This Flaw In The Catholic Bible Drives Them Nuts

[Perfessor]

My wife is a Catholic and I considered joining about 20 years ago. I was an avid Bible reader. There's the part in Galatians 3:15-16 that says:

15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"<a name="28"> meaning one person, who is Christ.

 

Now, Paul was supposed to be a knowledgable Jew who knew the scriptures. He studied them and he knew them; the Catholic church acknowledges this. Problem is, the Old Testament scripture Paul refers to says "Seeds" in the Catholic bible. Here's what took place after I started asking the Catholic church for an explanation:

 

1) I asked a nun. She said to ask the priest.

2)I asked the priest and he referred me to the local "bible scholar priest". (?)

3)I asked the "bible scholar priest" and he referred me to Borromeo College here in Ohio.

4) I asked a professor at Borromeo College and he referred me to the bible interpreters for the US church, located in Georgia.

5) I asked the US Catholic church bible interpreters and got back this terse response..."Scripture is not for individual interpretation".

 

By individual interpretation was I to think that meant Paul, who was chosen by Jesus, or was that "interpreter" referring to me? A follow up letter by me got NO RESPONSE! Their bible says the opposite of what Paul says it should say, and they cannot think of an answer as to why. They remind me of the robot James T. Kirk asked a question to and it started to smoke and blow a circuit. To their credit, the Protestant bibles have what Paul says it should say. Their bible is wrong of course.

 

I smell smoke.

[oddbird1963]

Wow! You are persistent! I can't believe the response you got for all your hard work.

 

Why did Paul do interpret scripture that way? Because it made his theology work. Of course that can't be the official position of any priest, College or denominational institution. But it's obvious that is the case.

[mymistake]

Now, Paul was supposed to be a knowledgable Jew who knew the scriptures.

. . .

Their bible says the opposite of what Paul says it should say, and they cannot think of an answer as to why.

 

I've been wondering: how did Paul get born with Roman citizenship?

[CatholiKitty]

It's Catholic doctrine that only priests (I think. It might actually be bishops.) and higher can officially interpret scriptures. There are reasons for this, but I'm not really here to defend them. Regardless, that makes the response you got really shitty because that doctrine gives them a responsibility to answer questions like that.

 

By "Catholic bible" did you mean the King James version or a different bible? I looked up Galatians 3:15-16 online and followed the footnotes to a few Genesis passages. The KJV used "thy seed" and the NKJV used "your descendants" in the verses I found.

 

Meh, I am not a fan of Paul.

[Perfessor]

Now, Paul was supposed to be a knowledgable Jew who knew the scriptures.

. . .

Their bible says the opposite of what Paul says it should say, and they cannot think of an answer as to why.

 

I've been wondering: how did Paul get born with Roman citizenship?

 

Here ya go!

Though Paul was a circumcised Jew, and a Pharisee, he was born in the city of Tarsus(Acts 22:27, 28) .Over a hundred years previously, the Roman politician Anthony had conferred Roman citizenship upon all the inhabitants of Tarsus, and this was later attested to by Emperor Caesar Augustus . (Acts 21:39; 22:3)

 

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Paul_become_a_Roman_citizen#ixzz1d3JrtRuG

[/left]

[Perfessor]

It's Catholic doctrine that only priests (I think. It might actually be bishops.) and higher can officially interpret scriptures. There are reasons for this, but I'm not really here to defend them. Regardless, that makes the response you got really shitty because that doctrine gives them a responsibility to answer questions like that.

 

By "Catholic bible" did you mean the King James version or a different bible? I looked up Galatians 3:15-16 online and followed the footnotes to a few Genesis passages. The KJV used "thy seed" and the NKJV used "your descendants" in the verses I found.

 

Meh, I am not a fan of Paul.

 

I mean whatever Catholic bible I see in the pews. They all read what Paul says it doesn't say. Some have a footnote that says it can be interpreted either seed or seeds, but Paul made a point to say it says seed, meaning Christ. End of interpretation. I don't know what the Catholic hirarchy thinks, but, like I said, I smell smoke! They are used to people nodding with agreement and not questioning anything.

[Yask]

Maybe this will help. Q: In Gal 3:16 (and Acts 3:25) vs. Gen 12:7, etc, "seed" is a collective singular noun, (as is the word "people"), so why does Paul say it could not refer to many?

A: The point here is that Paul is reminding the Jews that their scriptures (the Old Testament) taught that the promises made to Abraham’s descendants would come through the Messiah, which both the Jews and Christians acknowledged as one person. (Source)

 

 

There's always going to be an answer, an excuse, proffered by clergy or any representative of the church, be they Protestant or Catholic, for the errancy a reader may find in their Bibles. There has to be. What scripture defines, temples are erected to profess as proof of god's will. In a place of worship, to the glory of the Deity described chapter and verse.

 

 

I like Bart Ehrman's recollection of the day, as a student at Princeton, when he found a discrepancy between the scripture contained in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 and Mark 2:26. He wrote a detailed account of the Greek translations and what the error seemingly implied and submitted it to his instructor, Professor Story. Who wrote back, perhaps it's just that Mark made a mistake.

 

It's from there that Ehrman pursued his studies in a new light and today he's a Bible scholar, publisher and agnostic. When formerly he was an Evangelical Christian.

 

The Bible is not the word of god. However, the religions dedicated to believing it is have everything invested in making the believer believe. And every cause to argue against arguments that if a supreme being did suddenly decide to write a book, and a closed canon no less, how is it he made so many mistakes as the supreme perfect author?!

[CatholiKitty]

It's Catholic doctrine that only priests (I think. It might actually be bishops.) and higher can officially interpret scriptures. There are reasons for this, but I'm not really here to defend them. Regardless, that makes the response you got really shitty because that doctrine gives them a responsibility to answer questions like that.

 

By "Catholic bible" did you mean the King James version or a different bible? I looked up Galatians 3:15-16 online and followed the footnotes to a few Genesis passages. The KJV used "thy seed" and the NKJV used "your descendants" in the verses I found.

 

Meh, I am not a fan of Paul.

 

I mean whatever Catholic bible I see in the pews. They all read what Paul says it doesn't say. Some have a footnote that says it can be interpreted either seed or seeds, but Paul made a point to say it says seed, meaning Christ. End of interpretation. I don't know what the Catholic hirarchy thinks, but, like I said, I smell smoke! They are used to people nodding with agreement and not questioning anything.

 

Actually, a good number of them are taking naps...

Seriously though, I just don't get why this matters. The RCC recognizes the words of the bible to be human words (god provides the message/principles). It recognizes that typos can come up in translation and copying, and that's what this seems like to me.

 

I doubt that I like the non-thinkers any more than you. They tend to just say that they are Catholic then just believe whatever is current in the Republican/conservative culture. It's like they're christian because that's what they're supposed to be, and they don't give any further thought to the Church's teachings.

[Perfessor]

It's Catholic doctrine that only priests (I think. It might actually be bishops.) and higher can officially interpret scriptures. There are reasons for this, but I'm not really here to defend them. Regardless, that makes the response you got really shitty because that doctrine gives them a responsibility to answer questions like that.

 

By "Catholic bible" did you mean the King James version or a different bible? I looked up Galatians 3:15-16 online and followed the footnotes to a few Genesis passages. The KJV used "thy seed" and the NKJV used "your descendants" in the verses I found.

 

Meh, I am not a fan of Paul.

 

I mean whatever Catholic bible I see in the pews. They all read what Paul says it doesn't say. Some have a footnote that says it can be interpreted either seed or seeds, but Paul made a point to say it says seed, meaning Christ. End of interpretation. I don't know what the Catholic hirarchy thinks, but, like I said, I smell smoke! They are used to people nodding with agreement and not questioning anything.

 

Actually, a good number of them are taking naps...

Seriously though, I just don't get why this matters. The RCC recognizes the words of the bible to be human words (god provides the message/principles). It recognizes that typos can come up in translation and copying, and that's what this seems like to me.

 

I doubt that I like the non-thinkers any more than you. They tend to just say that they are Catholic then just believe whatever is current in the Republican/conservative culture. It's like they're christian because that's what they're supposed to be, and they don't give any further thought to the Church's teachings.

 

Speaking of thinkers, I wonder what the churches will do with the Universe-is-a-hologram theory.

[CatholiKitty]

Speaking of thinkers, I wonder what the churches will do with the Universe-is-a-hologram theory.

 

Looks like the latest experiment is pointing against some forms of this theory; the search for the GUT continues. Should it matter to churches whether what we experience is really real or just apparently real? It's not going to have any effect on our daily lives, because it's already part of our daily lives. Still, I imagine that some leaders will somehow be offended by the idea and start up the whole science = satan sermons.

Is there some obscure bible passage that says that three dimensional space can't be pixelated?

 

I'd say that, rationally, their is no reason for them to get involved, but churches are hardly known for being rational and minding their own business.