KJV vs. Septuagint, 1 Mediator, Pius XII & the Jews, and corruption in the Church


#21

I am dealing via regular mail with someone similar to you. They left Jack Chick tracts on cars are our church (to the rejoicing of our parish priest as he said, "Wow - we are getting noticed in this town as a Catholic Church!)

I asked him months ago to send me his sources for the same **** you got concerning the Septuagint and he has remained silent.

"Let’s talk about it"
P.O. Box 255
Berlin, NJ 08009

[left]Anyway if anyone else wants to send a letter to this person that is his PO box. (Interestingly enough P.O. Box 254 belongs to a Baptist church!)

Ken[/left]


#22

[quote=JSmitty2005]How do we know that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint? Also, do any of you know of any links that are critical of the KJV translation? Thanks for all the help so far. Keep it coming. :thumbsup:
[/quote]

Well… the NT contains hundereds of references to the Septuagint, not the Hebrew texts. Also there is a phrase Jesus said when He quoted Scripture and the wording He used came from the Septuagint. Also please do not make the error of thinking Jesus and the Apostles carried Bibles around with them.

Again we also see writings from Christians in the first century that quote the Septuagint.

Ken


#23

I found this, but it doesn’t seem to be very thorough.

cin.org/users/james/files/kjverrors.htm#top


#24

JSmitty << I found this, but it doesn’t seem to be very thorough. >>

He deals with a couple, I see he took on too large a project as I frequently do! :eek:

James R. White also documents a number of “classic” King James translation errors in his book. Here is a short summary from White. This is mainly a Protestant issue, like the “Rapture.” :rolleyes:

You can always find “errors” in translation (translators aren’t perfect) or updates that are required since modern languages like English change through the centuries.

Phil P


#25

[quote=JSmitty2005]Thanks for these examples. I would appreciate any more that you all may know of. I know that a religion isn’t nullified simply because it contains sinners; I just need to level the playing field since he seems to think that Protestants are a bunch of saints.
[/quote]

Protestants used to burn witches.

“As a point of comparison, Sir James Stephens, in his History of English Criminal Law, notes there were eight hundred executins a year during the early post-Reformation period in Endland, where the Inquisition never operated.4 One could also refer to the buring of alleged witches, a practice almost unknow in Catholic countries. (Goethe, in his Italiensiche Reise, attributed the lack of belief in witches to Catholics’ use of the confessional.)5 In Britain thirty thousand went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestan Germany the figure was one hundred thousand.6”

Which comes from Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” Pg. 293 Ignatius Press San Francisco, 1988

And the numbers in the quote are footnotes in the book which are as follows:
4. Rumble and Carty, Replies, 1:218
5. Goethes Werke (Stuttgart:Cotta, 1867), 20245
6. William Thomas Walsh, *Isabella of Spain * (New York: Robert M. McBride, 1930), 275; R. Trevor Davies, The Goden Century of Spain; 1501-1621)London; Macmillan, 1937, 14.

Now don’t be too mean. Just make your point and move on. Be as chairitable as possable and not condisinding.


#26

[quote=JSmitty2005]…1st Timothy 2:5 (as quoted from a King James Bible) “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Is this because The Septuigant (LXX)does not contain this verse, :
[/quote]

http://www.resexcellence.com/realbasic/articles/2002/07-18-02/images/07-18-02_laugher.jpg

resexcellence.com/realbasic/articles/2002/07-18-02/images/07-18-02_laugher.jpg

Thanks, I really needed a good laugh, since I am in a lot of pain today.


#27

[quote=PhilVaz]…James R. White…
[/quote]

I think it’s funny that this guy is a notorious anti-Catholic and yet I do believe that I recently saw his sister on the Journey Home. :hmmm: :dancing: :stuck_out_tongue:

bringyou.to/apologetics/s2.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/s17.htm


#28

[quote=JSmitty2005]Seeing how the untouched manuscripts used for the King James are older and more trusted than those of the LXX (which is believed widely too be false,
[/quote]

http://www.resexcellence.com/realbasic/articles/2002/07-18-02/images/07-18-02_laugher.jpg

Please stop, the laugher is getting painful itself.


#29

Hebrews 9
11 Now the Messiah has appeared, high priest of the good things that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), 12 He entered the holy of holies once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who are defiled, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God? 15 Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 Where a will exists, the death of the testator must be established. 17 For a will is valid only when people die, since it is never in force while the testator is living. 18 That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood. 19 For when every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll itself and all the people, 20 saying, This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded for you. 21 In the same way, he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the vessels of worship with blood. 22 According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

1 Timothy 2: 1 - 15 - Study This Chapter

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; F2 that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

From Strong’s a mediator is:
**

  1. one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
    **
  2. a medium of communication, arbitrator

blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1140529627-9353.html

In each of the above passages including your proof text from I Tim 2:5 Strong’s first definition of “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant” is the clear meaning. In fact at the beginning of the I Tim 2 passage we are told to perform “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men” thus anyone who is praying is not in conflict with Jesus as the “one mediator”.


#30

http://www.resexcellence.com/realbasic/articles/2002/07-18-02/images/07-18-02_laugher.jpg

Please stop, the laugher is getting painful itself.
[/quote]

I was thinking that that was pretty funny too, but how old were the manuscripts used for the KJV in comparison to those of other Bibles? I need hard evidence to throw at him; I can’t just say that he’s wrong. I hope this thread isn’t getting annoying, but I really don’t know anything about the KJV, but I’d like to learn. It seems as though older Catholic apologists criticized it more than many do now. At least that’s the impression that I’ve got. For some reason, I thought that Radio Replies or some other book of mine had a lot about it, but I’m at school and those books are at home…4 hours away. It just seems like some of these Protestants won’t give up on the whole KJV thing, and I feel that at least one Catholic apologist needs to tackle it so I don’t have to use James White as a source! haha


#31

Just for an update, my friend recently posted this in addition to his earlier post.

one more factoid proving the verrse was tottaly misunderstood… Jesus said upon this rock i build the church people believe he was refering to Peter. not true Jesus is the rock throughout the bible he is reffered to as the rock ,the rock of salvation, etc. Educated caholics believe rock refered to Peter because the translation of peter’s name, or rather a mistranslation. Catholic scholars say Peters name comes from a greek word meaning rock. the actual translation is small stone or pebble, not rock. Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the building block and foundation of any christian church. The problem is organized religion. when people get involved in controling a church politics and political correctness, along with pride and evil infiltrate the church. which is how 10 year old boy diddling freaks became catholic priests.


#32

King James Version first edition 1611

Textus Receptus (Latin: “received text”) is the name given to the first Greek language text of the New Testament to be printed with movable type. Manuscripts were collected by Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 for his translation of the Bible into Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament in the King James Version of the Bible, for the original Luther Bible, and for most other Reformation era translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text. There is evidence that the Textus Receptus dates to the time of the church father Cyprian (200-258AD).

Erasmus’ first edition of the Textus Receptus was prepared in haste, because he wanted to publish ahead of a monk from England with a similar plan. The selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited, being confined to a few late medieval texts most modern scholars consider to be of dubious quality. According to some, Erasmus was often forced to make his own interpretations—back-translating from the Vulgate (as evident in the last verses of the Book of Revelation) or even fabricate material. This is of course a matter of much debate among textual critics, and there are many who see Erasmus’ edition as fairly accurate.

The first edition was used only as the basis for the second edition. With the third edition (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included in response to Trinitarian pressures from the Catholic Church—a circumstance it now considers to have been unwise. This was the edition used by the King James Version translators.

Popular demand for more complete Greek versions of the Bible led to a flurry of authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century. Although sometimes used to refer to other editions, the name “Textus Receptus” has been used in a specific manner to designate only two New Testament Greek versions: the Version produced by Stephens in 1550/51 and the version produced by Elzevier in 1624, reprinted in 1633. The name itself derives from the publisher’s preface to a 1633 edition, containing the phrase textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, translated as “thus you have the text now received by all.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus


#33

[quote=JSmitty2005]Just for an update, my friend recently posted this in addition to his earlier post.

one more factoid proving the verrse was tottaly misunderstood… Jesus said upon this rock i build the church people believe he was refering to Peter. not true Jesus is the rock throughout the bible he is reffered to as the rock ,the rock of salvation, etc. Educated caholics believe rock refered to Peter because the translation of peter’s name, or rather a mistranslation. Catholic scholars say Peters name comes from a greek word meaning rock. the actual translation is small stone or pebble, not rock. Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the building block and foundation of any christian church. The problem is organized religion. when people get involved in controling a church politics and political correctness, along with pride and evil infiltrate the church. which is how 10 year old boy diddling freaks became catholic priests.
[/quote]

Ask your friend to read this:

www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp


#34

[quote=JSmitty2005]Just for an update, my friend recently posted this in addition to his earlier post.

one more factoid proving the verrse was tottaly misunderstood… Jesus said upon this rock i build the church people believe he was refering to Peter. not true Jesus is the rock throughout the bible he is reffered to as the rock ,the rock of salvation, etc. Educated caholics believe rock refered to Peter because the translation of peter’s name, or rather a mistranslation. Catholic scholars say Peters name comes from a greek word meaning rock. the actual translation is small stone or pebble, not rock. Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the building block and foundation of any christian church. The problem is organized religion. when people get involved in controling a church politics and political correctness, along with pride and evil infiltrate the church. which is how 10 year old boy diddling freaks became catholic priests.
[/quote]

You can start with agreeing with your friend that Jesus was referred to as the rock of salvation and then point out that this is why this verse is so significant. At this moment Jesus is naming his successor, before we even understand that Jesus would be needing a successor! Isn’t that too cool! Your friend just proved our point…Jesus was the rock and after his death and resurrection, Peter was appointed to take his place by Jesus himself! What is the first thing Peter does as the new rock? It is to appoint a new apostle so that there are 12(replacement for Judas)…why is that? It is for the 12 tribes of Israel. How were they picked? They cast lots…this was common in all through the Old Testament. Casting Lots was their way of letting God choose. Because God would inspire the vote, if the casting of lots was done it was ALWAYS to let God choose(remind you of the college of cardinals?). So, They had the choice between Joseph and Matthias. The reason those two were chosen was because they felt that the replacement had to have been with Christ from his baptism until his death and these two qualified. This practice alone helps to support apostolic sucession. How did they confer the office? As was tradition, the laying of hands…tons of biblical reference to casting lots and laying on of hands…make him do the homework.


#35

I am battling with a simliar person - (Removed address from public post as per Forum Rules ) -calls himself Bro. David- same junk in his letters to me. I responded to his invitation to “let’s talk about it” from chick tracts he was distributing at my parish.

Ken


#36

[quote=JSmitty2005]Just for an update, my friend recently posted this in addition to his earlier post.

one more factoid proving the verrse was tottaly misunderstood… Jesus said upon this rock i build the church people believe he was refering to Peter. not true Jesus is the rock throughout the bible he is reffered to as the rock ,the rock of salvation, etc. Educated caholics believe rock refered to Peter because the translation of peter’s name, or rather a mistranslation. Catholic scholars say Peters name comes from a greek word meaning rock. the actual translation is small stone or pebble, not rock. Jesus is the rock, Jesus is the building block and foundation of any christian church.
[/quote]

Typical twisting of what Catholic scholars are really saying. YES, the English translation to “Peter” comes from the Greek word Petra which means small stone. However, Catholic scholars say that Greek is simply a translation of the language that Jesus actually spoke–Aramaic. In Aramaic the word for rock is kepha (there is no issue here with small stones, rocks, pebbles, etc) Thus, Jesus would have said the equivalent of “Thou art Kepha (rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church.” I wonder if non-Catholics ever ponder that Jesus, who was the Rock of our salvation, purposely gave Peter the name which means rock. Do they not see the significance in that? :wink:


#37

[quote=JSmitty2005]The Catholic Church ignores 1st Timothy 2:5 (as quoted from a King James Bible) “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
[/quote]

That would be the verse quoted at least 12 times in the catechism.


#38

He’s at it again, but I’m tired of reposting stuff about this guy, so I’ll just give you all the link to the actual blog. It can be found here. If any of you have MySpace, feel free to comment on there. Otherwise, check it out, and we can discuss it here.


#39

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.