Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

This all belongs in the contradictions thread I think.
Does God forgive sin? Depends on the sin.

quote:

---

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

---

Mark 3:28-29So not blasphemy - that one is eternal and unforgivable.
There again, God doesn't have to forgive sins - the clergy can do that here and now:

quote:

---

Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

---

John 20:22-3There again, all you have to do is believe in Him:

quote:

---

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

---

Acts 10:43There again, all you need to do is confess:

quote:

---

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

---

1 John 1:9There again, just believe in Jesus Christ:

quote:

---

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus

---

Romans 8:1There again, just get baptised before you die:

quote:

---

"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

---

1 Peter 3:21You pays your penance and you takes your choice....

Huh? What mastercopy? I don't follow any of that....am I missing the humour?

As stated, the Vulgate is no master copy. It is dated to the end of the 4th century (commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382CE). It certainly did become the canonical work for Catholics. The Protestants ditched it very early in the reformation and the Catholics finally settled on a 1528 and 1548 reworking of a critical version of it (the Clementine vulgate) as their official bible until about 1980 I think.....

quote:

---

Whenever one uses the generic term 'god (elohiym)' as a sacred title, the reply becomes irrelevant since the term for deities, god--elohiym, was first consecrated by Scribes and translators, and is one of the evidences demonstrating that all your versions of new testament came from the same source; one mastercopy that contains the ordinance of Litanies left to the Vatican; whether you call it Sacred Vulgate or not.

---

LOL...by this reasoning, the fact that a book - any book - uses the word 'obscene' means that all such books come from the same source, because Shakespeare coined the word in 'Love's Labours Lost.'It is not only a non sequitur, it is breathtakingly unconnected. It is, I think, the worst (or best) non-sequitur I have ever seen...Here's the thing - EVERY word was once used for the first time...that is sort of how it generally happens. The fact that the word is used in later texts tells you only that the particular word was written after the first use of that same word. It tells you nothing about the original source of the document. It tells you nothing about the document at all, since all we have is a couple of scraps from around the end of 1st century CE, and bits and pieces of manuscript over the next 200 years. The oldest remaining fuill copy is indeed the vulgate - or more accurately the Codex Vaticanus. Interestingly it lacks Gen.1-46:28; portions of II Kings 2; and Psalms 105-137. The New Testament is missing Heb. 9:14; I and II Tim.; Titus and Revelation. And of course the last 12 verses of Mark are not included. So if we apply your logic, those sections in the modern bible are clearly all complete forgeries.
(No such thing follows, of course, as is obvious to anyone who can reason at grade-school level).Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.