Dear Mark 13:13 & Catholics

[FallentoReason]

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.

The Jews were at least honest enough to leave both creation accounts in there (out of a possible original 4 I believe) instead of choosing the better one.

It's clearly cherry picking that defined the NT. If you're arguing for authenticity and reliability because we supposedly know for a "fact" who wrote what in the current NT, then why is it in actuality that e.g. half of Paul's epistles are pseudonymous? I'm assuming they at least sounded better than the other equally valid doctrines going around at the time?

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.

Clearly it didn't stop the system from conveniently adding stuff that came from absolute anonymous figures.

[Aractus]

Try again please. I'm asking you and the other active Catholics here to tell me why you accept the Latin Vulgate (Jerome, 4th century) as inspired scripture. You don't need to bring scholarly thought in to it. Why does it have equal status as scripture as Codex Vaticanus? And - most importantly - how can you justify Vaticanus as scripture for the OT when we have a far better preserved Hebrew language version (the Masoretic Text)?

[FallentoReason]

Try again please. I'm asking you and the other active Catholics here to tell me why you accept the Latin Vulgate (Jerome, 4th century) as inspired scripture. You don't need to bring scholarly thought in to it. Why does it have equal status as scripture as Codex Vaticanus? And - most importantly - how can you justify Vaticanus as scripture for the OT when we have a far better preserved Hebrew language version (the Masoretic Text)?

Great, so we have my observations that can't be properly satisfied and on top of that you're creating more intellectual dissonance by clashing two different denominations together.

[Mark 13:13]

Try again please. I'm asking you and the other active Catholics here to tell me why you accept the Latin Vulgate (Jerome, 4th century) as inspired scripture. You don't need to bring scholarly thought in to it. Why does it have equal status as scripture as Codex Vaticanus? And - most importantly - how can you justify Vaticanus as scripture for the OT when we have a far better preserved Hebrew language version (the Masoretic Text)?

Seriously, you are saying you want a debate with scholarly thought left out?

I can give you my opinions but what worth will they be to you as I struggle as it is with spelling english and you want me to discuss the fine points of translations in latin,greek and aramaic , throw in some ancient and medieval history, jewish and christian politics.

Why I accept one text over another tbh I would accept the one written in English as that's the language I speak and I have never had any major issues with the fine points of translation as my faith isn't built on cherry picking quotes but rather trying to see the Bible as a narrative that needs to be seen in a complete context. So i defer to the scholarship of Church in choice as I believe that I could pick up any reasonable translation and be happy to use it. I had faith in God before I even read the bible and the first christians didn't even have a Bible for quite some time.

But really if you are so sure of your scholarship then don't be a coward and go and put it to a proper test with people called scholars who can really give you a proper discussion.

[Minimalist]

The 22 scrolls are the entire OT canon (39 "books"), and were so at the time of Christ.

The earliest extant "Hebrew" bible dates only to the early 11th century AD.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us anything it is that these various writings existed as separate documents and had not been "canonized" into a single book as late as 70 AD.

[Cato]

Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc.

You can likely answer your own question by giving us your reason(s) for rejecting translations, but accept the validity of hand copied script.

[Lion IRC]

Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc.

What the?

And how about the whole bible while you're at it?

This reply got 10 kudos Aractus.
You have dug something of a hole for yourself.

I have three questions for you.

1. Can God speak Latin?

2. Is there any word which humans cannot translate from one language to another?

3. Jesus said to preach the Gospel to ALL nations. (eg. Mark 16:15) What language would you recommend I use?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

....

1. Can God speak Latin?

He's all powerful, and all knowing so...yes.

2. Is there any word which humans cannot translate from one language to another?

God is all powerful so that shouldn't be a problem.

3. Jesus said to preach the Gospel to ALL nations. (eg. Mark 16:15) What language would you recommend I use?

God's all powerful so he could have used all of them. Or maybe he could have taught a new universal language.

[Whateverist]

And how about the whole bible while you're at it?

This reply got 10 kudos Aractus.
You have dug something of a hole for yourself.

I have three questions for you.

1. Can God speak Latin?

2. Is there any word which humans cannot translate from one language to another?

3. Jesus said to preach the Gospel to ALL nations. (eg. Mark 16:15) What language would you recommend I use?

Truly, if you didn't grow up in that faith, what in the world would convince you that its particular book had all the answers for all of life's big questions? Why should any book be treated in this way? If you don't assume the bible (for example) is the inspired word of god, you wouldn't have any substantive knowledge of what your god wants of you. But maybe it would be best -more intellectually honest- to just acknowledge that epistemically you are not in any privileged position. You choose to believe in your god because that is your tradition, and leave it at that. The book just tells you what your traditions are and may or may not represent god's marching orders. Why aren't there more agnostic theists anyway? Most of us are agnostic atheists. It isn't as hard as you might think.

[LastPoet]

Fuck, I wish that Aractus posted this OP almost dead drunk after the NY's eve.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.