• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Catholic Q/A

Linus

Well-Known Member
dan said:
Well, it would be helpful to have it in the original Aramaic. Even the Greek is a translation from one language to another. Too bad the oldest existing manuscripts are from 300 years after it was all written.

Regardless. The oldest manuscripts would be the most helpful in translating. The older they are the less likely it is that they would be inaccurate if any effort is put into it. Wouldn't you agree?
 

Katholish

Member
Linus said:
Very interesting stuff indeed. But why do you translate your Bible from Latin and not the original languagein which it was written, Greek? It would seem that you would get a more acurate translation directly from it instead of from greek to latin to english.

We are using translations from the original languages as best we know them, but since there was disagreement on how it should be translated, I thought it would be helpful to bring in the Latin as an arbiter of sorts. I cannot read ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but with the Latin it is possible for me to make heads or tails out of.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Linus said:
Regardless. The oldest manuscripts would be the most helpful in translating. The older they are the less likely it is that they would be inaccurate if any effort is put into it. Wouldn't you agree?

Nonetheless, with a three hundred year gap there's a margin for error larger than Texas. It would be more helpful like asking a fish what stocks to invest in would be more helpful than asking a rock.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
I have another question. What are your thoughts on Matthew 23:9?

Matt. 23:9 - And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven

And if your verses are numbered differently at this passages also, then please tell me what you think about the corresponding passage in your Bible.
 

Katholish

Member
Linus,

It is the same.

Matthew 23:
8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master: and all you are brethren.
9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.

Christ admonishes men not to attribute paternity to those who do not legitimately have it, but more specifically not to lose sight of the fact that men are called fathers in relation to the Fatherhood of God and when a person attributes fatherhood to a person on earth without acknowledgement of the pre-eminent fatherhood of God, they do so in error.

The Scriptures categorically prove that there is a legitimate relation of spiritual fatherhood, and that it is appropriate to call some men spiritual fathers as St. Paul tells us.

1 Corinthians 4:
14 I write not these things to confound you: but I admonish you as my dearest children.
15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
16 Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ.
17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord. Who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus: as I teach every where in every church.
 
Top