Islam Thread

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by OJLeb, Dec 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the word is not explained by Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller or any of the other circus clowns then WanRen won't know it.

    He knew what Allahu Akbar means (it is transated in my signature so he doesn't get 100% of the credit) but with Subhanallah, Masha'Allah, Bismallah, alhamdulillah, jazak'Allah, etc he would have no idea about this "Islamic language" because those people do not know these words.
     
  2. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jazak'Allah khair for sharing this by the way, Misri.
     
  3. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Arabic is Arabic, not Islamic, Muslims have hijack Arabic language and made it Islam, so who is the idiocy now. Only Muslims will claim that Arabic is Islam's language. Arabs do not accept Muslims claim that Arabic is Islam's or Muslims language.

    Who is angry? Not I, I am the one that is being accuse of being Islamophobia which I am not I am Islamoprobe I am not afraid of Islam or Muslims. They and you are angry at me because I know more than what you that is why Muslims and you will never have a clear answer as to some of this:
    1. why abrogate peaceful verses with violent verses?
    2. Why Jesus needed a look alike?
    3. Why didn't Jesus testify to the Pharisees that he is not son of God?
    4. Where in the Quran that say the Bible is corrupt?
    5. Where and when did Mohammed say that the Bible is corrupt?
    6. If nothing is said in the Quran that the Bible is corrupt then why Muslims are claiming that it is?

    very simple and friendly questions, that Muslims treat it offensively, why? Is it because they don't have a factual answer?
     
  4. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know, you tell me...

    Okay, I am not sure... are you contradicting yourself, or making no sense whatsoever?

    Arabic is the original language of the Quran, and Quranic Arabic is a different dialect than standard Arabic.


    You.

    Yes, you are angry.

    And you are Islamophobic. You go onto Islamophobic websites, copy the Islamophobe bloggers garbage, and post it on here.

    But the funny thing is you are actually clueless about Islam.

    The violent verses refer to violent times. For example, as crazy as this sounds, verses about war refer to times of war.

    Shocker, hey?

    Ask Allah SWT.

    Ask Jesus (pbuh).

    Was he being crucified for the "son of god" claim, or the "king of the Jews" claim, or the "dying for our sin" claim?

    And why would Jesus (pbuh) say to God, "why has thou forsaken me" if he knew he was god and being killed for our ains?

    When the Bible says Jesus (pbuh) was god, was Gods son, and was killed.

    See question 4.

    Quran is believe to be the literal words of God.

    Quran says Jesus (pbuh) was not killed, nor was he god or the son of god.

    That there is the corruption in the Bible.

    Yalla then, you claim to know more then I do, answer those questions.
     
  5. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Arabic was use it does not mean that Arabic is Islamic language. Arabic is the language of the Arab people not Muslims. Muslims can speak either English, Hebrew, Mandarin etc.

    Me angry, if you say so that is how Muslims always respond never their fault, even though it has always been Muslims always yelling allah akbar!!! then bomb, cut head etc.!! of course that is not angry in Muslim standard that is normal behaviour for them.


    Islamophobic are people who are afraid of Islam, I am not afraid of Islam, I seek the truth ISLAMAPROBE that Muslims have failed to probe their own religion for centurires because they are afraid that they'll be severely punish by their Muslim leaders that is ISLAMAPHOBIA, phobia MEANS AFRAID.

    Am I? or are you just another Islamaphobia Muslim afraid about Islam?



    So in times of war, Muslims are to force convert all none Muslims to Islam no such thing as your religion is your religion? In times of war, Muslims are to kill all who refuse to convert? And in time of peace Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam? In time of peace none Muslims are not allowed to proselytize Muslims...so what's the difference???? The only time peaceful verses are utilise if it is to gain the confidence or to police Muslims actions.

    It still does not answer why the contradicting verses and why violent verses supercede peaceful verses regardless of war or peace.

    He does not know the answer because Muslims have been putting words in Allah's mouth for so long Allah is basically speechless.


    I ask my Jesus Christ, He said that Muslims got it all wrong and that Muslims refuse to listen they always respond with anger and war to hide from the truth.

    All three of them for claiming to be God. Muslim could have easily defeated that claim by having their Jesus go to the Pharisees and claim he is not the son of God, not the King of the Jews or that he is dying for our sins. But, no such revelation from the Quran instead the Quran confirm Jesus crucifixion for refusing to deny he is the Son of God.

    And why would Jesus need to hide from the Pharisees instead he could have met with them and agree with them that he is not the son of God? Wouldn't that have confirm strongly Muslims claim both historically and scripturally that Jesus is not the son of God?

    Didn't the Bible say that Jesus resurrected? And who was Quranic-Jesus father, the Quran has no answer even though it said that the spirit of God came into Mary so this would mean that God is the Father of Jesus, right.


    If it is the literal word of God then why so many contradictions?

    Quran also said that a look like died in his place, this confirm the Biblical crucifixion and why didn't Jesus testify that he is not god, not the son of god to the Pharisees?

    The Bible is written as it is, if it is corrupt then the Quran should clearly say so especially since you said that the Quran is the literal word of God. What we see in the Quran are the many verses that confirm the uncorrupted Bible, instead it is Muslims who have been claiming it is corrupt not even Mohammed dare to make such claim. Mohammed have condemn Christians and Jews but not the Bible.


    Yes, because I am not restrain by fear unlike Muslims and I answer not as an Islamaphobic for if I am Islamaphobic I will not dare ask or answer your questions but I am Islamaprobing.
     
  6. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You hardly answer anything you only refuse to recognize the violent verses and contradictions.

    Real peaceful Muslims are Muslims who recognize those violent verses as what they are and will use Islamic abrogation rule to abrogate those violent verses with peaceful verses. Any Muslims who dare to do such a thing are shun in many cases punish severely by Islamic authorities that is why Muslims are afraid and many Muslims have fled to the West to escape Islam in their home countries.

    As I said, Mohammed himself never say anything about the Bible being corrupt he did condemn Christians, Jews and Muslims for not following God's reveal Book "Bible". Nowhere in the Quran or Mohammed have say nothing about writing a new reveal book to be called Quran. Many verses Mohammed instruct Muslims to read the Bible nothing about writing a Quran.

    That is why the Quran contains zero of the reveal Books, the Bible contain 73 of the Books, Protestant Bible 66 of the reveal Book.

    No Muslims scholars or the most intellectual Muslims will ever have an answer why Muslims contradict the Quran, the Quran that never mention anything about the Bible being corrupt. Muslims got confuse by Mohamed's declaration between Christians and Jews are corrupt not the Bible.

    Are you afraid of Islam?
     
  8. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said "Muslim language". That is a stupid statement only an idiot would make since it is actually Arabic - Coptic Catholics, call God Allah, for example - Islam did not "claim" Arabic, nor did it claim Islam. The justification for Arabic as the first language for Islam and its Prophet is in the construction and use of the language, something you clearly know nothing about.

    You seem very much to be.

    There is no abrogation in the Quran.

    I couldn't care less what Muslims said about the Bible since it itself is not a historically valid document.

    No, I think they find your lies and mythology offensive.

    Its because you are ignorant.
     
  9. hedayat_yafte

    hedayat_yafte New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
    HI
    at this treat I was read some of your posts and I noticed something strange.
    I noticed that In here no one knows Islam right. I do apologize from all the Muslims in here but my view is this.
    .
    .
    .
    Islam is a religion like all of the other religion but it is the last of them which come from our God (OUR creator).
    This religion has a Prophet like the others. The Prophet name is Muhammad. He has came to lead us towards the best outcome. And He came towards us with strong clues to make us believe. Miracles....... like other prophet He had Miracles ... and one of them was Quran.
    The question is: why should a book be the last miracle from god?
    I think the ans. is " during the humans life... god send his prophets miracles that their people accept that with their mind ... you read some of those in your book ... when I think to them, I remember Hollywood movies or cartoons. Why? because those people who lived at that age should accept that with their mind ... I mean they accept these miracles because they was so Strange and New for them and those people's mind can't accept any other miracles .

    But Islam, if this religion should be the last it should have a miracle for all peoples during the time after that. A miracle that everybody can see it during the time.

    That is Holy Quran. This is the word of god that played with his prophet Mohammad tongue.
    This book must the way of humans to bring him to Eternal happiness of the human. If we think that this book is tool to showing our ways (you know like GPS) so it should have Manual note. And who is taking that manual to you? Yes, the Factory or the seller.
    In fact Quran should have such thing to explain that when or why or who … and so on. The Prophet Mohammad was That Manual to explain Quran and after that He was introduced the way to know better of Quran. He said after me this Quran and my dearest household is the way that you can rich to the most top of pleased of god. That is the only rope to rich to god.
    .
    .
    .
    So if you want say something about Quran you should know what they are said about that Verse.


    Thanks for all.
     
  10. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe not as stupid as you think it is unless you are intentionally being ignorant?, yes Coptic and all none Muslim Arabs speak Arabic but it is Muslims who claim that Arabic is the language of their God that is why very few Quran were ever translated to other languages back then and every Muslims around the world are required to learn Arabic at the same time certain Muslim sectors have problem with Christians using the word "Allah" or Arabic in preaching about Christianity, the Bible being translated in Arabic.

    Am I the angry one? When you and Muslims are the ones that are calling me names for daring to question Islam, I guess that is your understanding of angry.


    Tell that to Muslims and to all Muslim scholars. Now, who is the one who knows nothing about Islam......you mean you being very educated in Islam and Muslims didn't know that there is abrogation in Islam or are you in a state of denial? If there is no abrogation then indeed Quran is full of contradictions, right.


    But you should, because it was and is Muslims aggressive claim that the Bible is corrupt that is driving their desire to make sure that Christianity doe snot prosper in their society plus it also proof that Muslims are making things up to claim that the Bible is corrupt when the truth is their Quran even Mohammed never said the Bible is corrupt. Now listen carefully here, Mohammed did claim that Christians and Jews are corrupt now you see I am not anti Islam. Mohammed and the Quran is very clear it is the Christians and Jews who are corrupt for not following what is reveal to them in the Bible especially since they were given charge to read and understand the Bible plus Mohammed was very clear no where did he said to write about a new book called Quran. Quran means RECITE. Muslims are supposed to take the Bible away from the Christians because Christians have not been following what is written in the Bible, instead Muslims ended up writing their own book that has nothing to do with the Bible and their mission to safe guard the Bible has turn into corrupting their own mission that is when all the violent verses comes into play. That is why you will find many verses in the Quran reprimanding Christians and Jews "people of the book" for not following the Reveal Book "Bible".

    It is the truth that hurts not the lies, Read, Read, read...Muslims failed to follow God's instructions.


    Of course that is what Muslims and all who are denial of facts and wants to continue to hide behind their fallacies said, me and others who do not agree with them or who can read are ignorant.
     
  11. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wanren , once again you're spouting a load of bollox and ignoring the fact that Jews also claimed that their god spoke Hebrew , and the Ten Commandments Tablets was written if Hebrew , how the fuk could anyone have understood what El/Eloihin was supposed to have said , what language do you think Gabrial spoke when speaking to Abram ?

    Why the fook did the early Catholic church/Pope object so violentlt when a few CHristians demanded Bible translataions from Latin . ? Did Jesus speak Latin or Aramaic.

    btw - How come , we've not record of anything Jesus wrote , or could it be that he was totally illiterate ? as many Jews still maintain he was ?

    .....
     
  12. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It still does not mean that Arabic is the official language of Islam, nor Hebrew for Judaism or Latin for Catholic. That is why Catholics have no problem with the Bible being translated to many languages, Muslims have problem with their Quran being translated into other languages they prefer Muslims learn Arabic, Muslims also have problem with Christians translating the Bible or using Arabic translated Bible to preach about Christianity.

    How come we have no proof that Jesus is not illiterate? Because Jesus i snot illiterate.
     
  13. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0

    That's not entirely true izzit ? Wasnt there a time ,(historically recent / NOT all that long ago ,when the Catholic Church turned really nasty in oppossing bible translations from Latin ?



    ....
     
  14. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact remains we have NO WRITTEN record, not a single scrap of evidence as proof about Jesus's literacy.

    But to continue re your previous false claims re early Catholic Church's stance against bible translations :



    ..... tis near my bed time


    ---- tatty-byeee
     
  15. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True the facts remain there is no proof that Jesus is illiterate on the other hand many proof that Jesus is the most literate person of his time he can communicate in Latin to the Romans, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, he is also very well verse in ancient scriptures that caught the most educated literate Pharisees off guard.

    At the same time Muslims have never allowed the translation of the Quran, any Muslims who dare to translate the Quran are severely punish. The first known translated Quran into English was sometime in the the 1917 by none Muslims. In fact, not only are Muslims against translation they were also against any modern printing of the Quran.
     
  16. JoanofArc

    JoanofArc New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seriously? My edition of the Jerusalem Bible translated from only Hebrew & Greek has the imprimatur (stamped RCC's official seal of approval).

    Versions of the Bible (please note dates)

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

    The Latin language was not the first literary and official organ of the Christian Church in the West. It was Greek.

    When I was a child the Mass was spoken in Latin. We had Latin Missals to accompany the Mass. As a matter of fact, to this day I can recall most portions of the Mass in Latin. Of course I studied Latin in school. So it was no sweat.

    Vatican II changed the universal language usage of Latin to a country's or congregation's native language in 1965. Having the Mass spoken in one language anywhere on earth made it easy for Catholics to travel, and able to celebrate the Mass together. Unfortunately, Latin wasn’t universally taught in schools like it once was centuries ago. Thus, many people didn’t know Latin at all.

    Why would the RCC oppose Latin translations? LOL The Vulgate was a Latin translation.
     
  17. JoanofArc

    JoanofArc New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Although John Wycliff is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliff's work. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars. Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words). Very few complete translations existed during that time. Rather, most of the books of the Bible existed separately and were read as individual texts. Thus, the sense of the Bible as history that often exists today did not exist at that time. Instead, a more allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.

    Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). Aldhelm (c. 639–709) translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English.

    In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street.[1] This is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language.[1]

    The Wessex Gospels (also known as the West-Saxon Gospels) are a full translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in approximately 990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text.

    In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English. The Old English Hexateuch is an illuminated manuscript of the first six books of the Old Testament without lavish illustrations and including a translation of the Book of Judges in addition to the 5 books of the Pentateuch...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible
     
  18. JoanofArc

    JoanofArc New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jesus was indeed literate.

    Luke 4: 14-21 (NJB)

    14 Jesus, with the power of the Spirit in him, returned to Galilee; and his reputation spread throughout the countryside. 15 He taught in their synagogues and everyone glorified him. 16 He came to Nazara, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day as he usually did. He stood up to read, 17 and they handed him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Unrolling the scroll he found the place where it is written: 18 The spirit of the Lord is on me, for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim a year of favour from the Lord. 20 He then rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the assistant and sat down. And all eyes in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to speak to them, 'This text is being fulfilled today even while you are listening.'
     
  19. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hahahaha - where did you here that ? You claim there's "many proof " - LET'S SEE YOUR PROOF .


    OMG - what a load of BS - Talking out of yr B/side again ? ?

    A friend sent me a copy of the Quran IN ENGLISH PUBLISHED by Dar al-Choura , Beirut , Lebanon., I understand there are many other translataions of Quran in many other languages.


    Use yr search engine you might even find a copy of Quran in Hebrew see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Rubin

    other translations :

    List of translations of the Quran

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_translations_of_the_Quran#Hebrew
     
  20. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WE've only got Luke's word for it, Still , NO documentary evidence in Jesus';s own hand writing.

    How come Luke or any of Jesus's buddies didnt keep / preserve a single document written by Jesus. ?


    .......
     
  21. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Thank you Joan , -yr link FROM A CATHOLIC SIT - is most informative - I've noted the dates :
    oF f course it would'nt mention the negative bits, would it ?
    For example it appears to gloss over the trial and death - burnt at the stake of William Tyndale on a charge of heresy for translating the bible into Early form of modern English .



    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

    PLUS :


    rEAD MORE
    http://www.biblemagazine.com/magazine/vol-9/issue-2/edit.html
     
  22. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Bible is my proof, where's yours? At the same time Islam have prove that Mohammed was illiterate no question about that.

    Not as bad as yours :)

    And it was translated into English when, 1920s, 1930?? and was the Quran ever translated to Hebrew, Greek or Latin before the 17th century we know that the first written Quran was completed some time in the late 600s and that Muslim rulers have very harsh and strict rules regarding having the Quran translated into other languages including Arabic of none Islamic nature.


    [/QUOTE]

    Quran in other languages dated 1800s - 1900s nothing between 700s - 1100s.

    The Bible have been written and translated in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic since the 400 hundreds and later to English, Mandarin, Spanish etc. etc. Korean, Tagalog.
     
  23. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Luke's hand writing is from Jesus words, just like Moses wrote what God dictated to him in Mt. Sinai and when God wrote on the tablets of stone the Ten Commandments the same God that is Jesus Christ.
     
  24. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For Joan , continuation of my earlier post :


    "
    In 1923 a small booklet was published by the Catholic Truth Society in London, England. The title was Christadelphianism and it was written by a J.W. Poynter. According to this Mr. Poynter--"The Christadelphians, in fact, are simply an ordinary protestant sect..."

    "Their essential oneness with ordinary Protestantism is further shown by the fact that, as the basis of their whole position, they have simply taken the ordinary English Protestant Bible..."

    Christadelphians of course, are not "ordinary Protestants" (ask an ordinary Protestant!)--but the point here is to draw attention to the Roman view that the "Protestant Bible" is an inadequate and inferior version. The Roman Church has always been opposed to it. It is this Bible that they understand as the basis and foundation of the Christadelphian Faith.

    Now this is the Bible that Rome has endeavoured to supplant ever since the mid 1500's--but was largely unsuccessful. The King James authorized Version--based largely upon the work of Tyndale, proved to be unassailable over a period of some 300 years.

    It is reported by historians that William Tyndale's last words before the executioner ended his life, were: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" Seventy-five years later a King of England "authorized" a translation of the Bible into the English tongue--the King James Version. This was not a perfect translation (it originally included the Apocryphal books) and most reasonable people appreciate the fact that it has many blemishes, even reflecting some of the doctrinal convictions of the translators. In spite of the faults however, the King James Authorized Version was an adequate translation, and enabled its readers to discover truths which had been previously veiled. It gave rise to the non-conformist movement which arose from the independent study of the Word of God. This was the Bible which Rome opposed--and to which she is still opposed.

    It was during the 19th Century that textual critics began casting doubt upon the Received text that the New Testament of the Authorized Bible was based upon. This led to revisions of the Biblical text; revisions which just happened (!) to produce a Greek text which was closer to the one which Rome favoured. Details about this can be read in such books as "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller (pub. Grand Rapids International Publications).

    About the middle of the present century the Ecumenical movement began to gain momentum and Catholics began to work alongside their "separated brethren" in order to produce "modern" translations. For example, in the 1965 papal Encyclical De Divina Revelatione (Divine Revelation) it was stated:

    "...since the word of God ought to be available at all times, the Church with motherly care provides that suitable and accurate versions are made in a variety of languages, and especially versions based on the original texts of holy scripture. If, when occasion offers and leave is given by the Church's authority, such versions are prepared by a common effort shared by our separated brethren, the resulting works can be used by all Christians."

    We are not told which versions were produced in this way, but a comment on the 1952 RSV made in the Jesuit magazine America is worth noting: "If the R.S.V. is not precisely that much desired common BIBLE, it is only one step from it." The phrase "common Bible" of course, expresses the sense of the Latin Vulgate.

    In a booklet entitled Unity (Imprimatur, 1967) issued by the Catholic EnquiryCentre in England we were told: "Catholic and non-Catholic scholars are striving to prepare a translation of the Bible from the original languages that will be acceptable to all Christians." This was seen when the Roman Church appointed representatives to the committee translating the New English Bible published in 1970.

    The crop of new translations offered to the public since the 1950's have gradually come nearer to Rome's position. Not only has the text been revised, but often we find that versions are made available "complete with Apocrypha" in order to accommodate the Catholic Church.

    Co-operation between Catholic and Protestant scholars in producing "contemporary renditions of the Bible" can be followed with both interest and (when the objectives are appreciated) alarm. In an article headed "Bible versions changing?" a Lutheran member of one editorial board is reported as saying that Bible editions are "moving toward greater convergence." He points out that "Catholic and Protestant Bible scholars have collaborated since mid-century, even before the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65..."

    We are now several years on from those early days of co-operation and have a wide variety of Bible versions to choose from--all in "modern English" and therefore (so we are told) much easier to understand than the archaic King James Version. As the years move on we have seen Bible readers reach out for the latest translations--they became infatuated with the R.S.V., the New English Bible and now the New International Version. What next? The pedlar cries out "New Lamps for Old!" and we see the response as people flock for a trade-in. Even versions that are based upon the Received text, such as the New King James Version, reveal the hand of the deceiver, as subtle changes in sense lead the reader away from truth (c/p Psalm 146:3,4 in the old and new KJV).

    We have stated earlier that the King James Authorized Version is far from perfect, yet adequate. We must add here that other translations--even though they may not be suitable for general use--are often helpful in bringing out the sense of a passage. This is true of translations which pre-date King James (such as Tyndale) as well as those which have come after it. But it would be very foolish to abandon the version which has proved itself to be quite competent in enlightening so many, for one which has kept millions in darkness and servitude to papal authority. We would do well to recognize that the majority of new versions today conform to the pattern of this Catholic Bible, rather than to the so-called "Protestant Bible". They are "ecumenical translations" and are produced with precisely that effect in mind.

    Consider the words in the recent papal encyclical UT UNUM SINT (That they may be One), 1995.

    "Significant progress in ecumenical cooperation has also been made in another area, that of the Word of God. I am thinking above all of the importance for the different language groups of ecumenical translations of the Bible. Following the promulgation by the Second Vatican Council of the Constitution Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church could not fail to welcome this development. These translations, prepared by experts, generally offer a solid basis for the prayer and pastoral activity of Christ's followers. Anyone who recalls how heavily debates about Scripture influenced divisions, especially in the West, can appreciate the significant step forward which these common translations represent."

    It seems absolutely incredible to this writer, that Bible believers could be so easily deceived by the trickery that Rome has conjured. The stated objective of today's "new" translations is before us--it is to further ecumenism to bring "Christians" back into the embrace of the "mother church". These versions display an entirely different character to the old Authorized.

    We hope that our reader will pause to consider what we have said, and not be persuaded by the propaganda, the scholarly bluff or the insidious arguments used to encourage the abandonment of the King James Authorized Version. For our part, we have done our duty in giving this warning--and it is only out of genuine concern for others that we express the view that the modern ecumenical versions--where they are adopted for general use--will lead people astray from the Truth, rather than to a knowledge of it. Better to struggle with the vocabulary of the KJV seeking the aid of a dictionary (and/or a concordance) than to place one's understanding in the hands of ecumenists.
     
  25. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0


    We've only got Luke's word -

    But Wanren re Moses you've once again
    shown you dont know what your talking about . Moses did NOT wite what his god dictated - go read your boble :


    Wanren please stop posting nonsense - GO LEARN .


    ..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page