(January 1, 2013 at 4:39 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So would it be safe to say that in your opinion, it was a fully human process, which evidently involved cherry picking those documents that focused on Jesus' "humanity" the most?

I gave you the historical answer. We don't "cherry pick" I'm afraid. Nor did the Jews for that matter. Heretical gospels/scripture were contemporary writings in the mid-2nd to mid-3rd century that used early church figures and disciples to attain pseudo-validity. They were recognized as being inauthentic and not added to scripture.

---

Now leave this thread alone and let a Catholic answer the question!!!

So you don't "do" the King James version then??

Not really, the KJV was good for its time, and certainly better than the Douay Rheims Bible, and about par with the Geneva Bible (it's at least 90% Geneva anyway).

(January 1, 2013 at 7:10 am)Aractus Wrote: Not really, the KJV was good for its time, and certainly better than the Douay Rheims Bible, and about par with the Geneva Bible (it's at least 90% Geneva anyway).

Given that like the others the KJV is a work of pure fiction.......

Don't forget the "cherry picking" done by dear old Jimmy-boy

King James hated the notes in the Geneva Bible, not the translation itself. Hence why the translators were instructed to use it in their translation and hence why the KJV borrows so much from it and from Tyndale.

(January 1, 2013 at 7:27 am)Aractus Wrote: King James hated the notes in the Geneva Bible, not the translation itself. Hence why the translators were instructed to use it in their translation and hence why the KJV borrows so much from it and from Tyndale.

I thought that the KJV was translated to english from latin. What is this borrowing you are talking about??

Douay-Rheims was translated from Latin. It was the official sanctioned translation from its inception (completion 1609) until the Jerusalem Bible (1966). The JB was largely based on the French translation. Meanwhile protestants had long moved on from translating translations and already had over a dozen English translations all using the Hebrew and Greek ...

Sounds more like a Barbara Cartland novel

(December 31, 2012 at 10:22 pm)Aractus Wrote: My question is a simple one.

How can you justify using "the" LXX and the Latin Vulgate as "inspired scripture"???? (PS in this context the LXX means Codex Vaticanus minus the NT).

Good luck in your quest for justification.

Being honest I would say the question you ask is of no relevance to the majority of this forum and makes me wonder why you would post it here. And I can understand fully why the athiests here would ask the question to you in their own way. Why does it matter if you can't show any Bible is inspired by God.

My answer would be ask the question on http://forums.catholic.com/ from a personal point of view i suppose the only justification would be somewhere within the area of Authority. Who has the authority to state which is the most reliable translation and now were off on a new tangent. But seriously if you want a debate with people who are equiped to give you well thought out and scholarly debate on your question the go to the right forum. reminds me a bit of this cute little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q