That Which Is Perfect

GOD sent HIS HOLY SPIRIT to live in the heart of
EVERY Saved person to the show GOD's TRUE
meaning. You just need to be willing to study
and pray for understanding. GOD will present
HIS meaning to the searching soul in due time...

 

Yes, and this time next year we should have thousands more denominations because Christians can't agree on what it means.

The Holy Spirit lives in a true Christian. Yet, this Christian has never been promised to be shown the correct interpretation of the Bible. Everyone having their own "correct interpretation" makes God to be a God of confusion, which He is not.

God Bless

 

Kathryn,
Answer your own question for me. Which Bible do you use. You just quoted some verses. From which translation--Dhouay-Rheims, or American Standard? Which one? Is it one that is authorized by the Catholic Church? It is in English is it not--at least that is what I read--an English translation
of Matthew 16:19

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."Matthew 16:19

Now if this is truly the inspired Word of God that I have before me without any error whatsoever, tell me--Does it then correct the Greek from which it is translated?
Either the Greek is the true standard or the English translation. Both cannot be infallible. One of them in many places will differ from the other out of necessity. I know more than one language Kathryn. It is impossible to go from one language to another language perfectly all the time, without losing meaning. There is no such thing as a perfect translation.
So either your translation is perfect, inspired, and infallible--and all others are wrong, including the original Greek, and all other translations in every language of the world. To teach people in China you have to teach them from the inspired English Catholic Bible first, and then Chinese; in India: first from the inspired English Catholic Bible, and then in Hindi, etc.
Is this what you believe?

Or do you believe that the Bible in the original language is inspired and we today in every language of the world many have accurately preserved translations of that Bible. What makes more sense to you>
DHK

 

Accurately preserved translations?

Of what? The original manuscripts?

They no longer exist. At best you have copies of copies of copies of copies....

How do you know what is accurate and what is not?

 

Yes, you're right. The originals no longer exist; only copies of them like you said.
How we know what is accurate and what is not is a whole other subject known as textual criticism. You can find a lot of information in the Bible versions forum on that subject. We do have the power still to compare and discern between various manuscripts. But the point that is to be made here is it is not the translation that is so much to be relied upon, but rather the text from which it was translated. If you went to a tribal people that never heard of Jesus, didn't have a Bible, didn't know English,what would you do to give them the Word of God if it was not available to them? If you only had a working knowledge of English and no other language how would you give them the word of God? Frist you would have to somehow learn their language. Then you have to translate the Bible into their language so that they would have the Word of God. But if the KJV is the only version that you have with you, and you translate from the KJV to their language, which is the more accurate transaltion? The KJV or the one that you have made. Your translation won't be perfect because people of other languages and cultures understand things differently, and meanings get lost in translation. Besides, you are not perfect and are prone to make mistakes. The original (KJV in this case) is always the most accurate.

The original manuscripts were inspired and infallible, without any error whatsoever. Jewish copyists were very meticulous in copying down manuscripts. They counted the number of letters on each line, row, and page. They made sure (as much as humanly possible) that there were no errors. They were scribes. It was their job to do so.
I believe that the Word that we have today is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts made available to us, and when accurately translated gives us the Word of God.
DHK

 

DHK says:

1 Corinthians 9:27
but I chastise my body , and bring [it] into servitude, lest by any means, having preached to others -- I myself may become disapproved. Young’s Literal Translation

But I chastise my body , and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. Douay Rheims

But I keep under my body , and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. King James Version.

How is this more accurate? How do "I keep under my body?" This is meaningless and not edifying.

God Bless

 

DHK:
To answer you question, for my own prayer and study, I use Catholic Bibles with all the books in them, that has been authorized by the church who has the authority to translate them.

Catechism:
135. "'The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God' [DV 24.]."

For talking with Protestants, I use Protestant Bibles.

God Bless

 

1 Corinthians 9:27
but I chastise my body , and bring [it] into servitude, lest by any means, having preached to others -- I myself may become disapproved. Young’s Literal Translation

But I chastise my body , and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. Douay Rheims

But I keep under my body , and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. King James Version.

How is this more accurate? How do "I keep under my body?" This is meaningless and not edifying.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Reread my post to T2U. I was speaking of a hypothetical situation in which only two hypothetical translations were involved: the KJV and the hypothetical T2U translation from the KJV. Which way do you vote. There are no other options.
DHK

 

You are avoiding my question. So these translations are more accurate then the Greek and Hebrew from which they came? Is that which you believe? If one or the other must be without error or infallibly inspired (to be inspired it must be without error), then which is it: Greek or English?
DHK

 

DHK:

Greek or English does not matter. I believe any translation that is authorized by the church, nomatter what language it is in, is inspired and truly the Word of God. The Greek Orthodox Church uses the Greek Septuagint that Jesus and the first Christians were using, that is the inspired word of God. I personally use the Douay Rheims written in English. We both have all the books belonging to word of God. The Latin Vulgate is good too, but I don't speak Latin. There are also other translations that are authorized and used in the Mass.

Catechism:
135. "'The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God' [DV 24.]."



God Bless

 

1 Corinthians 9:27
but I chastise my body , and bring [it] into servitude, lest by any means, having preached to others -- I myself may become disapproved. Young’s Literal Translation

But I chastise my body , and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. Douay Rheims

But I keep under my body , and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. King James Version.

How is this more accurate? How do "I keep under my body?" This is meaningless and not edifying.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]You have quoted a number of translations, one of which you referred to as meaningless. Only one of them can be right. And even that one will not stand up under the scrutiny of the Greek when examined for accuracy in translation. Inspired means completely without error. Since there are obvious differences between these translations either all of them, or all but one of them must not be inspired. It would be foolish to say that any one translation is inspired.
DHK

 

Translation does matter.
Take a look at this site.

NIV Test

DHK

 

The only NIV I have is a Protestant Bible which is not authorized by the Church and doesn't have all the books in the Old Testament.

God Bless

 

What you have said is very naive, and in disagreement with the other Catholics on the board. "Greek doesn't matter." Ask Brother Ed about that, and while your at it ask Carson as well. They both have used it. Brother Ed has referred to the "logozomai" (Sp.?) so many times that I remeber the Greek word and forget its meaning Many of them use the KJV, as it is printed today which doesn't even have the Apocrypha in it.
And what about Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Jerome himself protested against the Apocrypha. Even the Catholic Church was a odds within itself concerning the canon of Scripture. And ironically, for those that do use the KJV, it was the Catholics who burned all of the copies of Tyndale's translation of the Bible. It was Tyndale's translation that became the very basis for the KJV, and the Catholic's burned it

You have a very confused position when it comes to translations.
DHK

 

Catholics have learned to use the KJV when dealing with prots because it eliminates one of the red herrings that prots trot out when they are losing the debate. Namely claiming that the non KJV being used is not Scripture.

Tyndale's version introduced error into Scripture in the translation choices he made. (See below)

DHK, coming from you this is quite funny.

Lets look at the issue in it's entirety.

There are no existing original manuscripts.

There are only copies of copies of copies....

Every copy has the potential of containing error.

The person making the copy could have even introduced intentional error to sway the reader to his particular belief.

Translators are not protected from error.

Translators could even introduce their own beliefs into Scripture in the choices they make in translation.

Even if you could go to the original manuscripts, you would still have to translate them and you are still prone to the same possibility of error and bias.


So without an authoritative guide, how in the world do you even know what is Scripture (as opposed to translational and copy error) and truth (as opposed to interprative error)?

 

Sadly (for that view above) John does not conclude the book of Revelation by saying "NOW finally the scriptures are perfect".

Sadly - all the other bible writers forgot to say "Scripture is still NOT perfect nor is it yet sufficient - not yet".

And very sadly - the Revelation does not conclude by saying "NOW with the writing of this chapter, we SEE face to face" in concluding the letter of Revelation.

So with "no Bible support" for the view that any Bible author EVER taught that "Scripture is IMPERFECT until some future letter is written - yet to be named" - you simply "make it up".

Understandable - but obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Rev.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 which are written in this book.

This the conclusion, not just to the Book of Revelation, but by extension, to the entire Bible.
DHK

 

Showing that the book of Revelation "is finished in Chapter 22, comes far short of saying "We NOW SEE FACE to FACE" and even FARTHER from saying "Scripture - is now perfect - the PERFECT has finally come - we no longer have IMPERFECT scripture".

The simple truth is that neither John nor ANY OTHER Bible writer EVER stated "We are still stuck with imperfect scripture - waiting for the perfect to come". Scripture is NEVER called "imperfect" by any Bible writer.

But I suppose one could always "imagine" it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No one ever said or even implied what you just posted Bob.
DHK

 

The NIV was written by and for Baptists/Reform and reflects many of their innovative teachings regarding the two natures of Christ and the Sacraments. I would recommend that Catholics purchase the KJV. It is inexpensive, highly accurate, and employs a beauty and clarity of language that is far superior to any modern Bible.