/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>670018

Getting your hands on the original Rheims is near impossible. It even uses the word Judean instead of jew which is probably why they don't allow printing of the original anymore as far as I can tell.

>>670019

based

>>670018

Lol. You only made the Dubious-Rheims because protestants were already printing English Bible translations (KJV was not the first). You got scared that the goyim were finally reading scripture for themselves so you tried to control the situation by releasing a version that was twisted to support your doctrines. If it wasn't for the protestants printing Bibles they would still be chained down to the pulpits, written in a language commoners couldn't understand, and illegal for them to publish or read on their own.

>>670036

>you got scared that illiterate plebs with no theological, historical or spiritual training would produce thousands of heresies and diabolical sects

yes, and the catholics were right to fear that, despite their own internal problems.

>>670037

At least you admit that they would have suppressed scripture to this day had they still been able to do so. Protestants disagree on some doctrines but few denominations teach things anywhere near as diametrically opposite to scripture as what the Catholic church teaches.

>>670037

Don't forget basically producing atheism

>>670039

Ok literal Bible worshiper, whatever you say.

>>670044

He's the only person I've ever even heard of who literally thinks the Bible is God. He doesn't regard himself as protestant, most protestants have never heard of him, and most of those who have heard of him have a low opinion of him, despite his meme status on this website. So how am I a Bible worshiper because one (debatably) protestant guy out of 900 million worships the Bible? Wouldn't that be like me accusing you of banging little kids because one (well, actually a lot more than one) priest does it?

>>670040

>Don't forget basically producing atheism

Papism is the root of all evil amiright?

>>670043

>tfw you encountered a people who didn't have a written language you made one for them so they could read the Bible

>tfw that was the CATHOLIC saints Cyril and Methodius

>>670044

>Rhema is the same as Logos

Meme thread?

Umm actually the New American Revised Standard Version is the one true Word of God

>>670018

>Latin Vulgate was inspired by God himself

heh

Every time the Catholic Church falters, God punishes it with the prevailing culture. We were punished with Arianism. We were punished with the Great Schism. We were punished with the Protestant Revolution. We are now punished with Modernism.

Yes, the Church screws up (though never in its dogma). No, the Church isn't perfect insofar as it includes the imperfect Church Militant. Still, I'd rather be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ when it is corrupt than be part of another in a long list of heresies that God permits to punish and discipline His people.

>>670050

>tfw that was the CATHOLIC saints Cyril and Methodius

>implying that there is no overlap between Saints venerated in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches

KJV Mark 1:2

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

D-R Mark 1:2

As it is written in Isaias the prophet: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee.

KJV Malachi 3:1

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

D-R Malachi 3:1

Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts.

Looks like KJV is right and ((D))-(((R))) is wrong.

>>670019

>jews killed christ

>the word translated jew in most bibles is mistranslated and doesn't really mean jew

Pick one and only one, brainlet.

>>670208

The Phariseeic Edomites killed Christ. The accurate translation "Judean" refers to an inhabitant of Judea, not a specific ethnicity. Jesus called the Pharisees who killed him the spawn of Satan, which means they were Canaanites, and the specific branch of Canaanites living in Judea were Edomites. Jesus was killed by an evil religious class that created judaism, whose specific ethnicity was Edomite if that's important to you.

Do you get it now?

>>670216

Is there a single scholar of history who believes any of this?

>>670216

>>670243

>Ebin Satan seed theory

No one who actually studies the bible believes it. Satan dies not have the power to create life.

>>670251

*does not

>>670186

>It's only right because God-King James and Pastor Jim said it's right

Why do Bible worshipers claim that KJV is the correct one? Why must it be that one?

>>670253

>n-no contradiction there go-guys

Nibba the D-R(and most other versions) says that qoute is Isaiah but it's Malachi. KJV doesn't do that.

>>670256

>It's actually Malachi because God-King James who wrote the Bible through God himself as it was painstakenly translated while dirty papists tried to barge in and ruin it

All bibles are corrupt (if translated [not the Douay–Rheims because it actually uses the Vulgate]) and KJV is the most corrupt out of them all.

>>670262

>doesn't prove a thing

>claims he's proven something

All bibles are corrupt, deal with it.

>>670263

So Isaiah wrote Malachi then?

>>670274

Yes and no. I can't give a good answer because I can't read Vulgate.

>>670251

>Satan dies not have the power to create life.

the catholic church has an entire section dedicated to his dick.

also, aren't you effectively calling Jesus a liar?

>>670256

The important thing is the fact that it says the quote is "written in the prophet Isaiah" yet if you read all 66 chapters of Isaiah you will never find it. It's only in Malachi.

>>670263

No they're not.

>>670277

Making a statue speak is not procreation. Esau is explicitly stated to be Abraham's son. Now get out of here with your Hollywood/comic book theology. Maybe read your Bible, because you clearly haven't studied much of it.

>>670332

*Isaac's.

I think I've caught slydexia.

>>670018

That's right! And all KJV heretics better get on over to >>>/kjv/

>>670259

Why would the Latin Vulgarity be lesscorrupt than the older Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

>>670019

>>670330

>>670274

>>670256

The reason it says Isaiah is because it's actually a compound quote. Jews at the time would cite the Major prophet (Isaiah) instead of the minor prophet (malachai) when writing compound quotes. There are numerous contemporaneous, extrabibical examples of this. The error is actually in the KJV, because the text was changed to reflect how modern scholars cite things, not how it was actually written.

>>670277

>the catholic church has an entire section dedicated to his dick.

What?

>also, aren't you effectively calling Jesus a liar?

However often the "it's just a metaphor!" gets abused, in this case it's absolutely true that insults in general tend to mean what they say in a metaphorical, not literal, sense. See: "You son of a bitch!", "You asshole!", and so on.

In this case, the Pharisees need not be literal sons of Satan, following his ways and resembling him in their behaviour is enough to receive an insult like this - indeed, making Pharisees the literal, physical descendants of Satan would completely and blatantly contradict several other parts of the Bible, which contradict such interpretation.

If you see something in the Bible that you don't know what the meaning is, always interpret it in light of these parts of the Bible that are easily understandable and unambiguous. In another words: in the Bible, when you don't know what is the meaning of something, refer to what you already know definitely and certainly. Since the latter must be true, any true interpretation of some hard-to-understand part won't contradict it. If your personal theory of how to interpret some verse contradicts it, then this theory must be therefore false, and you need to look for another explanation of this verse's meaning.

>>670348

>The reason it says Isaiah is because it's actually a compound quote.

It's a lie, you can't get out of it. It is not written in the prophet Isaiah. So this is the most basic kind of false statement there is. There's just no getting around it.

Also what makes you think Jewish writings would be reliable? They wrote blasphemous and incorrect things like the Talmud. Why exactly would I refer to them?

>>670216

>Edomites

>Canaanites

Why don't you just burn your bible if you hate it so much that you can't be bothered to learn what it teaches.

>>670359

Why do you expect 1st century writer to be writing like a 21st century person would? Isn't it much more likely he would be writing like a 1st century person?

>>670364

God cannot lie. If the word of God says it is written in Isaiah then it would be written in Isaiah.

>>670361

Esau married Canaanites. It sounds like you're the one who needs to read the Bible.

>>670371

>Esau married Canaanites.

So what, that doesn't invalidate a thing I said unless you're a rabbinical jew who thinks the matriline is the only one that matters.

>>670373

That really begs the question. Why are jews so concerned with motherline, and not fatherline? What's so important about that Canaanite motherline? I know the answer btw. The Canaanites are descended from Ham whose wife was a Cainite. It's the line of Cain's wife.

>>670372

If you're really this fixated on that word you can look up its etymology in the Wessex Gospels written c. 990 into Old English (from the Greek). There Jew / Jews was rendered Iudeisc / iudeam.

>>670359

>It's a lie, you can't get out of it. It is not written in the prophet Isaiah

It's not written in Malachai either. It's a compound or conflate reading. That's why the KJV uses "prophets" and not "Malachi".

Check it out:

Mark 1

(2) As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. (3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Isaiah 40:3

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Malachai 3:1

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

See? It's a conflate reading. Now that we've established that, we have to ask, how would a Jew writing in the first century find the source of a compound quote? Where would you look first? Remember, there is no internet or search tool. It was simply the custom at the time to cite the major prophet. It's clear from the evidence, that is, the earliest manuscripts reading "Isaiah" and the later manuscripts reading "prophets", plus surviving extrabibical Jewish writings, that a later scribe who didn't understand how Jews would cite scripture changed it to correct an error he saw. Jews reading Mark at the time it was written wouldn't have seen this as an error. There is no other reason for the earliest manuscripts to read "Isaiah" in Mark 1:2.

>Also what makes you think Jewish writings would be reliable?

Is the old testament reliable?

>They wrote blasphemous and incorrect things like the Talmud.

The Talmud was written after the New Testament was closed. So, I'm not seeing your point here. Mark was a Jew living in the first century and became a Christian. He learned to write like a Jew would in his time. The fact is, if you tried to call Mark wrong and point this out to him the day after he wrote it, he'd be very confused and say something like: "What are you talking about? That's how we cite it." That the Talmud, written after Mark's death, says terrible things about Our Lord does not have any relevance as to how Jews would cite scripture at that time.

>Why exactly would I refer to them?

Well, if you want to know how or why scripture citation was done differently in the first century than we would do it in the twenty first, you kind of half to refer to Jews from the first century, silly.

>>670407

>It's not written in Malachai either. That's why the KJV uses "prophets" and not "Malachi".

I know. Thanks for proving my point.

>See? It's a conflate reading.

Yes so it's written in the prophets. The quotation from Malachi is not written in Isaiah, making the DRB factually incorrect.

>we have to ask, how would a Jew writing in the first century find the source of a compound quote?

God is the author of his word, God cannot lie. If God said something is written in Isaiah, it would be written in Isaiah.

>that a later scribe who didn't understand how Jews would cite scripture changed it to correct an error he saw.

More like some judaizer changed it and in the process he made the word of God into a lie, and unused manuscripts that nobody copies or opens have a longer shelf life. Plus the versions you are referring to don't even agree with each other at all. See "Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment" by H. Hoskier for a collation of the massive differences.

The point is that you are simply playing Texas sharpshooter and choosing the criteria you want to get a predetermined result. And your result is factually incorrect because the quotation of Mark 1:2 is not written in the prophet Isaiah. If the word of God said it was written in Isaiah, it would be written in Isaiah.

>Is the old testament reliable?

The received text of the OT is reliable because it was written by and preserved by God. See for example Jeremiah 36 where Jews tried to destroy it. They couldn't.

>The fact is, if you tried to call Mark wrong and point this out to him the day after he wrote it, he'd be very confused and say something like: "What are you talking about? That's how we cite it."

Citation very much needed.

>That the Talmud, written after Mark's death, says terrible things about Our Lord does not have any relevance as to how Jews would cite scripture at that time.

Yes it does because this wasn't written by them. Also do you even believe what the NT says? It says holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It also says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. So that, if true, prevents any errors in it whatsoever. Your fabricated claims about how Jews wrote is entirely irrelevant. I don't even need to prove or disprove them.

>Well, if you want to know how or why scripture citation was done differently in the first century than we would do it in the twenty first

This is fallacious because the truth value of a statement isn't dependent on century.

>>670421

>it was written by and preserved by God

I mean authored by, I think you get what I mean.

>>670186

Literally those verses prove the DR is better.

>>670424

>proves it's wrong for saying that it was Isaiah

>somehow means it's better

>>670421

tigger it says Isaiah in the oldest existing Greek texts too. d2cce9 is correct.

>>670421

>God's not wrong and wouldn't lie

Then why are dismissing what He authored instead figuring out what He said. Your interpretation is more right that what God wrote?

How are we supposed to help people if we can't even agree what fking book to use?!

There is a principle of study in ancient texts, lectio difficilior potior, i.e. the more difficult reading is the stronger one. What is more likely is that the original text said Isaias and that some scribe said, "wait, that's partially from Malachias!" and attempted to ammend what he though was a mistake. It's not just the Douay Rheims and Vulgate thay say Isaias, but also Greek and Syriac copies as well as patristic quotations.

>>671699

I comprehend all that, I've heard the explanations before, but you have to understand that the very simple direct fact is, saying something is written where it is not written is an indisputable factual inaccuracy. And if you don't believe that the inspired word of God is true, then there is no point in even coming here at all. I don't see why you even bother with this if you don't believe it's factually true. The simple fact is your version of Mark 1:2 is self-refuting because of the content of Isaiah and if you don't even care about this then I question why are you even here. If I thought the Bible (as it originally was and continues to be) had false statements in it I wouldn't consider it the word of God or waste my time here at all; your activity here it's kind of like atheists who spend so much energy trying to disprove something they supposedly don't even care about. However, the fact they and you work so hard and commit this amount of energy fighting against it only acts to acknowledge the existence of the thing being resisted. So if you act as if there was a word of God then why do you insist it has a lie in it. And why go to these lengths to defend what is on plain paper a lie. It is a lie that anyone can see. And I have nothing further to add— except, if you'll believe that then you'll believe anything.

>>671708

>why do you insist it has a lie in it. And why go to these lengths to defend what is on plain paper a lie. It is a lie that anyone can see.

Simply put, we don't understand Mark 1:2 to be an error or a lie. The Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each blessed author has a unique writing style: Mark reads differently than John, who reads differently than Paul. You can tell each book was written by different authors when you read and compare them. If the Bible itself doesn't have a consistent writing style, why should I be so presumptuous as to assume they would write or cite things the same way I do 2000 years later? The reality is we can learn more about the Bible and the culture it was written in by learning about how and why it was written the way it was. We're not the ones fighting against the Bible, you are. We are explaining it and trying to educate you so you come to a fuller understanding of the Bible. You are the one fighting to change it because you cannot grasp a stylistic or cultural difference between yourself and people who lived 2000 years ago. I accept the Bible on its own terms. You reject the true word of God for one that was "corrected" some 400 years after it was written.

There is no other reason for why all of the earliest copies of the Bible, across multiple languages read "Isaias" in Mark 1:2 but your supposed "original" text does not. I mean, come on dude, the verse numbers we know today we're written in the autographs. Dividing the two verses up and shouting: "See yours makes teh Bible LIARS bcuz Malachai comes first!" is completely anachronistic to start with. The bible wasn't written with grammar marks and paragraphs like we know them today. It would have read something more like:

ASITISWRITTENINISAIASTHEPROPHETBEHOLDISENDMYMESSENGERBEFORETHEEWHOSHALLPREPARETHYWAYTHEVOICEOFONECRYINGINTHEDESERTMAKEREADYTHEWAYOFTHELORDMAKESTRAIGHTHISPATHSTHERECAMEJOHNINTHEDESERTBAPTIZINGANDTEACHINGABAPTIZIM…

The quote from Isaias is there. That immediately following the word Isaias is a bit from Malachai is a trifle when the whole thought surrounds, ends, and hinges on Isaias. Greek doesn't even have the same strict word ordering that English does. It makes total sense then that if word or can change, so too can citation. I don't see this as an error and I don't think anyone reading Mark 2000 years ago would have understood it as an error either.

>why go to these lengths to defend what is on plain paper a lie.

I will go to my death defending The Bible. You will go to your death defending your "corrected" bible.

>>670018

>The Douay–Rheims

>not the Russian Synodal Version

Repent