Trailer to Mel Gibson's THE PASSION! (GRAPHIC)

Ain't it cool news ^ | 7/12/03

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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. ;-)

[lodwick]

Powerful stuff - thank you.

[BibChr]

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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":

• The error in translation regarding IPSA and IPSE cannot be attributed to St. Jerome, who faithfully followed the Hebrew text in the original edition of the Latin Vulgate. ~~ Timothy Ouellette, Roman Catholic apologist, (http://www.ctkguild.com/onlinedebates/mariandebatewithjasonvanezia/timothyouellettefirstrebuttal.htm)

• The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman. ~~ James Akin, Roman Catholic apologist, (http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q105.htm)

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:

"It is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree."

---

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[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?

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.

• I have criticized the dubious "scholarship" underpinning the Douay-Rheims.
• I have criticized the presumptuous prefatory claims propounded by the Douay-Rheims.
• I have criticized Rome's endorsement of the Douay-Rheims.

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[BibChr]

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

[BibChr]

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

[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...

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...

• "you're not even quoting Jerome, are you now, lass;"
  This is not a "personal attack" on my part, it is a TRUE FACT. Beyond the fact that "Lass" is a Scot term of endearment (hardly an insult), you've offered absolutely no argument against the fact that the Douay-Rheims has horrifically botched both the Hebrew Scripture and the Original Jerome Translation. Against the testimony of the finest Roman Catholic Apologists in the world, you bulveristically accuse me of being "rancorous". Gee Whillikers, that's convincing.

• "you're playing "Catch-22... you attempted an "Appeal to Authority" argument" -- Again, this is not a "personal attack" on my part, it is a TRUE FACT. It makes little sense for you to "Appeal to the Vulgate" when you are apparently unwilling to even answer Roman Catholic criticisms of the Douay-Rheims. I already posted Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims; but it seems that if I even echo those criticisms, you will see fit to label me as "bigoted". Or "rancorous". Or whatever. If that's not a Catch-22, I don't know what it is. It's definitely Bad Poker, I'll say that much.

• "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...... And these are accusations by which I STAND. Because (and I repeat), they are NOT "personal attacks". There is no "personal" reason to marry yourself to the Douay-Rheims Translation. It is an atrociously bad dishrag, a cheesecloth with an Imprimatur. Criticisms thereof are not personal attacks on you. So don't react as if they are. As I said before -- 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.

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

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'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):

• Do you NOT suppose that the Holy Spirit has exerted His influence upon the Transmission of Scripture?
• And if He has, is this not a more Ecclesiological question? (Rome claiming that the Bible is unintelligible without a Priest, and Protestants responding that the Bible is Perspicuous?)

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

best, OP

[gypsigirl]

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

[gypsigirl]

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

[SpookBrat]

Did you see this yet?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Hi Spooky. Yes, I've read about it. I'm looking forward to seeing this film.

[SpookBrat]

I'm sorry. I meant the trailer.

Click here

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.