[Lisa H]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

Chatolic Philosopher

Why are your worrying about this. You should be more worried about the non existent location you live in.

Panama, New Zeland

Now you live in;

Madrid, Japan

How are we supposed to take you word for anything.

[Levi Jones]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

Also, your KJV has a problem with verse.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

It's wrong, because it should be:
Beware lest any man spoil you through [false] philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

According to the Douhay-Rhiems the original catlicker English Bible,

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:

What happened there? Did the pope God change His mind?

[Chatolic Philosopher]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

Now you live in;

Madrid, Japan

How are we supposed to take you word for anything.

And you? Location: Walking on the Lord's path
Where is that exactly? Is a town? A country?

According to the Douhay-Rhiems the original catlicker English Bible,

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:

What happened there? Did the pope God change His mind?

My point is that the philosophy isn't wrong at the moment of teaching, or converting an atheist. Or an agnostic.

[Christian Refugee]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

So, you didn't find that verse to prove I'm wrong? I'm not adding the word, your Bible doesn't have it and because you can't admit that you are wrong, nor even prove that you're right because you're too lazy for searching that verse gives me the reason.

Found it!

Colossians 2:8 videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum secundum elementa mundi et non secundum Christum

[Levi Jones]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

My point is that the philosophy isn't wrong at the moment of teaching, or converting an atheist. Or an agnostic.

Then why does your own former Bible say it is?

What happened there?

[Lisa H]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

And you? Location: Walking on the Lord's path
Where is that exactly? Is a town? A country?

If you do not know the Lord's path I feel sorry for you.

Psalm 25:10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Now stop reading false Bibles and accept the King James Bible.

[Chatolic Philosopher]

Aha! I'm right!

Then why does your own former Bible say it is?

What happened there?

Catholic version of Colossians 2:8 Do not be enslaved by anyone with the emptiness of a false philosophy, inspired purelyhuman tradition and the elements of the world, and not after Christ.

My Bible say not to use false phylosophy. Did you read my first post? There is a explanation of the correct use of phylosophy(Saint Thomas Aquinas) and the wrong one(Nietzche)

[Levi Jones]

Re: Aha! I'm right!

My Bible say not to use false phylosophy. Did you read my first post? There is a explanation of the correct use of phylosophy(Saint Thomas Aquinas) and the wrong one(Nietzche)

Nope, I'm not getting it. Your own (former) Bible says,

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:

[Bible Student]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

Originally Posted by Lisa H
There is no missing word. You are just adding it in to suit your own agenda and false Bibles.

I can justify myself. The Bible was transcripted to Latin, and it stayed like that for a long time(even when the Protestants[A.K.A:Somehow you] broke away from the Church). When it was transcribed to English there was a big chance of making a mistake. Instead, when it was transcribed to French and Spanish, because both languages are derivated from Latin, the transcribe was easier. If you want to see it by yourself, post Colossians 2:8 extracted from the Original Latin Bible, you'll see that your Bible deleted(accidentaly) a word.

As Lisa told you, there is no missing word. Now I am not sure you even know what you are talking about when you say "Original Latin Bible." Certainly you never even saw one, nor the bible in languages you think they were translated from. And the proper word is translated not transcribed.

But let us test your theory. Jerome's Latin Vulgate has:

videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum secundum elementa mundi et non secundum Christum

The highlighted words mean "through philosophy and." No missing word in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. But then Jerome was not the first to translate the bible into Latin. An earlier Latin text known as The Old Latin Bible or Vetus Latina was a much early translation of the Greek texts, and it had still been used for years after Jerome circulated his bible. However the book Colossians does not exist in any of the 50+ existent manuscripts or fragments, so I am not sure how you can make a case at all for the Latin.

So now let us look at the Greek versions.

The oldest Codex Sinaiticus has:

βλεπεται μη τιϲ
εϲται ϋμαϲ ο ϲυλα
γων δια τηϲ φιλο
ϲοφιαϲ και κενηϲ
απατηϲ κατα την
παραδοϲιν των α
θρωπων κατα τα
ϲτοιχια του κοϲμ(ου)
και ου κατα χν

The bold characters mean "through the philosophy and" so they added an indefinite article but no missing word "false".

Codex Vaticanus has the exact same words. No word "false" there. It is rendered exactly the same in all of the Byzantine Majority texts, the Alexandrian texts, Hort and Westcott, Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, and the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus. No missing word "false" in any text whatsoever.

And just in case you hold that the Aramaic was original to the Greek, Lamsa's English translation of the Peshitta reads "through philosophy and." I will not include the Aramaic because I doubt you can read it. The point is there is no missing word "false".

Above all, the only authentic, believable bible in English and the only bible that should be your guide to eternal bliss and the one recommended by every True Christian is the 1611 King James Bible and it reads:

Beware lest any man spoile you through philosophie and vaine deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments (elements) of the world, and not after Christ.

Please show me any ancient text that has the missing word "false" in it. You can't. Furthermore you are trumped by the 1611 King James Bible translated by the holy men of God.

Also, if you claim as false any of the last philosophys I've posted you would be claiming that there is no good & evil, no God, no soul. Because that's what they are.



Is this false? Why?

[Chatolic Philosopher]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

^
Now THAT is a decent answer. By original latin bible I meaned the Bible from where the KJV was translated.
I must admit, you did the trick. I was wrong, but, why did my Bible had that word included?

Although my point was the teaching with philosophy.

If you do not know the Lord's path I feel sorry for you.

Psalm 25:10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Now stop reading false Bibles and accept the King James Bible.

If the KJB is the real Bible why does it have so many versions?

[Lisa H]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

^
Now THAT is a decent answer. By original latin bible I meaned the Bible from where the KJV was translated.
I must admit, you did the trick. I was wrong, but, why did my Bible had that word included?

Although my point was the teaching with philosophy.



If the KJB is the real Bible why does it have so many versions?

How about you stop questioning everything and accept the King James Bible. Philosophy is just a waste of time and practiced by people who do not want to live in the real world.

[barton]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

You can't accept the Christianity the way it is so you have to change it.

Really! This is rich coming from a Catholic. Don't you know your own church's ridiculous history? I think the deification of Mary qualifies as a pretty substantial change, don't you think? If your Popes are so infallible, why couldn't they get this all sorted out correctly when the church was founded and not wait to do a little bit in 1854 and another piece in 1950?

I guess the current push to fully worship Mary, bypassing Jesus altogether, is not a change either? New dogma, coming to a Church near you: Mary, the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix. Yeah, Catholics don't need Jesus... Mary will fix things for you, she's your salvation.

The big problem for you Catholics is summed up by Sir Walter Scott, a closet Catholic sympathizer by the way: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" The Catholic Church is in a constant state of flux, forever having to adjust doctrine, always trying to stay a step ahead of complete logical meltdown. Each new absurd lie from your Holy See eventually requires further and greater absurdities!

Meanwhile, we just believe in our Bible, the KJV of 1611. No sleight of hand. No Pope tricks. No altar-boy raping. No rape-enabling hierarchy. Just pure good old-fashioned, Bible-believing Christianity. Not complicated enough for you, I guess.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

^
Irrelevant dribble from an impostor who cannot even spell her name right

If you are a CATHOLIC why did you spell CATHOLIC wrong?
Are you Portuguese?
Or Poartchogeese?
Or Pawrchageez?

Or What?
Or wot?
Or wawt?


YIC, a sceptical McUinnean.

[Bible Student]

Re: I'm a Chatolic I don't see what's your point

^
Now THAT is a decent answer. By original latin bible I meaned the Bible from where the KJV was translated.

That would be Jerome's Latin Vulgate. It did not have the word "false" in it either, as I have noted. So the 1611 King James Bible also did not contain the word "false".

I must admit, you did the trick. I was wrong, but, why did my Bible had that word included?

II Peter 2:1-2 -- But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Although my point was the teaching with philosophy.



If the KJB is the real Bible why does it have so many versions?

Because those types of people mentioned in II Peter 2:1-3 bastardized the true 1611 King James Bible, an act for which they will go to hell, or more than likely most are already there.

[Johannes Kirkeholm]

Re: Reason against blindness

The Old Testament was writted in a symbolical way. Ask any theologist, he will explain it to you. There are true facts in the Bible, but the Bible can't be use as a historical book. Ask any historian

In that case please explain to me the symbolic meaning of these verses:

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

2 Chronicles 15:13
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman

Leviticus 15:19
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even

Leviticus 18:23
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Leviticus 20:16
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Exodus 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

You catholics are the ones who add a symbolic meaning to these words in order to make the Bible more politically correct and yet you claim that we True Christians™ are the ones who change Christianity?