NEW BIBLE FROM WACK BISHOPS!
#51
Dymphna, I did address your idea of a "perfect sacrifice" earlier in the thread. I'm glad you see that point as well.

Now to your other question, "why would the Jews want to change a word that is so relevant to their history?".

Short answer, it is not relevant to their history as their so-called religion, based on Talmud is really nothing more than a debating society and is Anti-Christ. It is rejection of the Word, or in Greek Logos. The Levitical Priesthood has been replaced by the Priesthood according to the Order of Melchesidech. The Jews rejected that history at the foot of the Cross.

It is now our history the Jews want to change. We are the new Israel. They haven't offered a sacrifice since they revolted against the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. You may recall that the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was made rent upon the death of our Lord on the Cross.

So again, to sum up, it's not their history. They have a new religion, if you will. It is out of charity that I even refer to it as a religion. About the Prots we used to say we are the only true religion, and that's true. How can we possibly call Talmudic Judaism a religion when its sole reason for existence is the rejection of Christ, which is the Word, which is the Logos?

Actually we are called to be Anti-Jewish which is a Theological construct. This of course is not the same as being an Anti-Semite which is a racial or ethnic construct. Although Abe Foxman and his boys at the ADL, and more sadly many of our bishops and priests will tell you they are one and the same.
Reply
#52
(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Dymphna, I did address your idea of a "perfect sacrifice" earlier in the thread. I'm glad you see that point as well.

Now to your other question, "why would the Jews want to change a word that is so relevant to their history?".

Short answer, it is not relevant to their history as their so-called religion, based on Talmud is really nothing more than a debating society and is Anti-Christ. It is rejection of the Word, or in Greek Logos. The Levitical Priesthood has been replaced by the Priesthood according to the Order of Melchesidech. The Jews rejected that history at the foot of the Cross.

It is now our history the Jews want to change. We are the new Israel. They haven't offered a sacrifice since they revolted against the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. You may recall that the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was made rent upon the death of our Lord on the Cross.

So again, to sum up, it's not their history. They have a new religion, if you will. It is out of charity that I even refer to it as a religion. About the Prots we used to say we are the only true religion, and that's true. How can we possibly call Talmudic Judaism a religion when its sole reason for existence is the rejection of Christ, which is the Word, which is the Logos?

Actually we are called to be Anti-Jewish which is a Theological construct. This of course is not the same as being an Anti-Semite which is a racial or ethnic construct. Although Abe Foxman and his boys at the ADL, and more sadly many of our bishops and priests will tell you they are one and the same.

Thank you.  That's exactly the perspective I was looking for.  :thumb:
Reply
#53
(03-03-2011, 04:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.

Or we should acknowledge that language evolves and thus so should translations.
Reply
#54
(03-03-2011, 06:47 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.

Or we should acknowledge that language evolves and thus so should translations.

Be real...these translations have nothing to do with evolving language and everything to do with denying fundamental truths of the Faith. Come on...calling Mary the "young girl" instead of the "virgin"? Calling a woman a "woman of worth" instead of a "wife"? Who calls anyone a "woman of worth"? What does that mean anyway? Woman of worth? How much is she worth? Does this signify a prostitute?

Reply
#55
(03-03-2011, 06:47 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.

Or we should acknowledge that language evolves and thus so should translations.

This has nothing to do with "evolving" languages. If Scripture would have to be updated every time some words fell into disuse or new ones became fashionable, we would have Bibles being re-written every week.

I'm sorry to say but only an illiterate wouldn't know the meaning of "holocaust" in English. When in doubt, a normal person just has to consult a good dictionary, not demand a new translation.
Reply
#56
(03-03-2011, 07:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 06:47 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.

Or we should acknowledge that language evolves and thus so should translations.

This has nothing to do with "evolving" languages. If Scripture would have to be updated every time some words fell into disuse or new ones became fashionable, we would have Bibles being re-written every week.

I'm sorry to say but only an illiterate wouldn't know the meaning of "holocaust" in English. When in doubt, a normal person just has to consult a good dictionary, not demand a new translation.

At least according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, "holocaust" is defined as follows:

1 destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war : a nuclear holocaust | the threat of imminent holocaust.
• ( the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941–45. More than 6 million European Jews, as well as members of other persecuted groups, such as gypsies and homosexuals, were murdered at concentration camps such as Auschwitz.
2 historical a Jewish sacrificial offering that is burned completely on an altar.

As you see, in American English today, using "holocaust" to refer to a religious sacrifice is a secondary (and archaic) meaning of the word. If they are revising the translation anyway, it doesn't make sense to keep it when there are suitable alternatives.

Reply
#57
(03-03-2011, 06:58 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 06:47 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.

Or we should acknowledge that language evolves and thus so should translations.

Be real...these translations have nothing to do with evolving language and everything to do with denying fundamental truths of the Faith. Come on...calling Mary the "young girl" instead of the "virgin"? Calling a woman a "woman of worth" instead of a "wife"? Who calls anyone a "woman of worth"? What does that mean anyway? Woman of worth? How much is she worth? Does this signify a prostitute?

Exactly its just the NO sect trying to push their false religion by making a new incorrect bible translation. As for me I'll stick with the DR.
Reply
#58
(03-03-2011, 07:10 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: As you see, in American English today, using "holocaust" to refer to a religious sacrifice is a secondary (and archaic) meaning of the word. If they are revising the translation anyway, it doesn't make sense to keep it when there are suitable alternatives.

Scripture has its own context which is vital to understand its proper meaning.

If a person doesn't know what holocaust means in the English language, when reading Scripture he might do so given the context of the passage and without actually going to the dictionary. This often happens. If - even then - he can't grasp it, when consulting the dictionary he cannot fail then to pick the right meaning. Again, one cannot lower the bar of the sacred texts in order to conform to rampant illiteracy. It's the other way around: believers can actually enrich their linguistic competence with the textual richness of Scripture.

For instance, in this standard online dictionary, the right meaning comes in 2nd place.
dictionary.reference.com Wrote:1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. ( usually initial capital letter ) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during world War II (usually preceded by the ).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
Reply
#59
(03-02-2011, 06:59 PM)salus Wrote: Stick to the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims, those are the ones that were used for 1500 years before this flurry of "new" translations came out just before and after Vatican 2 as the Church became more Protestant.

That's for sure.  For anyone that does not have a Douay-Rheims Bible it's available online here,
http://www.drbo.org/

The New American Bible has changed Genesis 3:15 and the meaning of it too.  So what, do the bishops think all these statues and images of the serpent lying in wait for the Blessed Virgin's heel are going to be tossed out.  Not a chance.  That includes the Miracle Medal.

[Image: 1161560_f520.jpg]

For at least six months The New American Bible has been linked to the Vatican web site without it showing the Psalms.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

I have been wondering when it is finished whether the Psalms will be numbered like a Catholic Bible or like a Protestant Bible.  Actually I have no doubt that it will be the latter, the same as the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and other new Catholic translations of the Bible.

Disgusting
Reply
#60
(03-03-2011, 06:53 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: Awwwwww....Must not "offend" anyone with "offensive" terms and "blasphemous" words!!!!

I'll stick to my Douay-Confraternity bible from 1950 thank you very much!
Amen.  I'm reading through the Challoner DR with no trouble, and own a few more modern translations (including the one you mentioned) that are all more Catholic than the old NAB, and they are now trying to make it worse?!?!  I was contemplating buying a used NAB to be able to compare with the version used at the NO, but held off when I heard they were going to change it.  Now (assuming this become the translation used at the NO) I will have no reason to consider getting a NAB, and I don't think I want to have the kind of heresy being described here in my possession.

Can we revive The Index starting with all the blasphemous "bible translations" out there, or would the list just get too long?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)