(June 26, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: 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.
Quote: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?