Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trailer to Mel Gibson's THE PASSION! (GRAPHIC)
Ain't it cool news ^ | 7/12/03

Posted on 07/12/2003 2:47:09 AM PDT by Brian Mosely

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last
To: BibChr
Hold thine horses!

Depends on which Bible you're reading. Dhouay Rheims edition, which was originally published in 1609, says the following:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Of course we will be hearing about "idolatry" of Mary and good stuff like that, but the fact is, either translation is correct. The Latin vulgate seems to be referring to the "seed", but the vaguery does not eliminate "the woman" being the party that crushes the head of serpent. Mary, as co-redemptrix (look out Hell, here I come!) co-operated in "crushing the head of the serpent" by using her free will to conceive Christ.

51 posted on 07/15/2003 9:03:10 AM PDT by Dirk McQuickly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dirk McQuickly
Not true.

Translations are irrelevant when the original text is unambiguous and unproblematic. I'm not citing a translation, I'm citing the original.

No ambiguity in the Hebrew. See above.

Dan
52 posted on 07/15/2003 9:15:01 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
Try going to this web site:

The Passion.

It features a down-sized trailer that doesn't take up 22 Mb of web space. Lots of other interesting tidbits there about the movie too.

53 posted on 07/15/2003 9:21:51 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
I will beat the rest of you to purchase the DVD!
54 posted on 07/15/2003 9:23:58 AM PDT by el_chupacabra (AMDG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
Thanks so much for the post- I can't wait to see the movie. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to view the trailer on this old dinosaur of a computer... without an act of God, that is ;)
55 posted on 07/15/2003 10:39:10 AM PDT by Ferret Fawcet (Trust God's authority, not man's majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ferret Fawcet
The trailer is amazing, this movie is going to be huge despite efforts to bury it
56 posted on 07/18/2003 10:37:08 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
bttt
57 posted on 07/18/2003 11:09:29 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
St. Jerome knew Hebrew very well, maybe even a little better than yourself ;-), as well as being fluent in Latin, Greek, and Chaldaic. His Vulgate is the most accurate translation of Sacred Scripture and was used exclusively until the 1500's.
There is an explanation, though, that makes perfect sense to me and that comes from the bull Inefabilis Deus, written by Bl. Pius the IX, which reads, "Hence just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin united to Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."
So it is "she" and "He" that crushes the head of the serpent, for all things are done through Christ our Lord.

In Charity,
Rita
58 posted on 07/20/2003 2:30:13 AM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl; BibChr

Well, Jerome may or may not have been a better Hebrew scholar than Dan (in fact, Jerome was simply one of the relatively-few Major Fathers at the time who knew much Hebrew at all, which does not prove he was a "Hebrew linguistic savant"...

...Except that you're not even quoting Jerome, are you now, lass; you're quoting that deplorable cheesecloth, the "Douay-Rheims Bible".

From a Roman Catholic (and therefore right and good, natch) Apologetics website:

The Latin word for “He” is ipse (not ipsa, "she") and is translated as such in the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome (405 A.D.), as well as every ancient translation of Scripture we have.

Ahh, the ever-bumbling Douay-Rheims, quite possibly the single most incompetent "translation" of the Bible ever penned by the hand of man -- it's not faithful to the Hebrew, it's not faithful to the Greek, it's not even bloody well faithful to JEROME, fer cryin' out loud.


By the way, Dan, when you say "The masculine pronoun is added, though not needed" -- not to nitpick, but actually the addition of the Masculine Pronoun here (in addition to the singular voice of the verb and suffix) may well be God's predestinarian way of providentially countermanding the anti-messianic Jewish reading. Notice how the Jewish Publication Society re-words the Verse:

Thus turning this from a Messianic prophecy, into a pro-Judaism prophecy. But in addition to the singular voices of the verb and suffix which you point out, I would argue that with the Masculine Pronoun "HE" included, God is making it all the more emphatically a prophecy of Jesus in particular and all the more adamant that our otherwise-admirable Jewish friends are not Biblically permitted to re-word the verse as they have.

My knowledge of Hebrew being somewhere between "microscopic" and "infinitesimal", It'll probably be thirty more years before I have any opportunity to teach you anything on the matter -- so I thought I'd throw that little morsel-for-thought at you when I had the chance. ;-)

Best, OP

59 posted on 07/20/2003 3:24:01 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; gypsigirl
Thanks for the information; good, as usual!

I never doubt the hand of God's infinite wisdom in the wording of God-breathed Scripture, and it is remarkable how some texts seem to anticipate errors not invented for centuries, or even millennia, after their publication.

What I was saying is this: Hebrew verbs, unlike English but like every other language I know anything about, have built-in number-reference, and even gender-reference. By that I mean this: in English, "strike" says very little until I add pronoun and helping-verbs, such as "he will, she will, they used to, it may," etc. Not so in Hebrew (or Greek, or Latin, or Spanish, etc.). The verb itself MEANS "he-will-strike." No need to add a separate pronoun. If a separate pronoun IS added, the result is emphatic in some way.

In this text, a separate pronoun IS added. "He [pronoun] he-will-strike-you [verb]."

And ma'am, I don't dispute that Jerome knew things I don't. But I would suggest that an additional seventeen HUNDRED years of Hebrew studies has added some to the corpus of Hebrew knowledge.

And in this case, all the ballast from the "bull" (ironic name) is just that. NONE of it arises either from that text, nor from any other. It is no more legitimate to join Mary to the singular masculine verb than it is to join ay other of Jesus' ancestors according to the flesh: David, Solomon, Rahab, Bathsheba....

It's just another case where a Christian rejoices to be bound in conscience to God's Word alone, while RC's feel themselves shackled to the accumulated errors of the centuries.

Dan
60 posted on 07/20/2003 7:47:43 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
I never doubt the hand of God's infinite wisdom in the wording of God-breathed Scripture, and it is remarkable how some texts seem to anticipate errors not invented for centuries, or even millennia, after their publication.... If a separate pronoun IS added, the result is emphatic in some way. In this text, a separate pronoun IS added. "He [pronoun] he-will-strike-you [verb]."

Yeah, I came across the Jewish Publication Society translation as I was mulling over your post and I immediately thought "hey, there's a double-whammy in the verse"... for the JPS "they will strike" translation to be legitimate, you not only hafta interpret the singular verb in the plural -- but throw out the individual Masculine pronoun altogether.

And ma'am, I don't dispute that Jerome knew things I don't. But I would suggest that an additional seventeen HUNDRED years of Hebrew studies has added some to the corpus of Hebrew knowledge.

I still say that she isn't even quoting Jerome, who rendered the Text "HE will strike" in the Latin, not "she" ("ipse", not "ipsa"). The Douay-Rheims frankly bollixed the Jerome translation.

Unless, I guess, Rome says that the Douay-Rheims didn't mis-translate Jerome, in which case -- hear no "ipse", see no "ipse", speak no "ipse". And ignore the seeming electric-pencilsharpener sound; that's just Jerome spinning several hundred RPM. ;-)

61 posted on 07/20/2003 10:09:45 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
Powerful stuff - thank you.
62 posted on 07/20/2003 10:20:58 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well sure, you've seen it before, countless times:

Who are you going to believe? Rome, or your lying eyes?

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

63 posted on 07/20/2003 7:34:35 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
I confess that I am not a scholar by any means, but do we not have to look at the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin before we can understand what God has written through men? The Hebrew is nueter/ masculine depending on whom you wish to believe. The Greek is masculine. The Latin is feminine. Is it possible that God had a trifold meaning in this verse? In the Hebrew, "they" meaning the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. In Greek "he" meaning our Lord Jesus Christ. In Latin "she" meaning our Blessed Mother, for from her womb came the Incarnation. Perhaps Mel was vague on purpose, for all these things are taught by the Church.
I believe there are many places in Holy Scripture where our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary are prefigured in this very way. For instance Jonah (Jesus) in the whale (tomb) for three days. The Ark of the Covenant (our Blessed Mother) containing the Holy of Holies (our Lord's body). Judith (our Lady) beheading Holofernes (satan). Hannah (our Lady) crushing the head of the evil King(satan). In both of the last two examples the women have been given this special power by God, they are His instruments of righteousness, as is our Lady.
As for the disdain for the D-R Bible, I guess this isn't the right place for a "which Bible is best" discussion. It will suffice to say that Sacred Scripture didn't just drop down from Heaven wrapped in velvet and I submit myself to Christ's Church as to the canon of Scripture (all 72 books). For when one denies the authority of the Church one denies the Bible itself which came from that God-given authority.
Again, I write this in all charity and I very much respect your knowlege. I thank you for discussing these matters because through them I feel God brings us to a deeper understanding of our faith.

Yours in Christ,
Rita
64 posted on 07/31/2003 5:26:59 AM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I *was* quoting the Vulgate, it says "ipsa",feminine, "she". The D-R translates it just as it is written in every copy of the Vulgate I have seen. Isn't it true that the original Vulgate is no longer available and we have to rely on copies? If not, where can we read the original? Also for a Christian (which I am assuming you are) to call any version of Holy Writ "deplorable cheesecloth" is a bit profane, dontcha think?


Yours in Christ,
Rita
65 posted on 07/31/2003 6:36:42 AM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl; BibChr
I *was* quoting the Vulgate, it says "ipsa", feminine, "she".

No, you weren't quoting the Jerome Vulgate. If you were quoting the Jerome Vulgate, you would have quoted Genesis 3:15 as "he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel", seeing as that is how Jerome (correctly) translated the Hebrew.

You were quoting the RCC's "close-enough-for-government-work" haberdashery, the Douay-Rheims dishrag. You know it, and I know it.

The D-R translates it just as it is written in every copy of the Vulgate I have seen. Isn't it true that the original Vulgate is no longer available and we have to rely on copies? If not, where can we read the original?

Well, you're playing "Catch-22" here. I assume that you know that the best extant manuscript of the Vulgate is the Codex Amiatinus, which dates from the Eighth Century.

But I believe that you attempted an "Appeal to Authority" argument against BibChr; to which I can only say, "Turn-About is fair play":

I'm willing to lay odds that these devout Roman Catholic apologists have spent years (in fact, decades) more time poring over Old Latin and Vulgate Fragment manuscripts, than you have. Gee.... Would that be a fair guess, on my part?

Also for a Christian (which I am assuming you are) to call any version of Holy Writ "deplorable cheesecloth" is a bit profane, dontcha think? Yours in Christ, Rita

No, I don't think it is the least bit "profane", to criticize a PERVERSION of the Holy Writ which is, itself, a profanity against the Original Scripture. I feel no compunction whatsoever in criticizing the Protestant "Living Bible" as a "deplorable cheesecloth"; No matter how "well-meaning", how arrogant does a Man have to be to take it upon himself to "paraphrase" the Holy Writ, and label his concoction a "BIBLE"??

In like manner, I criticize the Douay-Rheims. It has been said (with very little exaggeration) "all Heresy begins with Christology"; and when the Douay-Rheims commits a TITANIC Christological Error within the first three chapters of the Bible, that ain't exactly a Good Sign.

But of course, the Douay-Rheims isn't a Perversion of Holy Writ, now, is it? Because Mother Rome says it isn't. Thus we read in the Original Preface of the Douay-Rheims itself:


In other words... "Don't bother me with the Bible which the Apostles wrote; I've got the Roman-approved Douay-Rheims."

66 posted on 07/31/2003 9:40:40 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
You seem to be a little bitter against those of other faiths, or is it only one in particular? I, in fact, was quoting the Vulgate which I read online in several places, the most recent being here:
http://duras.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/getobject_?c.0:1:3./projects/artfl3/databases/BIBLES/VULGATE/IMAGE/
I'm sorry that you feel I am being deceptive, is it because of the Catholic bigotry with which you have prejudged me?

I started this discussion with an open mind and a charitable heart. I am always willing to hear new points of view and to learn from others, especially in areas where I am admittedly inexpert.

I will not comment on the foolishness of the argument that because a self proclaimed Catholic apologist says something, I must therefore agree or be denounced as a hypocrite. If biblical translation were a simple matter without controversy there wouldn't be so many versions and ten times as many opinions of them.

If you are capable of a civil answer, I would like to know which version of Holy Scripture you lend your authority to, for you seem to have no trouble denouncing Holy Writ and I wonder if any meet your standards.

Christologically yours,
Rita
67 posted on 08/01/2003 12:54:49 AM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl; BibChr
You seem to be a little bitter against those of other faiths, or is it only one in particular? I, in fact, was quoting the Vulgate which I read online in several places, the most recent being here: http://duras.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/getobject_?c.0:1:3./projects/artfl3/databases/BIBLES/VULGATE/IMAGE/ I'm sorry that you feel I am being deceptive, is it because of the Catholic bigotry with which you have prejudged me?

You say that I "seem" to be a little "bitter"
You say that I have "prejudged" you with "bigotry"?
How very Bulveristic of you, CS Lewis might observe.

"Bulverism", of course, is the Marxist tactic of attempting to discredit one's opponent by calling his personal psychology into disrepute. You'll please note that I haven't done this to you.

And in all this, I have not greatly exceeded the criticisms of one of Rome's most prominent Apologists today: Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims: By James Akin, ©2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.

These are Intellectual disputes. They're not Personal -- at least I did not make them so. I haven't called you "bitter". I haven't called you "prejudicial". I haven't called you a "bigot". You did. You CHOSE to apply these slanders to me, despite the fact that I haven't called you anything of the sort.

"Greater Love hath no Man than this"....?

The employment of Bulverism is the mark of both a weak Debater, and a weak Christian. It is the mark of a weak Debater, because it means you must substitute ad hominem for Argument; and it is the Mark of a weak Christian, for it demonstrates a willingness to substitute Slander in the place of Love.

Bitterness. Prejudice. Bigotry. I accused you of none of these things; You saw fit to accuse me. How do you define, "prejudice"? How do you define, "bigotry"?

If you decide to be defensive about this, you'll react as if I had attacked you. But the facts are the facts -- on a Personal Basis, I haven't personally attacked you yet.

If you are capable of a civil answer,

As am I -- but before we proceed, allow me to ask: Who accused who of "bigotry"? Who's the "bigot" now?

Think about it. Or not. Makes no never-mind to me.

Answer me that, and then maybe we'll continue.

Best, OP

68 posted on 08/01/2003 1:31:30 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Let's recap your comments to me:

"you're not even quoting Jerome, are you now, lass;"
"you're playing "Catch-22""
"you attempted an "Appeal to Authority" argument"
"You were quoting the RCC's "close-enough-for-government-work" haberdashery, the Douay-Rheims dishrag. You know it, and I know it."
"In other words... "Don't bother me with the Bible which the Apostles wrote; I've got the Roman-approved Douay-Rheims."

These are just a few of the accusations, I left out innuendo. After reading your posts I detected rancor and thought I would clarify the matter...

"I'm sorry that you feel I am being deceptive, is it because of the Catholic bigotry with which you have prejudged me?"
"You seem to be a little bitter against those of other faiths, or is it only one in particular?"

These are questions and observations not "Marxist" accusations.
Of course the last question I asked, and which has everything to do with the point of the discussion, you have not answered. Which Bible is acceptable to you and do you believe then that every Christian should use that Bible only?

I am sorry if you took what I wrote as Bulveristic, I'm sure in real life you are a scholar and a gentleman.

Charitably yours,
Rita
69 posted on 08/02/2003 3:15:40 PM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Do you believe that there is only one way to interpret Scripture passages, and if so how do we decide how they are to be interpreted, be it allegorically or literally, didactic or historically?
The Bible is as complex as we would expect a compilation of so many writers all being inspired by God Almighty Whose wisdom we can barely fathom. There are many examples in the Bible of verses and even whole chapters and books (Revelation leaps to mind) which can be confusing and could plausibly be open to interpretation.
I believe the difference in our approach to Scripture is in our belief in it being the Inspired Word of God and what exactly that means to us. In other words, WHY do you think that what is written in the Bible is true and inerrant? And to whom (if anyone) do you look to for interpretation of difficult passages? If the answer is yourself, than logically anyone's interpretation is equally as valid is it not?

In Christ,
Rita

70 posted on 08/02/2003 3:58:13 PM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl
Thanks for the thoughts, Rita.

To approach it differently, I think the root lies in two fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to truth. I use the analogy of the game of "telephone." The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) assures its adherents that the message indeed changes in the process of transmission, but it changes for the better: richer, fuller, deeper, more wonderful. The Bible itself, by contrast, commands God's children to keep going straight to the original message itself (cf. Matthew 15:1ff., etc.) as the only touchstone of spiritual truth (2 Timothy 3:15-17). So the Christian, while listening to the re-transmissions of past generations, always judges them by the original message, to which he has daily access.

So here it isn't a matter of overly arcane scholarship, and I make no effort to browbeat you. The Hebrew text IS the Word of God; it is the language in which God spoke His Word. Everything else is a translation, and therefore secondary at best. And there is NO ambiguity in the Hebrew text; in fact, as I've shown you, it is emphatically NOT what far-later theorizers have tried to import (Mary, rather than the Seed of the Woman).

So it really is rooted the irreconcilable difference between two vastly different religions: that coming from Rome, saying "Trust us, we alone have the right to tell you what to believe," and that based on Scripture, the living and abiding Word of God (Hebrews 4:12, etc.).

Dan
71 posted on 08/04/2003 6:56:54 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl
No, in all friendliness, I think that IS NOT the issue in this specific case. I cite the original Hebrew text, in this case mercifully ambiguous; you bring in considerations which DO NOT ARISE (lazy emphasis, not shouting) from the text itself, but which only matter to you because the RCC says they should.

As to your question, however, if you're interested in a Biblical study I wrote about, well, Biblical study, here you are: Help for Bible Students, and The Science of Bible Reading.

Dan

72 posted on 08/04/2003 7:43:48 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl; BibChr
Let's recap your comments to me: "you're not even quoting Jerome, are you now, lass;" "you're playing "Catch-22"" "you attempted an "Appeal to Authority" argument" "You were quoting the RCC's "close-enough-for-government-work" haberdashery, the Douay-Rheims dishrag. You know it, and I know it." "In other words... "Don't bother me with the Bible which the Apostles wrote; I've got the Roman-approved Douay-Rheims." These are just a few of the accusations, I left out innuendo. After reading your posts I detected rancor and thought I would clarify the matter...

Ahhh.... you "detected rancor" and thought that you would "clarify" the matter. How utterly charitable of you.

Let's see -- first you slander me as "bitter", "prejudicial", and "bigoted", and now you slander me as "rancorous"....

...despite the fact that NOT ONE of my comments has been a Personal Attack against you individually, and every single one of my comments has been within the scope of Professional Criticisms offered by the finest Roman Catholic Apologists in the world against the (nauseatingly awful) "Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic Bible".

Look, here's a Thought-Exercise for you -- Attempt to make your points without resorting to Bulveristic Ad Hominem slanders. I'm genuinely curious if you can manage it. Don't resort to calling me "bitter", "prejudicial", "bigoted", or "rancorous", et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.... attempt to make your points without Slandering the Messenger.

Show me, don't tell me.

Convince me. Impress me. THRILL me with your acumen.

As long as you persist in labelling your Theological Opponents "bitter", "prejudicial", "bigoted", or "rancorous", I remain unimpressed. Been there, done that, seen the movie. WEAK Debater. WEAK Christian.

"Let's recap"? Let's recap, indeed...

That's my Response to your "Recap". Please Note that I have been able to advance my criticisms of the Douay-Rheims "It's-not-really-a-Bible-but-SO-WHAT?" without resorting to calling you a "bigot", "prejudicial", "rancorous", or any other such Marxist deprecations of your mental state.

If you care to respond, see if you can -- for once -- do the same. If only to accomodate me -- you know, out of "charity".

best, OP

73 posted on 08/05/2003 1:49:56 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: gypsigirl; BibChr
Posted separately, by virtue of being a separate (and equally-important) discussion:

I'll "show my cards" a little by admitting that I do not think that there is a "perfect" Translation. English is not Hebrew, nor vice versa, and we are 3,000 years apart.

But before I answer, let me pose a question to you (actually two):

IOW, I'm pretty sure that this is an Ecclesiological question.

best, OP

74 posted on 08/05/2003 2:27:36 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; we have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Let me make this as simple as possible. I am have not defended the D-R Bible becuase that wasn't the point of this discussion. The point was that I quoted the Vulgate to back up my original argument and you have repeatedly accused me of lying and deception by saying I have not! I personally don't care if you like the D-R Bible or not. My faith(weak as it may be in your opinion) is not based upon this or that translation of Scripture, although I do believe some translations are lacking the true meaning, but rather the fullness of Faith as handed down by our fathers through oral and written tradition.

And can we be honest and admit that you didn't mean "lass" as a term of endearment when coupled with a blatant accusation?

Did I manage it??? LOL

Rita
75 posted on 08/05/2003 12:18:02 PM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
It seems logical to me that an eye witness of an account or the passing of oral tradition is most authentic the closer it is to the actual happening. So it seems reasonable that the early fathers of the church had a better understanding of the language, context, and traditions of the time so as to be able to translate the text more accurately than we can now. To borrow the "telephone" analogy again,the closer to the original message the better.

You do not think there is a "perfect" translation, yet we know that Scripture is TRUTH and inerrant. The Holy Ghost has promised us the accuracy of Holy Scripture but hasn't promised us that it would never be corrupted by man, right? So it stands to reason that if we have been given God's inerrant word that we would be given some authority to look to for it's translation. God in His infinite wisdom certainly knew we would not everywhere and always be able to speak, read, or understand Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. There will be illiterate and simple people who need the faith also, for I'm sure you believe as I do that God's Church is for all times and all people. Catholics look to an authority not out of weakness or distrust of the Holy Ghost, but because we know that God has always set forth His Church to guide us in these matters.

Now if you reject this "needing a definitive authority" explanation, how do we as Christians decide which Bible to read and use as a rule of Faith? I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are hundreds of versions of the Bible and they are all different, some don't even have all the canons included. It is only logical to deduce that they cannot all be correct and so how do we determine which one is God's Word inerrant?

I look forward to your reply.

In Christ,
Rita
76 posted on 08/05/2003 1:57:20 PM PDT by gypsigirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Did you see this yet?
77 posted on 08/05/2003 6:15:25 PM PDT by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
Hi Spooky. Yes, I've read about it. I'm looking forward to seeing this film.
78 posted on 08/05/2003 6:32:51 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
I'm sorry. I meant the trailer.

Click here

79 posted on 08/05/2003 6:59:10 PM PDT by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
Oh God, indeed, it is a powerful movie. Judging by the powerful few minutes that I've seen here, this movie is a work of art. It's like watching real life scenes going by in front of your eyes. Those few minutes transported me to a real past. Thanks so much.
80 posted on 08/05/2003 7:17:55 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee
Check post # 79.
81 posted on 08/05/2003 7:18:32 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
This looks an absolutely riveting film. I am really looking forward to seeing the entire thing.
82 posted on 08/05/2003 8:15:35 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I agree with you. It took me to another dimension. It's outstanding.

No wonder Hollywood and the liberals are afraid, we may get new converts out of this movie, and that ain't good

83 posted on 08/05/2003 8:28:28 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: Victoria Delsoul
No wonder Hollywood and the liberals are afraid, we may get new converts out of this movie, and that ain't good.

That's right.

Even more interesting is that we may end up getting what I call "re-converts" out of this movie -- these are people who always thought they were Christian but never really understood the basic, historical foundations of their faith.

I guess all of us have a need to be "re-converted" periodically throughout our lives.

85 posted on 08/05/2003 8:38:10 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
these are people who always thought they were Christian but never really understood the basic, historical foundations of their faith.

You just hit the nail on the head. That means Catholic Democrats who watch this movie would be voting for the GOP, and the liberals are terrified.

86 posted on 08/05/2003 8:43:44 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
I don't know how anyone could possibly take most Catholic politicians seriously after seeing this film. In fact, I'll bet national politics will be the last thing on the minds of most people leaving the theaters after seeing it.
87 posted on 08/05/2003 8:49:38 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
And I think that's what scares the liberals. Well said, AC.
88 posted on 08/05/2003 8:51:33 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Thanks!

:-)
89 posted on 08/05/2003 8:56:43 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul; kstewskis; lorrainer; kattracks; MozartLover; Jemian; Mr. Mulliner; ninenot; ...
Thank you...thank you!

First time I've seen any of it.

Just that little bit leaves me in great awe.

See post # 79 if you haven't already.

90 posted on 08/06/2003 5:49:24 AM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee
Wonderful! I'm so glad I pinged you.
91 posted on 08/06/2003 7:00:37 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Z in Oregon
Please see post 79.
92 posted on 08/07/2003 5:34:22 PM PDT by SpookBrat ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; Victoria Delsoul
Hope you don't mind me crashing your discussion.

Alberta's Child, I can only imagine how this movie will affect me. I only saw a 4 minute trailer and it has "re-converted" me. I wasn't aware I needed it. I haven't stopped thinking about my savior since I saw this. I can't get it out of my mind.

And Victoria you are so right. Liberals are terrified of people who might decide trusting in God is a whole lot better than trusting in the government for solving all problems. As long as you have government, who needs God?

93 posted on 08/07/2003 5:41:08 PM PDT by SpookBrat ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Please see post #79 for the link.
94 posted on 08/07/2003 5:42:33 PM PDT by SpookBrat ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
bump
95 posted on 08/07/2003 5:52:46 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma; Z in Oregon
I pinged you to my previous link but it isn't working tonight.

Try this one

96 posted on 08/07/2003 5:56:22 PM PDT by SpookBrat ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Bumping backatcha. I like your profile. Where is the picture of your son?

Many blessings to you this evening, especially since you are a Texan.

97 posted on 08/07/2003 5:58:21 PM PDT by SpookBrat ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
Wow. Thanks, Spookie. I'll bookmark it.
98 posted on 08/07/2003 5:58:42 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (fREE rEPUBLIC iS nOT aDDICTIVE, fREE rEPUBLIC iS nOT aDDICTIVE, fREE rEPUBLIC iS nOT aDDICTIVE, fREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
(Comments on the trailer)

Wow....wow....wow....wow...and wow.


We're definitely going to go see it. I wonder if the music in the trailer belongs to this movie? I've never heard it before, but oftentimes they'll put another movie's music in the previews because the movie score isn't ready yet. At any rate, the music goes very well with the trailer.
99 posted on 08/07/2003 6:17:08 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ozzie
In "Jesus of Nazareth" (the only movie about Jesus I like--but I still haven't seen this one yet) he only carried the crossbeam. I think it's most likely more authentic. But I think with Mel Gibson having the nails going through the hands rather than the wrists, and carrying the whole cross rather than the crossbeam, he was appealing to the popular tradition in artistic renderings of the crucifixion.
100 posted on 08/07/2003 6:21:36 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson