?
Scripture makes it clear that those who do not believe the son will face eternal wrath. This is made clear in at least 5 distinct verses and is implied in many more. You can believe it or not.
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:13pmtrolltrainer, Bema Seat? I never heard of that. If you want believe that God is going to dooms anyone who does not accept Jesus as Lord in Savior, which is you right. I disagree because my Father is a God of Love and there are plenty of people who lived in this “church age” who never learned the Truth. The millennium will be their first time to accept Christ as Lord and Savior if they choose.
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
At the end of the millennium when Satan is turned lose for a short time to deceive who so ever will. Then there will be the great white judgment. I plan on taking part in the first resurrection, which is having my name written in the book of Life.
Report Post »DLG123
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:47pmI am a Catholic and I am a Conservatie American I am amazed at the pure almost hatred towards Catholics being thrown around… I don’t know why they are changing but I will be writing a letter to my priest and my bishop to figure this out! I know that this is where the Lord wants me and has asked me to stand or should I say kneel
Report Post »@troll trainer…I suggest when talking about doomed to hell and no eternal life you should re-read John Chapter 6… But wait you are PROTESTant and you dont agree with the Church so you go to Mr. Hagee then you dont agree with him and you go down the street to Joel Osteen then you don’t agree with him and you can take a trip to Kenneth Copeland… Who has the authority to speak and teach the Word? Oh… Thats Right its a personal interpretation and so it can mean anything to anyone… Kinda seems like a LIVING BREATHING DOCUMENT?
trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:41pmNo guys, I do not believe the church. Nor do I believe any man. I believe Scripture. I believe John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Should not perish? Whatever could Jesus mean when He said this? Well, He explains it a bit later in john 3:36:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Hmmm…Sounds pretty plain to me? Where is the failure to comprehend here? You do not believe Jesus? because He did say:
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6 BTW.
So Jesus said the ONLY way to the Father was through Him? John 6:40 is less direct:
“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Of course we are not told what happens to those who do not believe, but they are obviously separate from those who do believe. Some more Scripture to show the separation of the wheat and tares, Matthew 7:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Wide is the gate that leads to DESTRUCTION! FEW find the narrow gate. Why? Well, Jesus tells us in the next verse:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
If you are spreading a FALSE gospel message, one like EVERYONE will go to heaven, then you are a false prophet. I suggest you READ your Bible. I have just touched the SURFACE on Scripture that CLEARLY tells us that the ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. There is no “second” chance and no other way. Believe or perish. The “God of love” argument is irrelevant because love has NOTHING to do with it! God loved us so much He gave us a FREE and EASY way out! Just take it!!! If you do not…You perish!
trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:23pmDarn! Reposted from the thread above:
Country;
1 Corinthians 3…For starters on the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. Google will also help you as will Ryrie’s Theology.
I tried to subtly give you the hint that I am not going to get bogged down in an eschatological argument here. I accept that there are other views. I hold a dispensational view. As will most Christians in here I would wager…At least the protestant based ones. It really is the most straight-forward way of looking at Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. Basically, the Jews are on hold, they are still in exile, they never returned after the Babylonians. They rebuilt the Temple but the Medo-Persians, then the Greeks, then the Romans controlled Israel. Only in 1950′ish has Israel been restored. The covenant promises God made to them are still pending, Christ will sit on the throne of David, the Promised Land will be restored, there will be a millennial temple…This has not happened yet. Some feel the church inherited these promises, I disagree. Starting (probably) at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit indwelled all believers, the church age started. It will end at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) when the church will be called to heaven. The dead in Christ will rise first, then the living. This is when we will stand before Christ at the Bema Seat. It is not really a judgment as you will not be there unless you are saved. This is where you explain your life and get your reward. We will be married to Christ as the church is His bride (Rev 19). Then Christ will return to earth and will destroy the Antichrist and his armies (Rev 20). This will usher in the millennium in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem. Satan is chained and thrown in the pit. The verse you quote, revelation 20:4 deals with the Tribulation Martyrs. It is not until after the Millennium, in Rev. 20:11 that those not in Christ will be judged.
This is the view I hold. If you do not accept that then fine. It has nothing to do with your salvation. One of us is wrong. However, if you think that those not in Christ will not perish you have a problem. You have to bypass the very Word of Christ, not once, but numerous times. I do not want to argue that out with you, at least not in public, but one of my basic tenants is when I have to start stretching Scripture to fit around my theology…I need to check my theology because Scripture is not wrong.
God bless you my brother.
Report Post »DLG123
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:26pm@TrollTrainer – PROTESTants like to dance around in the book of John but for some reason stay away from JOHN Chapter 6… Why is that? Let me help you out
Report Post »Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Hmmm sounds Pretty clear here.
trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:44pmDLG123,
Are you KIDDING? You just hung yourself so many times it is not even funny!!! You are trying to argue that everyone is going to heaven yet NUMEROUS times in that passage Jesus says ONLY those who believe on Him will!
“@TrollTrainer – PROTESTants like to dance around in the book of John but for some reason stay away from JOHN Chapter 6… Why is that? Let me help you out
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35
***Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. ***
36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and
*** I will not reject anyone who comes to me,***
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me,
*** that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.***
(sounds good for you, but wait for it…)
40 For this is the will of my Father,
*** that everyone who sees the Son and *believes in him* may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”***
(Woah Nelly! Hit me again!)
41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44
***No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. ***
45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’
***Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.***
(This is a tough section. Compare it to other translations. It does not say what you think it says though. I assume this is the basis of your argument? They were all taught, but they had to LISTEN to the Father to come to Jesus! Think…Jesus is talking to the Pharisees here.)
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
***47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. ***
(Are you kidding? Only those that believe have eternal life!!!)
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Hmmm sounds Pretty clear here.”
Dude, I could go on through the whole thing! WHAT is the basis of your argument? If you do NOT accept Christ you perish! I thank you sir, for making my argument for me!
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:19pm@trolltrainer, I do believe and understand John 3:16. I do know you have to be saved to be in the book of life. I never said otherwise. Answer me this, if people who do not make it in the first resurrection, then why is it the first resurrection. Secondly the rapture is the biggest lie ever taught. There is not such thing. When Christ returns at the seventh trump, the trump of God in 1 Thes 4:16, everyone who is still alive in flesh bodies will be changed. 1 Corinthians 15:52. “We will be changed”, not just Christians, everyone. This is the same twinkle of the eye that is in 1 Thes. 4:16. 1 Thes 4:15 (For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.) You see those who are asleep are with the Lord already on one side of the gulf or the other as said in Luke 16. The rapture theory is not true and Paul even told us in his next letter. 2 Thes. 2:1 (Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,)….verse 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.) So you see Satan will be here pretending to be Christ before Christ comes on the Day of the Lord, the millennium.
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:26pm@DLG123 What are you trying to say? What part of salvation am I suppost to be picking up on?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:31pmCountry,
Like I said, I am not going to argue it. Can we, as Christian brothers, respectfully agree to disagree? It is not a salvation issue and I know you are not going to change my mind. I assume I will not change yours either no matter how much Scripture I cite, and frankly, I just cannot be bothered. I have written way too much in this article already.
In Christ
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:42pm@trolltrainer, All you have to do is check out what I said to you. It is written and more and more people are learning everyday that the rapture theory is a lie and the one who teach it are the false teachers. Half of the Christians will be deceived because they will worship Satan. Matthew 25:1 thur 12. Matthew 25:12 “But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.” He is talking to the Church my friend. That is the falling away in 2 Thes 2:3.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:31pmCountry…
I am sorry, I just cannot resist. How will we be deceived into worshiping Satan when we are the ones waiting for rapture? You are not expecting a rapture, you are waiting for Christ’s return. When the first seal is broken, and the white horse unloosed, you are going to see Christ! It will, in fact, be Antichrist. It is YOU who is going to be deceived if you are not careful!
But you are forgetting the Holy Spirit are you not? I can only speak for myself, but I cannot be deceived. I know the Word of God. Might I believe some wrong theology? Sure, I have admitted that throughout this thread. As you do too. The difference is you are deceived right now into thinking you cannot be wrong. You are deceived into thinking this is a matter of salvation. It is not. Do you believe in a young earth? A literal Genesis? These are the same types of issues. Eschatological views are diverse, no one agrees on everything, even within camps. You are not advanced enough to recognize that, you are the same mentality that asserts the KJV is the only Bible.
But as I was saying, I am assured of not falling into Satan’s deception because I am Spirit led. If I am wrong and I have to live through the Tribulation I am good with that. If there is no rapture it sure does not make sense that the church would be in the way, but God knows what He is doing. I am good with that. Are you? Are you sure you are not going to be deceived when Antichrist shows up as the Savior? I hope so.
Study it? I have my friend. I know all the views and I have followed the one that makes sense.
Report Post »Country
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 9:24am@trolltrainer, :) Let me ask this then, who is Satan trying to deceive if all the Christians were raptured away, unbelievers? Satan comes at the six trump, Christ at the seventh. Half of the virgin’s in Matt. 25:1:12 did not intend on worshipping Satan, they were deceived by not knowing the Word. Satan’s number, 666. 6th seal, 6th trump and the 6th bowl of wrath. I never said the JKV is the only version. It has its faults too, but nothing like the newer versions. It is the ONLY version that the Strong’s was written for, so there it is the only version the Strong’s can define the meanings of the Word. Keepin it simple.
Report Post »truthncharity
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:55pmThe scripture is Isaiah 7:14
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:03pmYes, there is no Isaiah 4:17
Report Post »Godseyesareonthem
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:19pmSeems like the Kenites are at it again trying to change the word of God! There is no Isaiah 4:17 it is Isaiah 7:14. Also in Proverbs 31:10 it says a virtuous woman, where do they get a ideal wife? ( virtous; good, ethical, chaste, honorable, moral, just, pure, righteous, upstanding, upright, scrupulous .) King James Version is clear and understandable to those who study the word of God in depth and have asked God for a deeper understanding before they begin their studies. Be aware of what you are reading because it has been changed so much that it is no where near the truth of the word of God. When the bible becomes politically correct there is a problem and you should question the reason why it needs to be changed Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life , and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book. 20. He which testifieth these things saith, “Surely, I come quickly ‘. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:03pmCountry;
1 Corinthians 3…For starters on the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. Google will also help you as will Ryrie’s Theology.
I tried to subtly give you the hint that I am not going to get bogged down in an eschatological argument here. I accept that there are other views. I hold a dispensational view. As will most Christians in here I would wager…At least the protestant based ones. It really is the most straight-forward way of looking at Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. Basically, the Jews are on hold, they are still in exile, they never returned after the Babylonians. They rebuilt the Temple but the Medo-Persians, then the Greeks, then the Romans controlled Israel. Only in 1950′ish has Israel been restored. The covenant promises God made to them are still pending, Christ will sit on the throne of David, the Promised Land will be restored, there will be a millennial temple…This has not happened yet. Some feel the church inherited these promises, I disagree. Starting (probably) at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit indwelled all believers, the church age started. It will end at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) when the church will be called to heaven. The dead in Christ will rise first, then the living. This is when we will stand before Christ at the Bema Seat. It is not really a judgment as you will not be there unless you are saved. This is where you explain your life and get your reward. We will be married to Christ as the church is His bride (Rev 19). Then Christ will return to earth and will destroy the Antichrist and his armies (Rev 20). This will usher in the millennium in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem. Satan is chained and thrown in the pit. The verse you quote, revelation 20:4 deals with the Tribulation Martyrs. It is not until after the Millennium, in Rev. 20:11 that those not in Christ will be judged.
This is the view I hold. If you do not accept that then fine. It has nothing to do with your salvation. One of us is wrong. However, if you think that those not in Christ will not perish you have a problem. You have to bypass the very Word of Christ, not once, but numerous times. I do not want to argue that out with you, at least not in public, but one of my basic tenants is when I have to start stretching Scripture to fit around my theology…I need to check my theology because Scripture is not wrong.
God bless you my brother.
Report Post »Phil E. Stine
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:51pmHow many different translations do we need? The KJV is all that you need…
encinom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:15pmTHE KJV is a mockery of the original latin text.
Stopit
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:22pm“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Ps 12:6,7
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:31pmencinom wrote:
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:15pm
“THE KJV is a mockery of the original latin text”
What do you base this on? Why do you think that Latin was the original language of the text? When you make statements like the one you made, how about some context and support?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:32pmI use the KJV for my personal Bible. Nelson edition BTW. But I value other translations. Especially when doing any kind of study is is always good to look at a few translations. If you really want to get serious you go back to the original language, but most studies only require comparisons between a few translations and maybe a few commentaries to get the gist of a passage.
Anyway, to those who fall for that foolhardy thought that only the KJV is inspired let me assure you that it contains many less than stellar translations where other versions are better. One of my favorite examples is the end of John, John 21, where Jesus asks Peter 3 times, “Simon, do you love me?” Peter responds 3 times, “yes lord, I love you.” The KJV uses the word love in all six places. The problem is Jesus is using the term Agape in the first two exchanges. Do you “love” me Peter, in the sense that we would use love. Peter responds with the term Phileo, I am fond of you Lord. We miss the import of this exchange in the KJV whereas it is clear in the NIV. Peter is crushed because he has denied Jesus 3 times. Jesus reaffirms Peter 3 times. It is a slight difference but it really opens the passage up when we see the difference in language.
A serious Bible student should use as many trustworthy translations as he can. Every translation has less than ideal passages. I would consider this issue with virgin in the New American Bible to be most unfortunate, especially as those liberals who wish to deny the deity of Christ will try to assert this usage of almah. It is surely not an accident and it appears as “young woman” in other translations. However, at the end of the day each Christian is responsible himself to study God’s Word. This should not be an issue for a true Christian.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:32pmSince the meanings of words change over the years, and since the Bible as we know it is a translation (or translations), I have always had the attitude that Mary’s life was between her and God and that I was not there to see for myself. Joseph didn’t seem to have a problem with what happened. It’s called “faith.”
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:35pm@encinom
Report Post »Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:15pm
THE KJV is a mockery of the original latin text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Encinom is a mockery of human intelligence.
The Bible is translated from Hebrew.
Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:08pmShowtime,
You said; “Encinom is a mockery of human intelligence.
The Bible is translated from Hebrew.”
Actually the Bible is translated from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:23pmThe changes described here to the Catholic Bible are nothing compared to the outrageous 8000 deletions of the name of God in the original texts. The Catholic Bible and the new KJV have systematically removed all instances of the Name, Jehovah and or Yahweh from their Bibles!
Report Post »What do you think of that? What do you think the True God Jehovah and His Son, Jesus thinks of those changes?
Islesfordian
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:58pmIt’s always good to have a number of good translations. No one translation will capture all the nuances of the original languages.
I like the the KJV as well as the ESV. The old NIV is good too, but sadly they have changed it in editions since 2010 to make the language more gender neutral, which distroys the Christological meaning in Hebrews 2.
Report Post »SLEUTH
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:17pmTROLLTRAINER; Two good posts, keep it up we need more of it. i see your thinking is outside the box,
Report Post »John 16.33
encinom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:25pmAm I the only one that sees the irony of mostly Prostestants, commenting on a Mormon owned website the actions of the Catholic church in retranslating the bible?
Hell the Mormons added an entire new book, the Prostestants change around the lanuage in the NIV to create the KJV. The Catholics picked and choosed which books to include, the coptics have a different version with some of the agnostic gospels included. So who here can say which group is right? The book is a work of man, not god.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:02pmEncinom,
You are on a roll, you have not got a single post yet where you do not fully mix up your facts! They got the KJV FROM the NIV? For real? Hey man, Google is your friend! Use it!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:23pm@trolltrainer
My bad, I menat to say that the KJV is a bastardization of the Catholic Bible, but my point still stands, mostly Prostestants are debating the actions of Catholics reinterrpeting the Catholic version of the bible on a Mormon “nes” cite.
This is fun watching the holier than thou argue over whose “word of God” is correct.
Report Post »chfields62
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:42pmMy problem is that the bible was written by man. I’m sure you have played post office, where a group of people sit in a circle and one whispers a phrase in anothers ear and then they whisper it to the next and so on until, you get to the end and it becomes completely different than what the original phrase was…..I’m sure its the same in this instance as well…….
Report Post »Stopit
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:17pm“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matt 24:31 Mk 13:35 Lk 21:33
“It is the spirit the quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63
“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” John 6:68,69
“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:47,48
“Jesus answered him and said, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:23
I am so thankful to know I have the words of God – the scriptures, as Peter says…they are a more sure word than when God the Father spoke to him out of the cloud on the mount of transfiguration. (II Peter 1:19,20)…and that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (translation). Every time the Bible speaks of the inspiration of the scriptures, you find that it is speaking of not of the original autographs, but of the vernacular copies available to all…such as Timothy in II Tim 3:15,16
God is the preserver of his inspired words, not man. The scriptures are faultless, just as our Saviour, the Word in flesh, was and is (except for the marks still in his glorified body not from his own sin but ours) though he came through the human instrumentation of Mary by the Holy Ghost…virgin born. Without this virgin born birth, his blood on the cross would not have been able to purchase our salvation as our perfect substitute. Only a spotless lamb that didn’t have to die for his own sin could. (His righteousness is imputed to the believer, while our sin was taken upon his body on the cross) If he had a human father, he would have inherited Adam’s sin nature like all the rest of us and been under the condemnation of sin also. But he was… “God was manifest in the flesh” as I Tim 3:16 declares (and as the corrupted versions change) …and his blood was God’s blood (Acts 20:28) (as the corrupter versions have changed as well) that purged our sin through the “blood of the everlasting covenant” Hebrews 13:20 and by which we draw nigh to God (Hebrews 7:19 & 27), and by which we have full assurance (Hebrews 10:22)
Eternal salvation has been made a free gift through simple faith in our Lord Jesus Christ by the gospel of the grace of God, but don’t forget that the gospel is “according to the scriptures” (I Cor 15:3 & 4).
Thank God he has given us the gospel forever preserve pure through the holy scriptures…down to the “one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18) let alone the words.
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:18pm“My bad, I menat to say that the KJV is a bastardization of the Catholic Bible, but my point still stands, mostly Prostestants are debating the actions of Catholics reinterrpeting the Catholic version of the bible on a Mormon “nes” cite.
This is fun watching the holier than thou argue over whose “word of God” is correct.”
Yeah, the “Catholic” Bible is the Vulgate. The Vulgate was based on the Greek Septuagint though it is not just a direct copy.
The KJV of 1611 was actually written by 47 men working in 6 separate committees. They based their work on the revised Bishop’s Bible from 1572, which was translated mostly from the original languages with only the Apocrypha taken directly from the Great Bible which was translated from the Vulgate. While the KJV was based on the Bishop’s Bible, the editors also took into account the Tyndale, the Coverdale, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible (The “pilgrim’s Bible” that was brought to America on the Mayflower), Taverner’s Bible, and the Douay-Rheims Bible.
So to say that the KJV is a “bastardization” of the Vulgate is…I don’t know…bizarre…
But I actually DO agree with you on something! It is silly debating on which Bible is the best. Especially because the differences between any of them are so slight it does not change any doctrine at all. Except, of course, the Protestant Bibles leaving out the Apocrypha. There are good reasons for this though, the only reason they were included was because they were included in the Septuagint. The Hebrew OT does not contain these books. :-)
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:19pmChfields, you reflect a common misunderstanding of both oral culture and the transmission of sacred texts. Scribes were schooled in copying exactly what was in the original. This is why the discrepancies between various copies of a given text ar so small. The dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the book of Isaiah used in Qumran two millenia ago is virtually the same as in our modern texts.
Report Post »SLEUTH
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:37pmTROLLTRAINER i think you should explain to ENCINOM the meaning of Holy.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:05pmSleuth,
It would just be a waste of time…
Report Post »foobear
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:32pmPhil E Stine – The KJV has numerous errors… about what you’d expect for a first major translation. Fundies have this bizarre belief that either the KJV is the original version of the Bible, or that it’s somehow the only one without flaws, which is utterly without merit. Any serious scholar of the Bible knows about the flaws fo the KJV.
I think fundies are just more comfortable with the “thees and ”thous” of the KJV, because it sounds more religious-y, but there’s no excuse to not at least be using the revised version of the KJV / the ASV.
And if you think I’m denigrating fundies, I am. It is for exactly these reasons – they pretend to be biblical scholars, but really just believe in things without any basis or merit. The ones that refuse to drink alcohol, in particular, drive me crazy – they believe in things completely opposite the facts in the Bible (Jesus turned water into wine) and still try to claim other people are in doctrinal error.
As far as the article goes, the issue of using “virgin” vs. “maiden” is actually a very old debate, and hardly one representative of our modern times.
Report Post »4q2obama
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:01pm@happy
Report Post »In Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to an event which is only recorded in the Second book of machabees chapter 7.which tells the story of the mother and her 7 sons.This mother and her sons refused deliverance from torture so that they might receive resurrection with just. So,in Hebrews 11:35,st.Paul is making reference to the Second book of Machabees.
Hebrews 11:35 “women received their dead raised to life again:and others were tortured,not accepting deliverance;that they might obtain a better resurrection…”
p.s. I have more.
trolltrainer
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 8:05am“In Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to an event which is only recorded in the Second book of machabees chapter 7.which tells the story of the mother and her 7 sons.This mother and her sons refused deliverance from torture so that they might receive resurrection with just. So,in Hebrews 11:35,st.Paul is making reference to the Second book of Machabees.
Hebrews 11:35 “women received their dead raised to life again:and others were tortured,not accepting deliverance;that they might obtain a better resurrection…””
1 Kings 17:19-24 and 2 Kings 4:18-37.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 9:53am@encinom @trolltrainer
Fact is, *both* of you are right, *both* of you are wrong.
While every jot and tittle isn’t exact due to being different translations, the spirit of both versions is exactly the same, and the researchers that write new versions of the texts *always* checks themselves against the vulgate to make sure they’re in accordance with the original manuscripts.
If anything, I’d like to see an explaination as to:
-Why the Catholics dropped idol worship from the Cathecism but not from the bible,
-How they defend having the exact same structure as the old Roman religion (as if all they changed was who they worship, not how they worshipped),
-Why they pray to a myriad of parton saints (almost like ancient Roman religion and their myriad of demigods) instead of God Himself when the bible is clear that one shouldn’t pray to the dead,
-or maybe I could get an explaination on the odd coincidental similarities of nuns vs. Vestal virgins.
Then again, that’s just me.
BTW, I use the NIV, which is essentially common parliance.
Though trolltrainer, I’m with you on the Mormon thing. That’s an extrabiblical cult that puts a book some dude wrote above the actual Word of God.
Report Post »RAS
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:15pmI wasn’t aware an updated translation was being done, but from the article, it would appear that the intent was to make it more easily understandable to modern English speakers. That makes good sense to me because Middle English, the language of the King James translation in the early 17th century, isn’t what I speak.
About that, the King James version was translated at the behest of the Puritans because they didn‘t like the earlier translations and it’s not any more holy than one translated into modern English or any other language. As pretty and ecclesiastical as Middle English might sound, the original gospels didn’t have a “thee” and thou” anywhere in them.
Again, it‘s a translation that’s intended to be more easily understood by modern English-speaking people. That’s all it amounts to.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:49pmThat’s all we need–a little more controversy!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:03pmDid they include themselves in Revelations?
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:04pmNow PC run amok comes to the good book; why not just state what it says, and leave enough alone as it is.
GENZERO
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:08pmBlasphemy!!! Why don’t we remove GOD and insert Allah!
So much for the “Good Book” another one bites the dust!
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:09pmI’m appalled. Of COURSE the word BEREFT OF CONTEXT can mean both “maiden” and “virgin”, but IN CONTEXT it’s CLEARLY virgin. Otherwise there’s nothing remarkable about the prophecy.
Even scholars can be idiots.
leftiesaredangerous
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:11pmNo problem here with the booty change. That’s accurate. However, changing ‘virgin’ to ‘young woman’ is a gross misinterpretation.
Once again, a major foul up by the Catholic church.
http://www.myspace.com/194028640/blog/529816663 (Catholics Drive Me Crazy)
Christian4ever
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:20pmJust like the catholics say the pope is the extension of Jesus, uh no ah ah. Matthew 23:9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven”. Just read your bible (not the catholic one) and you will be fine. You don’t need any religious denomination.
trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:38pmChristian4ever,
About your comment about not needing a denomination…Yes, you are very right. I am a Christian by faith and a baptist by chance. I could belong to any Bible believing denomination. Being of any denomination does not save you or make you right.
However…There is much to be said about fellowship and worshiping with other believers and being a part of a local church, even though every one of us is a member of the Church. I have personally gone through times between churches where I studied the Bible on my own. I am also doing online schooling at what is probably the leading baptist college in the US. But I fully encourage every Christian to find a church where they are comfortable and find some ministries within that church. There is no substitute for serving God and others within a church.
riaf-decnalab
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:44pmThe Catholic Church compiled the Bible, the Bishops decided what Books, Gospels, and Letters would be included in the cannon at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The translation of the Bible wasn’t finished until 382-405 AD. this was mainly do to disagreements between the Bishops. Before the Vulgate Bible there were the codex manuscripts but these manuscripts were not the universal Bible of the Church
leftiesaredangerous
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:46pm@TROLLTRAINER
Amen.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:58pmMary asked “How can this be, since I have not “known” a man”?
Report Post »The Bible also says that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after the birth of Jesus.
If you want to believe Mary was not a virgin… go ahead. But realize that if you believe that .. you are still lost and not forgiven. Because God would only accept a perfect sinless sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Jesus, because of His immaculate birth and sinless life fulfilled God’s requirements. I believe that… you don’t have to. It’s your eternity.
trolltrainer
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:07pmRiaf,
That is actually not correct. The council of nicea finalized the Bible canon but the books and epistles in it were used and accepted from the beginning. John completed the canon with Revelation around A D 90. There were other manuscripts in use and some of the books in our Bible were fought over, but in the end if you are a believer then you have no problem knowing that the Holy Spirit ensured that we have the Bible He wanted us to have. I have read all the “books” that were left out, they are all available online, and they are definitely not in the same class as what is in the Bible. I also have studied the Bible enough to know that it is beyond any doubt that it is God inspired. There is no way the human mind could have created it. If you do not believe that it is to your peril, but it does not effect me.
GODSAMERICA
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:14pmLet them try what they want, all they have done is fulfilling Revelations 22:18 -
Report Post »“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
However they want to change the words of God they will either add to or take away from His Word and this scripture covers that. They are calling down God’s Curse upon themselves!
godlovinmom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:15pmCatholicism has always been a perversion of Christ’s teaching…so whats the difference if they add or take away…its all the same..sorry if I’ve spoken out of turn..but the truth is the truth…no where in the bible does Christ ask you to be a celebate man or woman…thats babel for ya…no where in Christ’s teaching does it tell you to pray to Mary…only one mediator between you and God…Christ Jesus..no where in Christ’s teaching does it say to baptize your child…the list goes on…so does this really matter to anyone who knows the truth?
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:25pmTrolltrainer,
Report Post »Thanks for the corrective, bro. It’s good to get the facts right.
Can I give you one also? There is good evidence that the Gospel of John was written AFTER his Revelation.
Hoosier Daddy
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:44pmThis Catholic uses the King James Bible. Catholic bishops have mostly degenerated into squabbling, cowardly, egotistical bureaucrats. They may run the church, but to me they do not represent the church.
Dale
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:48pmGODSAMERICA;
The term ‘this scroll’ relates to what is now called Revelations. It does not relate to the Bible. I agree, that these changes are wrong (politically correct), we need to base arguments on what biblical passages mean.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:55pm@godlovinmom and@gonesurfing. You guys get it. Neither add nor subtract, to do so is blasphemy. The Only sin one cannot recover from.
encinom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:00pmGONESURFING
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:39pm
Good points all, especially GODLOVINMOM. The last comments in the book of Revelation about changing the words or text should be taken seriously. I’ll stay with my King James version, thank you.
————————————————————————————————————————-
You doi realize that the King’s James Version is an edited version of the Latin Bible used by the Catholic Church. The KJV is already a violation of revelations. Then again. the Latin bible is a translation of the original writings from their original languages to latin.
godlovinmom
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:42pmencino…you do realize that the catholic church has always perverted God’s word…
KJV….Collossians 1:14…….we have redemption through his blood
Roman Catholic………………in whom we have redemption
KJV….1Timothy 3:16……….”great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh
Roman Catholic……………..he was manifest in the flesh
Just to name a couple perversions….
Throughout time…roman catholics have always taken away from the true teachings of Christ..even in “their” original language…
4q2obama
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:48pmThe Catholic bible is the True Bible.
As a case in point,after separating from the Catholic Church,Martin Luther and his fellow Protestants removed 7 complete books from the Bible.As a result,Protest bibles(to this day) have 66 books,while Catholic bibles have 73.They removed Tobias,Judith,Wisdom,Ecclesiasticus(sirach),Baruch,first and second Machabees,as well as parts of Esther and Daniel.
TOPOFTHEGAME
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:55pmYES:::: They are the Church of Thyatira http://.midnightcry.net/seven_letters.htm
El Paco
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:03pmControversy solved: Just use King James version. Most-trusted translation of the bible since it’s been the “Least screwed with”. (quote is mine)
12 gauge
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:52pmKJV Forever!
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:01pm4Q
Luther kept the books, but moved them to a new section of apocryphal writings in agreement with the prevailing Catholic thought of the day.
Catholics since Jerome have questioned the canonicity of some of the Old Testament.
Your strong opinions don’t guarantee you a monopoly on truth, when they prove to be uninformed.
missionarydad
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:37pmI am not Catholic so I am going to leave them alone on this. It is up to them how their Bible reads, I would hope they are getting the most accurate meanings out of the reading of their official translation but ultimately that is between Catholics and God not for me to judge. The only thing I have a right to judge about this is it the translation I choose for myself and my family or no.
4q2obama
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:47pm@happy
The 7 books which the Protestants removed are found in the Septuagint,the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament about 350 times and 300 of those quotes are from the Septuagint version.That means that the authors of the New Testament accepted the Septuagint version of the Old Testament,and thus the 7 books which the Protestants rejected.
hfrzz002
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:55pmHighly dissapointed,there are enough idiots saying Mary was not a virgin,now The Church changes nearly 2000 years of the word virgin; for what? some left leaning catholics;liberal jerks that they are?. Not as bad as removing Amen from the ending of the Our Father,but nearly as ridiculous!!!!
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:15pm@ 4Q
Out of your 350 citations in the New Testament, exactly 2 don’t show up anywhere in the “Protestant” Old Testament (Was I unclear, that Luther kept them THERE, just placed them differently?).
Guess what. Those lucky two are not in the Apocrypha either.
Hence your point about the Septuagint is moot. (I mean besides being moot anyway for side-stepping the question of the fact that Catholics themselves have considered the books in question questionable for inclusion in the canon–it’s irrelevant what the NT authors believed, because your own point was about what Catholics vs. Lutherans believed. I’m neither, btw.)
The NT authors had access to scriptures we have lost access to. Doesn’t bolster your point, bro, but it does mine.
jbl8199
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:25pmRevelation chapter 22 verses 18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life. and out of the holy cithy, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)
El Paco
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:48pm@JBL – That arguement, while seemingly good, falls flat on it’s face when you realize that the scripture is written by John talking about the book of Revelations exclusively. The (relatively) same scripture appears in Deuteronomy 12:32 which reads, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” So thinking in that same logic, the entire rest of the bible from Deuteronomy 12:32 on should not have been written.
Not saying that people screwing with the bible to satisfy “current trends” is a good thing, just something to keep in mind.
Now only if there was a way to have something else to compare the bible to… ya know, another testament of Jesus Christ, to see what is the true gospel….. http://www.mormon.org
proliance
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:36pmAt christian4ever: There is only one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Therefore it is not a denomination. The make-your-own-church of the day protestants would be correctly referred to as denominations.
Report Post »Robert W
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:58pmBooo. Mary was ever virgin, the bible should say so. “Hail, full of grace”….
Report Post »proliance
Posted on March 2, 2011 at 9:07pm@godlivinmom: If you create your own argument then argue against it, do you really win?
The Church does not claim the Bible says anyone should be celibate. So what is your point? It is a discipline within the Western Church, not a doctrine. Eastern rite Catholic priests can marry and the Roman Catholic Church accepts married priests from the Anglican/Episcopalian church.
Yes, faithful Christians do pray to Mary. We show her the proper respect due to the Mother of Jesus and we ask her to also pray for us, as well as our family and friends in need. She is not “just a vessel” as most protestants call her.
As for baptism, it was used to replace circumcision, which was mainly done on infants. Nowhere in the Bible does it say baptism is limited to adults. In Acts 16:15 Lydia was baptized, with all her household. That would include children. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul says the he baptized the household of Stephanas.
If you have any other backwards impressions of the Catholic Church, I would direct you study your Bible and Church history. Because somebody‘s been giving you wrong information and you’re eating it up.
edwinmcarter
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:17amstick with KJV or the original greek/hebrew for study….takes a lot of the confusion out…
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 1:30amDid they include themselves in Revelations?
Check to see if filed under “False religions”
godlovinmom
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 1:54amProliance…raised in the catholic church…so I do know…found out the truth for myself…so no one feeding me anything…and I really don’t direspect catholics..my grandmother happened to be a devote catholic and I know she loved Jesus…as far as celebacy of priest and nuns…actually got started from babel or earlier forms of paganism…like alot of things, the catholic church adopted this practice…as far as infant baptism…what I know of baptism…this is a testimony of someone dedicating themselves to Christ Jesus that says they’ve been born again……how can a child do this…how can his parents do this for them…as far as Mary worship…believe me…Mary must of been very special person indeed to be chosen to be the mother of God, but she needed a Saviour just like the rest of us……RELIGION is a man made thing..so there will be faults in all of them…some more than others…(Islam comes to mind) I find them all pretty interesting…
cnsrvtvj
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 8:04amI’ll leave this up to the Bishops to decide, it’s above my paygrade.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – conservative news and political humor
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 8:22amto anonymous t. irrevelant:
Appropriate moniker!
Obviously the Catholic Church, albeit less than perfect since it is made of of “normal people,” sinner, is NOT the “one world religion” put forward in the book of Revelation. The Church and the Bible are falling OUT of favor with the masses at large.
But, Islamic society is positioning themselves to out-birth the rest of the world, take over the law of nations (forcing them to accept Shiria law), and controlling any and all peoples they can through subversion or “democracy” or outright overthrow when possible.
Now, let’s deduce together, which will be the “one-world religion” in all probabilities. . . ?
Report Post »riaf-decnalab
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 8:30am4Q2OBAMA
Amen. The seven books were left out because they didn’t fit the agenda of the Protestants of the time. Maccabees is a good case in point. Hopefully, GODLOVINMOM is reading this.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 9:39am@ Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Yes, the Catholic Church is included in Revelations.
Specifically in Rev 2 & 3 when talking about the following churches:
Ephesus- they don’t have the love for Christ that they once had. They follow the practice of the Nicolaitans. The greek root-word for Nicolas roughly translates to “one who conquors the people.” The historical figure referred to here (Nicolas) set himself above the congregation by claiming he knew more about the bible and religion than everyone else. Sounds a little like the priests, huh?
Pergamum- they follow the teachings of Balaam, a minor figure in the old estament who led people astray from God by corrupting Balaal, a priest.
Sardis- they have a reputation for being alive, but they are dead. Think about church attendance any Sunday in August vs. Easter Sunday and Christmas.
And Laodicea- They are neither cold to God or hot. Rev 3:17- “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” That describes the Church itself.
It’s also important to understand that while Christ brings charges against the Churches, He repeatedly goes back and lists traits and strengths of individuals, and says repeatedly “anyone who has ears,” meaning that even in cold and corrupted churches, the *people* are faithful and worthy.
The way I read Rev 2 & 3, it’s an indictment of church ages, as well as all chuches within this age (Laodicea). Note I’ve not said anything about *all* Catholics. Just the church, which I believe has corrupted the Faith in many ways since becoming the official State religion of Rome. See also: What was the original Pontiff (see also: Pontifex Maximus) in history?, compare Vestal virgins and nuns, compare the worship of and prayer to a myriad of demigods to the prayer to a myriad of patron saints, the structure of the high preist caste of ancient Rome to the structure of the Catholic church.
There are easily 15 more examples I could cite, but I think I’ve made my point. Individual Catholics- some are Christian, some are dead in their faith and practicing more out of habit than out of love for Christ. The Church- Some good, but mostly corrupt and corrupted.
Report Post »RAS
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:08pmThe second I saw this article, I knew it was going bring the Catholic bashers out of the woodwork. I certainly wasn’t disappointed.
What I want to know is what’s wrong with you folks? You call yourselves Christians, but in the next breath you blaspheme Catholics. Hate is not compatible with Christianity, nor is self-righteous vanity. Maybe those of you who see fit to behave contemptiously toward your fellow Christians should consider examining your consciences, perhaps starting with asking yourself the old bumper sticker question, “What would Jesus do?”
That said, nobody is forcing anybody to become a member of any religious faith, except maybe the Muslims. If you want to be Christian and not Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist, or whatever else you choose not to be, then fine, you don’t have to be, but do your thing and let everybody else do theirs. Please, allow the rest of us to enjoy our freedom of religion in peace and leave us alone. Besides that, it’s just good manners.
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:15pm@godlovinmom, you may have been raised Catholic, but you learned nothing.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 3, 2011 at 2:47pmJV…and thank God for that…if my “ignorance” keeps me from joining any religion that is not biblically sound…no matter how old it is…..thank God for that too!
Report Post »