Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Westcott and Hort, and Metzger and company are the ones putting words in God's mouth, and you too.

Ok, so I don't know anything about the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine texts, nor the Alexandrians...But to me its funny that you mention Matt 16.And I quote:

quote:

---

6 Simon Peter answered, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

​

17 Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

---

A Catholic could use these versus to explain how the Church's uses of things outside of scripture could be relevant to the faith. But when the Sola Fide crowd is presented with them, they twist the meaning of the Bible to be saying that it was talking about Peter's faith that is important to this passage. Thereby reaffirming that Sola Fide was correct to begin with. I'm not sure why I'm bringing this up other than to point out another Protestant anti-Catholic circular-reasoning.

quote:

---

Westcott and Hort, and Metzger and company are the ones putting words in God's mouth, and you too.

---

Of course you are lying again. And proving me right by doing so.

I'm sorry, I am not lying. That leaves certain others who may be.;

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I am not lying. That leaves certain others who may be.;

---

Then please show me where I have put words into God's mouth.

By accusing me of putting words into God's mouth, and by falsely quoting scripture against me, and by supporting Metzger who supports Westcott and Hort you put words into God's mouth, or let's say you are in danger of doing so although you weren't so circumspect in your accusation of me.Burgon warns that the Revisers were in danger of running afoul of the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 against adding to God's word, on pages 113 and 354 of the Revision Revised.

I.e. Faith is God. Anything said against her is against God.

No, but Faith knows God and you don't.

Only God could be sure of either of those claims. Must be fascinating to know the Mind of God as intimately as you do.

Yes it is fascinating. It's based on the Bible of course, on a simple natural reading of it, and I never claim anything that doesn't accord with the Bible. If we are believers we have "the mind of Christ" and we should know that we do. Not that we can't still follow the flesh instead of Christ but we have the standard of the Bible to show us when we've strayed off the path. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

By accusing me of putting words into God's mouth, and by falsely quoting scripture against me, and by supporting Metzger who supports Westcott and Hort you put words into God's mouth, or let's say you are in danger of doing so although you weren't so circumspect in your accusation of me.

---

Of course this is untrue. And it is obviously untrue that I could be guilty of putting words in God's mouth by asserting that you had put words into God's mouth.

But it isn't silly to point out that the price of religious freedom is that people will be free to have religions you disagree with, with texts you find vile. So what don't you like about KJV2000? You are not a representative sample of all Bible readers. Every church I've been to has their own Bibles so nobody brings their own and they all read from the same edition of the same version. Is that not how you guys do it? Furthermore, I don't remember attending any Church where it was necessary to consult the Bible, doing so would cause you to miss the point of the sermon. I suppose if your church is so hard up it can't afford it's own pool of Bibles having printed sheets for the days reading makes sense. What's wrong with that? Wow - you guys and you're strange customs. Before you organize getting all conservative/evangelical churches to agree on a translation maybe you can do a dry run and standardize the Bible version your church uses. Don't blame the proliferation of Bibles for your confused elders it's really quite easy to choose to use one translation for Church use. I thought Sunday School was for kids? And they make them memorize passages? That's horrid - it sounds like a Madrassa. I've never had an issue, but I suppose this is something of an accessibility issue. You should raise it with your elder. That's fine, but concordances are a little circular. Commentaries are pretty good though, I agree. So just learn Hebrew and Greek and be done with it. It is after all - the word of God. I put in a fair amount of effort to learning German and Italian words so that I can understand opera better (because the translations regularly suck) and that's just a reflection of the human soul. I was raised on the KJV and Shakespeare, I don't have a huge problem with most of the KJV's language although it can slow down reading at times. I agree the KJV does turn an awesome phrase every now and again where modern Bibles may not. But you and I together still don't make a representative sample. And if you are never convinced it is a good source, should people simply abandon the Bible and go with what feels good to them? This sounds awfully close to a concession that you have no argument against it. I wasn't talking about Greek. 70% of the things I referenced were originally Hebrew in any case.I was giving you examples of readings where modern Bibles are better than the KJV, like you asked.

Wow. You really believe that you know the Mind of God. Extremely humble of you.Bet you're Napoleon, too.

It's actually your own belief in freedom that guides the choice in my church to let us use our own Bibles rather than impose the pastor's choice on us.About KJV2000 I simply don't support any lone-wolf translation and don't want to be in the position of judging it. If a Church body of the sort I think we need determined that its readings are ideal then I'd be in favor of its being recommended as the authorized version.But I was just reviewing Burgon's book and he says that he didn't think there was good enough scholarship to justify revising the KJV at all, and if that was true in his day it's all the more true in our day. This is a good argument for having the KJV as is for our authorized Bible.And I was very glad to see that statistic that the KJV is the preferred version in the US, even far and away more popular than the next most popular version the NIV. I think this must reflect a recent growth in the popularity of the KJV and it's a very welcome trend if so. The more people are confronted with the serious problems in the modern versions and the known superiority of the KJV despite its need for some minor changes, the more this trend may continue.

Find, or found a better Church that isn't corrupted by free society. Don't blame me for liking freedom, blame yourself for going to a church that takes that freedom to a level that causes problems discussing the Bible with fellow Church-goers who may be corrupted by the African text. Even I think it's sensible to have agreed book for Church use or discussion, even though I think it is OK for someone to reference another text for their own elucidation. I dunno - they have an ugly website that says things 'FAITH ALONE IS REQUIRED' and 'JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN'. It's hard to follow but I think they're KJO - King Jesus Only. I think you'd get on well with them.It's almost entirely not a translation. As a general rule the creator says he didn't look at the Greek, just the common KJV. He simply updated some obscure phrases that never made it into common parlance to make it clear the intended meaning and things like that.The only issue I think you would have with it is occasional word changes, the rational for which is not clear. It's minor things though, like the identity of animals. Deuteronomy 33:17 goes as follows Which has always been a difficult word. So there's small collection of those kinds of things. I'll let you judge if that's vile or unnecessary. Then there are modernisations like Matt 5:13 So a few changes here. Ye to you loses accuracy but on the other hand not everybody can remember which one thou is and which one ye is, so adds an element of confusion to people who haven't read up on this kind of thing. Especially when you consider the word e which was often printed as ye. I know its clear in this particular context, but there may be others where the distinction is important.A paragraph on the first word isn't encouraging you I suppose. It Americanises the 'savour' which is fine I'm sure, and replaces another one of those words that trips people up. Wherefores and wherewiths trip casual English speakers all the time because they are obsolete. I'm kind of fond of thenceforth but 'thereafter' probably increases the number of people that understand the verse.Take a look at your favourite verse over at Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages, it compares a wide array of Bibles so you can see the abominations quickly and easily. Taking Burgon's argument to its logical extent concerning KJV2000 allegations for its construction, would imply we should be using the 1611 version with no j's and lots of e's at the end of words etc. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.