Get In The Ark Before It Is Too Late!!!

[Chad32]

Nice video. I'd have to look it up to see if Bill was a christian or not.

[Confused Ape]

It's too bad that you don't realize that the English wrote the Vulgate as a gift to the Pope.

Even if that was true it wouldn't have been John Wycliffe and friends because they were in the 14th century, not the late 4th.

Thank goodness the English guys who wrote the Bible didn't use traditional Middle East Jewish names for the main characters. Their fairy tale flows much better with names like Jesus, Adam & Eve, Peter, Paul, Mary, James, John, Mark and Luke instead of names like Diotrephes, Aristarchus, Zenas, Trophimus, Onesiphorus, and Eubulus.

Vulgate Bible

The Vulgate is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible.

The translation was largely the work of

Saint Jerome.

Saint Jerome (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος; c.  347 – 30 September 420) was an Illyrian[1] Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian and historian, who also became a Doctor of the Church. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his commentaries on the Gospel of the Hebrews. His list of writings is extensive.[2]

Saint Jerome wasn't English.

Vulgate Bible's Relation With The Old Latin Bible

The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin. Likewise the Latin Vulgate was so named because it was the Latin counterpart to the Greek Vulgate; it was not written in Vulgar Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited. The individual books varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witness wide variations in readings. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint, not from the Hebrew.

Sounds like the earlier translation was a bit of a mess so Saint Jerome decided to have another go.

The names of Biblical characters ended up translated into something which sounded more familiar in Greek etc. This kind of thing isn't unique to New Testament character names. Here's one example - Anubis.

Anubis is one of the most iconic gods of ancient Egypt. Anubis is the Greek version of his name, the ancient Egyptians knew him as Anpu (or Inpu).

Anyway, over to you. Your job is to prove that English people wrote the Bible in Latin earlier than the 4th century.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If the Vulgate is written in verses then it's a fake and it wasn't written in the 4th Century.

[GrandizerII]

If the Vulgate is written in verses then it's a fake and it wasn't written in the 4th Century.

So what were they translating/referencing again if not the Vulgate or some older non-English copy of the Scriptures that were being referenced and quoted by several authors and theologians way before the 14th century?

You're not well-equipped with the proper critical thinking skills, it seems.

---

Do you inform people that there was NEVER a person named Jesus who lived at the supposed time of the christ - ?

Never is a strong word. I find that agnosticism regarding Jesus' existence is more reasonable.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

If the Vulgate is written in verses then it's a fake and it wasn't written in the 4th Century.

---

So what were they translating/referencing again if not the Vulgate or some older non-English copy of the Scriptures that were being referenced and quoted by several authors and theologians way before the 14th century?

You're not well-equipped with the proper critical thinking skills, it seems.

---

Do you inform people that there was NEVER a person named Jesus who lived at the supposed time of the christ - ?

Never is a strong word. I find that agnosticism regarding Jesus' existence is more reasonable.

Here's a critique of your favorite Bible. http://www.reformation.org/latin-vulgate-unmasked.html

It seems that the Vulgate wasn't very reliable.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/vulgateonlyvskjb.htm
"A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon" Press, 1940, p. 120).

[GrandizerII]

Here's a critique of your favorite Bible. http://www.reformation.org/latin-vulgate-unmasked.html

Oh, I see now what stupid source you're using.

It seems that the Vulgate wasn't very reliable.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/vulgateonlyvskjb.htm
"A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon" Press, 1940, p. 120).

And here you argue exactly like a KJV-Onlyist.

But what does this have to do with the original argument you were making? The Vulgate had translation errors, so?

[Revelation777]

My definition of religion is man's effort in trying to have a relationship with God. Having a relationship with Christ because He sought me out and I opened my heart to Him is what I believe in. There is a great gulf between a person who proclaims to be a Christian and a genuine one.

You might be interested to know that 'genuine' Christians prohibited women from voting at one point in American history, and most owned slaves.

After all, 'murica was built on 'Christian values.' And it's alllllll in your beloved Bible. The condoning of slavery, women seen as second under men, and even chastising and outcasting homosexuals can all be found in the Bible.

This is your 'idea' of a god worth worshipping?

Women have equal worth in the Bible, yet different roles. Being a servant or slave back in Biblical times with the exception of under Egypt's oppression, not like what we are familiar with in America. It was a way of life for many to survive in Israel's economy. Homosexuality is not a natural act and is considered sin in the Bible. God did not create man to have sex with another man nor any animals for that matter.

---

Rev, answer me you chuckle fuck, this is like the 3rd or 4th time of asking, maybe if I put it in bold, you will see it?

You claimed that there was scientific evidence for a world-wide flood but didn't present it. Present it now, or admit that you were wrong to make such a claim.

That might be addressed in a future argument. This thread is about getting into the ark before the flood. Or, that you repent and receive Christ before the final judgement.

[Whateverist]

You might be interested to know that 'genuine' Christians prohibited women from voting at one point in American history, and most owned slaves.

After all, 'murica was built on 'Christian values.' And it's alllllll in your beloved Bible. The condoning of slavery, women seen as second under men, and even chastising and outcasting homosexuals can all be found in the Bible.

This is your 'idea' of a god worth worshipping?

Women have equal worth in the Bible, yet different roles.

Yep, just like the mailroom boy and the CEO. Different roles but both have equal status in gawd's eyes.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Here's a critique of your favorite Bible. http://www.reformation.org/latin-vulgate-unmasked.html

Oh, I see now what stupid source you're using.

It seems that the Vulgate wasn't very reliable.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/vulgateonlyvskjb.htm
"A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon" Press, 1940, p. 120).

And here you argue exactly like a KJV-Onlyist.

---

But what does this have to do with the original argument you were making? The Vulgate had translation errors, so?

The Vulgate had translation errors because people had made numerous errors over time from the original Bible that the English wrote.

---

---

You might be interested to know that 'genuine' Christians prohibited women from voting at one point in American history, and most owned slaves.

After all, 'murica was built on 'Christian values.' And it's alllllll in your beloved Bible. The condoning of slavery, women seen as second under men, and even chastising and outcasting homosexuals can all be found in the Bible.

This is your 'idea' of a god worth worshipping?

Women have equal worth in the Bible, yet different roles. Being a servant or slave back in Biblical times with the exception of under Egypt's oppression, not like what we are familiar with in America. It was a way of life for many to survive in Israel's economy. Homosexuality is not a natural act and is considered sin in the Bible. God did not create man to have sex with another man nor any animals for that matter.

---

Rev, answer me you chuckle fuck, this is like the 3rd or 4th time of asking, maybe if I put it in bold, you will see it?

You claimed that there was scientific evidence for a world-wide flood but didn't present it. Present it now, or admit that you were wrong to make such a claim.

---

That might be addressed in a future argument. This thread is about getting into the ark before the flood. Or, that you repent and receive Christ before the final judgement.

Maybe you can explain something regarding Noah's flood.

When Adam & Eve were running around naked in the Garden of Eden Assyrian and Cush were just down the road (Genesis 2:13-14). Time passes and Noah gets word to build a wooden ark to save himself and 7 other people and pairs of animals. Everyone gets killed in a watery flood that covers the tallest mountains.

Noah and his family pop out of the ark after a year, breed faster than the rabbits and termites, and before you know it Nimrod went to Assyria and built Nineveh (Genesis 10:11).

Can you explain how Assyria survived the flood when everyone was supposed to have died in the flood? Was Assyria waterproof?

[GrandizerII]

The Vulgate had translation errors because people had made numerous errors over time from the original Bible that the English wrote.

The English copies also have translation errors.

Anyway, your argument here is a non sequitur. Your conclusion that the original Bible was written by Englishmen does not follow from the premises stated/implied.