To truely understand his writings, shouldn't believers learn the original language it was written in so as to understand it's teachings without any fear of error or contridiction. To me at least this seems only natural, and a repectful thing to do.
It seems arrogant to change his words just so that it is more convienient for people to read. Because as anyone that has played the whispers game knows, by changing even one simple word in a sentence you can, and in many cases it will change the whole meaning of the sentence.
2007-09-20 02:54:17 · 6 answers · asked by Puck 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).
The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.
The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.
Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.
But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
2007-09-20 06:07:00 · answer #1 · answered by cashelmara 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter if you change the words or not, because they are not the word of God. They are interpritations of stories that man wrote down in a bood and said they are the word of God. So changing these words would be changing the words of man not God. Besides the church has been changing things since the time of Jesus to get the public to behave and act in ways that benefit the church.
2007-09-20 10:00:12 · answer #2 · answered by CSND 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth. The bible also gives us specific instructions as to how to study the bible, line upon line, precept upon precept, etc. God is fully aware of the language differences on earth. He is the one who caused it to happen at the tower of babel. Given all this, why should we not trust God and His promises when we study the bible. Our salvation is not based on our understanding of Hebrew but our trust in Him.
2007-09-20 10:09:32 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My preacher uses Hebrew words and gives their meanings at times.
You learn the Bible and understand it as God opens your eyes ---for the way YOU, yourself, can understand it.
2007-09-20 10:03:00 · answer #4 · answered by bettyboop 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he wrote it I'd agree.
As it is just the word of man. Do what you want with it.
2007-09-20 09:59:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who is we bro?
I wouldn't alter the Gospel.
2007-09-20 09:59:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋