-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Roman Catholic influence in Modern Versions?
- Thread starter icthus
- Start date
Well, make what you want. But it is omissions as these, as the ones I referred to in Luke chapter 2, that open up the way for more corrupt readings to find their way in to the MV's. My point is that the evidence to retain "firstborn" in Matthew far outweighs that to omit it. Why was it omitted in the first place?
T
TexasSky
Guest
You know,
I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.
I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.
We who know little Greek, read in the English that Mary was a virgin (parthenos) who became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. We read that Joseph had no marital relations with her until after Jesus was born. Therefore, Jesus HAD to have been her firstborn since she was still a virgin, and there's no record of her having borne any other child by miraculous conception. "Firstborn" is one of those clearly-implicated things brought to reality by the context of the events narrated.
Matthew 13:35 & its surrounding verses clearly shoot down the "perpetual virgin" balloon.
Matthew 13:35 & its surrounding verses clearly shoot down the "perpetual virgin" balloon.
icthus said:
Well, make what you want. But it is omissions as these, as the ones I referred to in Luke chapter 2, that open up the way for more corrupt readings to find their way in to the MV's.
I guess you meant by this that Bible translators and Greek text editors just make stuff up as they see fit.
Is this the "better handle" on text crit you were boasting about? You gotta laugh.
Well, make what you want. But it is omissions as these, as the ones I referred to in Luke chapter 2, that open up the way for more corrupt readings to find their way in to the MV's.
I guess you meant by this that Bible translators and Greek text editors just make stuff up as they see fit.
Is this the "better handle" on text crit you were boasting about? You gotta laugh.
T
TexasSky
Guest
I wasn't going to bring this up, but - - -
Some people tend to shy away from the term "firstborn," because they fear it will imply that Christ is actually the son of Joseph.
The view being that he isn't the firstborn child of Mary and God. He is the ONLY child of Mary and God.
Those who worry about this, refer to the oldest son born to Joseph as "firstborn."
Some people tend to shy away from the term "firstborn," because they fear it will imply that Christ is actually the son of Joseph.
The view being that he isn't the firstborn child of Mary and God. He is the ONLY child of Mary and God.
Those who worry about this, refer to the oldest son born to Joseph as "firstborn."
Then you don't know any Catholics. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is accepted Catholic Dogma. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
TexasSky said:
I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.
Maybe some rank-and-file Catholics do not believe this, but if so, they are in opposition to the official teaching of the Church of Rome, which is that Mary was the "ever-Virgin."
I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.
Maybe some rank-and-file Catholics do not believe this, but if so, they are in opposition to the official teaching of the Church of Rome, which is that Mary was the "ever-Virgin."
However, the issue at hand whether this position can be sustained from modern translations of the Bible, a claim which icthus has yet to substantiate with anything other than insinuation and alarmism.
We had a discussion in another forum of this board with Ituttut. He reminds us that the genealogy of Joseph is given to show he was not only a descendant of David's, but also a descendant of JECONIAH'S, whose posterity God had declared ineligible to sit on the throne of David, thus DQing Joseph from being Jesus' "biological" father.
There's no doubt that Joseph was Jesus' ADOPTIVE father, however, so the KJVO argument that "the MVs deny the deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His father"(Although the KJV does the VERY SAME THING!) is false. Neither the KJV nor any other version is wrong to call Joseph His father, as it was he who served in that role during Jesus' childhood.
We must remember that most of the AV translators were Anglican, which is pseudo-RCC minus the Pope.
There's no doubt that Joseph was Jesus' ADOPTIVE father, however, so the KJVO argument that "the MVs deny the deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His father"(Although the KJV does the VERY SAME THING!) is false. Neither the KJV nor any other version is wrong to call Joseph His father, as it was he who served in that role during Jesus' childhood.
We must remember that most of the AV translators were Anglican, which is pseudo-RCC minus the Pope.
Ransom, what is your understanding of Textual Criticism? If you think that Bible translators and Greek text editor's dod not add and take away from Scripture, based on their "theology", rather than the facts, then you need much learning to do.
I know that A T Robertson was not really a textual critic, but, what do you make of his words on John's Gospel.
"The Fourth Gospel has difficluties of its own. These relate in part to the book itself. It is true that there is a similarity in language and style between the narrative parts of the book and the discourses of Jesus. It is affirmed that the writer has colored the speeches of Jesus with his own style or even made up the dialogues so that they are without historical value or at least on a much lower plane than the Synoptic Gospels as objective history" (A harmony of the Gospels, Notes on Special Points, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p.257. 1950 edition)
Can you see Robertsons words on the record of events as seen by the Apostle John? What do you think his opinion does for the Autnority of the Fourth Gospel? These sort of opinions do guide those responsible for the translation and interpretation of Scripture. These is no doubt that such views would have a damaging effect on the Infallibility of the Bible. One's theology or personal understanding does impact their work, and can become a problem in important matters in relation to the text of Scripture.
Lancelot Andrewes, a leading KJV translator
and referred to as the chairman of all the translators, is said to have accepted Mary's perpetual virginity. Andrewes referred to "Mary evervirgin" (PRIVATE DEVOTIONS, p. 59). Marianne Dorman cited one passage where it is claimed that Andrewes referred to "the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin" (LANCELOT ANDREWES: PERENNIAL PREACHER OF THE POST-REFORMATION ENGLISH CHURCH, p. 69).
icthus asked:
Ransom, what is your understanding of Textual Criticism?
That it is not the kind of "slippery slope" activity you seem to think it is, where eeeeevil critics take more and more stuff away just because it suits them to do so (e.g. they took away the word "firstborn," now they're going to start taking away Jesus' brothers and sisters too).
Ransom, what is your understanding of Textual Criticism?
That it is not the kind of "slippery slope" activity you seem to think it is, where eeeeevil critics take more and more stuff away just because it suits them to do so (e.g. they took away the word "firstborn," now they're going to start taking away Jesus' brothers and sisters too).
The facts speak for themselves. I have already shown, "firstborn" has gone, twice in Luke "Jospeh and Mary" has been changed to "His Father and mother", and "His parents". Staying in Luke's Gospel, in 1:35, the two small words "of thee", which not only teach the Virfin Birth (since the singular, feminine is ued), but also teaches that the "human nature" of Jesus Christ was actually "derived" (lit, "out of thee) from Mary, against many of the Gnostic heresies in the early Church, and some of our mordern "faiths". Again, the majority of MV's do not have these two words, even though Justn Martyr, who was born in 100A.D, kew of the words, and a host of other Church fathers.
Can you not see the problems with these MV's?
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Icthus, was Joseph NOT acting as Jesus father here on earth? We're they not "his parents"? I was raised by an adoptive father and my birth mother. They were my parents. Geesh....get a grip! For you KJV'ers who want to claim that the KJV is such a perfect book and the thing we should be using today...why in the world do you keep having us go back to the Greek? I thought it was so PERFECTLY translated......
You show you ignorance of the facts where the text has been corrupted. Unless you can understand what Textual Criticism really is, you will not see any problem in the wilful changing of Bibles verses. Whether Joseph was the adopitive father of Jesus, is NOT the issue here. The fact is the text was indeed corrupted by the early heretics. Please check your facts, and then come back and argue your case.
Let me leave you with an example from James Moffat's New Testament. Where he has Matthew 1:16,
"and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus, who is called 'Christ"
Here Moffatt follows the heretical reading that made Joseph the actual father of Jesus. Look into this reading before making any remarks.
Originally posted by AVL1984:
[QB] Oh, yes! Real problems! "Our Father, which is in Rome"....LOL Yep....Those MV's are a RCC conspiracy!
Another thing. I have not said anywhere that all the MV's (or any of them) have been corrupted by Roman Catholics. So, please do not make out that I have.
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
icthus says:>>>>Let me leave you with an example from James Moffat's New Testament. Where he has Matthew 1:16,
"and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus, who is called 'Christ"
Here Moffatt follows the heretical reading that made Joseph the actual father of Jesus. Look into this reading before making any remarks.
You're interpretation of what Moffatt follows. Joseph was ACTING father of Christ. Gosh, do you KJVO's always have to try to read into things things that AREN'T there?
You didn't say that MV's were corrupted by Rome, no...but you implied that they support the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't think so, ic...not more than the KJV.
"and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus, who is called 'Christ"
Here Moffatt follows the heretical reading that made Joseph the actual father of Jesus. Look into this reading before making any remarks.
You're interpretation of what Moffatt follows. Joseph was ACTING father of Christ. Gosh, do you KJVO's always have to try to read into things things that AREN'T there?
You didn't say that MV's were corrupted by Rome, no...but you implied that they support the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't think so, ic...not more than the KJV.
There you go again, speaking without knowing the facts. Check any decent Textual work on the reading of Moffatt, and you will see that the reading here was NOT in any other sense but to make Joseph to be the actual father of Jesus. Hear what eminent Biblical scholar, Dr Oswald T Allis saya:
"In Mt.1:16, he followed von Soden in adopting the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac, 'and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus, who is called 'Christ''. This reading , which in its natural and obvious sense makes Joseph the actual (not merely the adoptive) father of Jesus" (Revision or New Translation, p.160. 1948 edition)
Are you saying that you know more than Dr Allis? I doubt it very much.
Lets deal with facts.