“Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.”
Wrong. Translations can be objectively looked at. A translator doesn’t tell you what to believe, but what the text means. That is why we can translate languages...kind of like Jerome did in producing the infallible Vulgate.
“Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?”
Yes. That is why I use reason, while you use insults. Again, a commentary discusses the meanings of words. It does not tell you what to believe, but what words mean, how they were used in other places, etc. Perhaps you could TRY doing some Bible study some time.
“Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?”
Really? Do I interpret it based on a catechism? Do I take any commentary at face value, or rely totally on one translation? No. But yes, I DO interpret scripture without asking a priest (who in theory should be using a Latin translation, or an English translation of the Latin translation). That is why I discuss passages, while Catholics refuse to examine them.
“Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant.”
I’ll call him a liar to his face if I ever see him. Or an idiot. There is no hint of the Lord’s Supper in a passage taking place BEFORE the Lord’s Supper - by years. Only someone fixating on ‘bread’, without reading about the feeding of the 5000 immediately prior could be that stupid. I’d bet on Scott Hahn simply being a liar.
“Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you.”
No. I’ve pointed out that Jesus defined the canon as the Law & Prophets and Poets. Those are the 3 sections the Jews accepted, and are NOT the Apocrypha. The Apostles also defined the canon, not as a list of books, but as a list of what SECTIONS were scripture. Thus they rejected those Jews who claimed only the Law was Scripture, or the Pentateuch.
Josephus listed specific books in those categories, but NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was included in the Law and Prophets.
“Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.”
Not the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t try to give an authoritative list until the 1500s. Yet the NT canon was known and accepted for 1300-1400 years before the Catholic Church decided to deal with it. And the Old Testament canon was known by Jesus and the Apostles...
“You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.”
Hmmm...seems Jesus Christ isn’t authoritative enough for you. I gave you multiple scriptures, and you...just deny.
“You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.”
No. I cited Jesus and the Apostles. Josephus merely listed the books in the categories that JESUS called scripture. And NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was part of the “Law and Prophets”.
Let me use small words to help you out. I do not use the New Testament OR Old Testament based on Josephus. I use them because of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, who said what was in the Old Testament and who wrote the New Testament.
I use them by the authority of Jesus Christ. Josephus DOES tell us about the practice of the Jews, and that they held to what Jesus said - the Law & The Prophets & the Poets. Josephus agrees with what Jerome believed, although modern Catholics reject the judgment of Jerome. And why do they reject Jerome? Because they are DEFINING Catholicism to contrast with Protestants.
What the Reformers said about the Canon was in agreement with Jerome, and even Trent refused to contradict Jerome - but it requires some study to find that little fact out.
The Catholic Church has NEVER said the Apocrypha was good for doctrine. How they managed to claim it is scripture when they don’t know if it is good for doctrine or not defies reason, since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
But then, someone who focuses on the Word of God will come into conflict with the Word of Man.
That is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years - because the more one studies the Word of God, the less Catholic one will become. Assuming, of course, it is a sincere study, and not the parsing of apologists.
Protestants do not define ourselves by ‘the opposite of Catholic”. We define ourselves by what Scripture says, and that makes it LOOK like we are the opposite of Catholics. If Catholics honored the Word of God, there would be no priests, Purgatory, Indulgences, or a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.
“For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.
““ Translations can be objectively looked at.”
Not entirely. Look at the difference between how the Douay-Rheims and the KJV translate 2 Corinthians 2:10 and how ANY modern Bible does it. Choices were made. There’s no reason to believe they were entirely “objective”. You’ve never worked as a translator have you?
“A translator doesn’t tell you what to believe, but what the text means.”
The translator influences your understanding by the choices he makes. Anyone who has ever studied any foreign language knows this is true.
“That is why we can translate languages...kind of like Jerome did in producing the infallible Vulgate.”
Who here claims it is infallible?
“Yes. That is why I use reason, while you use insults. Again, a commentary discusses the meanings of words. It does not tell you what to believe, but what words mean, how they were used in other places, etc. Perhaps you could TRY doing some Bible study some time.”
Commentaries are not necessarily objective. Protestant commentaries certainly not since they so often leave out so much material.
“Really? Do I interpret it based on a catechism?”
Yes – the catechism of Mr. Rogers. When you make an magisterial pronouncement that John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist how are you any different than any catechism or any creed? This obvious fact will, naturally, be completely lost on you.
“Do I take any commentary at face value, or rely totally on one translation?”
Oh, so you rely on multiple opinions. And?
“No. But yes, I DO interpret scripture without asking a priest (who in theory should be using a Latin translation, or an English translation of the Latin translation).”
Your theory is wrong. I really wish anti-Catholics had a clue when they made comments about anything Catholic. Also, I TOO interpret the Bible and I don’t think I have ever asked a priest what a verse meant. I don’t have to. No Catholic does. What we do have to do is keep in mind Church teaching on scripture. Again, really wish anti-Catholics had a clue when they made comments about anything Catholic.
“That is why I discuss passages, while Catholics refuse to examine them.”
I don’t think that’s what you do and I don’t think that’s what Catholics do. I think you think you discuss passages when in reality all you do is insist your “magisterial pronouncement” is correct while ignoring what Catholics say in response.
“I’ll call him a liar to his face if I ever see him. Or an idiot.”
And there you go. I point out what Scott Hahn has said – and he isn’t the only one – and you must call him a liar or idiot because it destroys your previous claim. Great.
“There is no hint of the Lord’s Supper in a passage taking place BEFORE the Lord’s Supper - by years.”
Yes, there is. And what has time got to do with God? Christ is telling us what He would later give us. It doesn’t matter if it came two years later.
“Only someone fixating on ‘bread’, without reading about the feeding of the 5000 immediately prior could be that stupid. I’d bet on Scott Hahn simply being a liar.”
No. I see the feeding of the 5,000 and it doesn’t stop John 6 from being about the Eucharist. And there’s no fixation on bread needed. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that the bread is important.
“No. I’ve pointed out that Jesus defined the canon as the Law & Prophets and Poets.”
No. Jesus did not define the canon. His statement in no way defined what books belong in the Bible.
“Those are the 3 sections the Jews accepted, and are NOT the Apocrypha.”
So say you. That is not necessarily the conclusion of others. Also, I am not talking about any Apocrypha. I am talking about the Deuterocanonicals which are not Apocrypha.
“The Apostles also defined the canon, not as a list of books, but as a list of what SECTIONS were scripture.”
Again, no.
“Josephus listed specific books in those categories, but NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was included in the Law and Prophets.”
I’m not talking about the Apocrypha.
“Not the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t try to give an authoritative list until the 1500s.”
False. There were authoritative lists from the Catholic Church already in the 4th century. What you are confusing is authoritative with infallibly defined. The two are not the same. Again, I wish anti-Catholics actually knew about the Catholic faith before they attacked it.
“Yet the NT canon was known and accepted for 1300-1400 years before the Catholic Church decided to deal with it.”
Again, false.
“And the Old Testament canon was known by Jesus and the Apostles...”
Prove it. Show which books they said were canonical. Cite them by name and verses.
“Hmmm...seems Jesus Christ isn’t authoritative enough for you.”
Sure He is. Cite the exact verse where He gives us a complete table of contents. When you fail to do so – and you will – what will that tell us about the truthfulness of your comment there?
“I gave you multiple scriptures, and you...just deny.”
Because your merely putting your spin on those verses – and relying on Josephus when you say you don’t rely on “what others believe”.
“No. I cited Jesus and the Apostles. Josephus merely listed the books in the categories that JESUS called scripture.”
Actually no. You’re assuming – without any evidence – that Josephus and Jesus believed in the same things in the same way. That’s just an assumption.
“And NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was part of the “Law and Prophets”.”
No one defined “the Apocrypha” and I am not talking about the “Apocrypha” anyway.
“Let me use small words to help you out. I do not use the New Testament OR Old Testament based on Josephus. I use them because of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, who said what was in the Old Testament and who wrote the New Testament.”
No one in scripture – not even Jesus – defined the Old Testament. No one.
“I use them by the authority of Jesus Christ. Josephus DOES tell us about the practice of the Jews, and that they held to what Jesus said - the Law & The Prophets & the Poets.”
So you say – but you have yet to prove that these later Jews – all of whom rejected Christ – believed in things the same way in every detail as Christ did regarding the canon. And on that you will fail.
“Josephus agrees with what Jerome believed, although modern Catholics reject the judgment of Jerome.”
Nope. We just realize – unlike Protestant anti-Catholics – that Jerome did more by his later actions than by his early words. You might want to read this:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html
“And why do they reject Jerome? Because they are DEFINING Catholicism to contrast with Protestants.”
No, and we don’t reject Jerome. Again, read that article.
“The Catholic Church has NEVER said the Apocrypha was good for doctrine. How they managed to claim it is scripture when they don’t know if it is good for doctrine or not defies reason, since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.””
The Deuterocanonicals are not Apocrypha.
“But then, someone who focuses on the Word of God will come into conflict with the Word of Man.”
Maybe you should get your focus on the Word of God then. Try.
“That is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years - because the more one studies the Word of God, the less Catholic one will become.”
Comments like that just make the poster of them look pathetic. The Church did not oppose vernacular translations.
“Assuming, of course, it is a sincere study, and not the parsing of apologists.”
Oh, and of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be relying on “the parsing of apologists.”
“Protestants do not define ourselves by ‘the opposite of Catholic”.”
Look at that other thread I linked to. You apparently don’t speak for all Protestants.
“We define ourselves by what Scripture says, and that makes it LOOK like we are the opposite of Catholics.”
Actually no. You define yourselves by your Protestant doctrines.
“If Catholics honored the Word of God, there would be no priests, Purgatory, Indulgences, or a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.”
Actually priests, purgatory, indulgences, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are all perfectly scriptural. Protestant theology, however, can’t allow them. Thus, one by one, they were ditched. This is why it took Martin Luther until 1529 for him to get rid of Purgatory from his beliefs. He was making it up as he went along.
“The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.”
No, the pope is the vicar of Christ, but he is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit as is the Church.