I was being sarcastic... like this:

Don't pop a tampon or anything!

(January 5, 2013 at 7:45 am)Aractus Wrote: I was being sarcastic... like this:

Don't pop a tampon or anything!

WTF? hock: You use tampons??


Oh my!

---

Aractus Wrote:I have given the Catholics here a perfectly open invitation to defend one of their core doctrinal matters - what authoritative textual basis scripture has - and they have failed to even answer my very basic question, which is simply "How can you justify using 'the' LXX and the Latin Vulgate as 'inspired scripture'?"

on this forum ( which I have pointed out before is the silliest possible place for that discussion anyway ) or on a forum full of catholics like Catholic Answers as I would like to read the thread.

Why's that? Do you actually think there's a defendable intelligent answer? I can defend the use of the MT for the OT, anywhere anyplace anytime. What you're saying is that you won't defend your faith here?

(January 5, 2013 at 8:49 am)Aractus Wrote: Why's that? Do you actually think there's a defendable intelligent answer? I can defend the use of the MT for the OT, anywhere anyplace anytime. What you're saying is that you won't defend your faith here?

no i'm saying show me the thread where you debated this with people who have read the same book as you and lots more,(so I can read it also) so you could have a proper discussion as in a large Catholic forum. I'm also saying I do not see how it makes any sense to debate something on this forum where the relevance of which books in the Bible is ZERO to the vast majority. So yes if you don't have that sense that's fine but don't expect me to join in; in any major way.

The question isn't whether the Apocrypha should be in the Bible or not. You and I both know that in the 17th century the Church of England read from the Apocrypha in Church every Sunday.

You have access to Catholic sources and material which I typically don't (except perhaps for the online Catholic Encyclopaedia). You are fully capable of doing your own research.

The Vulgate is the main thing here, for me. It was decreed at the Council of Trent to be the holy infallible word of God. The fact that your newer translations no longer use it primarily, as you point out, means that Catholic scholars must think one of two things. 1. that the LV is NOT the holy infallible word of God or 2. that they have something better than the holy infallible word of God (LAWL).

God didn't give us two completely different books of Isaiah, that's ridiculous. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or they're both wrong, but you can't have them both as infallible, same thing with the rest of the books - it's just a good example here.

Do you want to know what I see as the biggest problem with the Catholic viewpoint on scripture? The Jews did not alter their canon since the destruction of the first temple. So in a way you're denying history by claiming that some unknown historical event took place, and the Jewish scriptures became corrupted.

(January 5, 2013 at 9:33 am)Aractus Wrote: The question isn't whether the Apocrypha should be in the Bible or not. You and I both know that in the 17th century the Church of England read from the Apocrypha in Church every Sunday.

You have access to Catholic sources and material which I typically don't (except perhaps for the online Catholic Encyclopaedia). You are fully capable of doing your own research.

The Vulgate is the main thing here, for me. It was decreed at the Council of Trent to be the holy infallible word of God. The fact that your newer translations no longer use it primarily, as you point out, means that Catholic scholars must think one of two things. 1. that the LV is NOT the holy infallible word of God or 2. that they have something better than the holy infallible word of God (LAWL).

God didn't give us two completely different books of Isaiah, that's ridiculous. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or they're both wrong, but you can't have them both as infallible, same thing with the rest of the books - it's just a good example here.

Do you want to know what I see as the biggest problem with the Catholic viewpoint on scripture? The Jews did not alter their canon since the destruction of the first temple. So in a way you're denying history by claiming that some unknown historical event took place, and the Jewish scriptures became corrupted.

I thought I explained my position already; so i will make it simpler NO.