Roman Catholic influence in Modern Versions?

Exactly my point

By using faulty arguments I could easily build a case for RCism in the KJV.

 

I suppose that since the NIV lacks the word "firstborn," I am compelled also to believe (like a good little Romanist) that Jesus' "brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas" (Matt. 13:55) were really just his close relatives, right icthus?

 

You know,

I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.

 

We who know little Greek, read in the English that Mary was a virgin (parthenos) who became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. We read that Joseph had no marital relations with her until after Jesus was born. Therefore, Jesus HAD to have been her firstborn since she was still a virgin, and there's no record of her having borne any other child by miraculous conception. "Firstborn" is one of those clearly-implicated things brought to reality by the context of the events narrated.

Matthew 13:35 & its surrounding verses clearly shoot down the "perpetual virgin" balloon.

 

icthus said:

Well, make what you want. But it is omissions as these, as the ones I referred to in Luke chapter 2, that open up the way for more corrupt readings to find their way in to the MV's.

I guess you meant by this that Bible translators and Greek text editors just make stuff up as they see fit.

Is this the "better handle" on text crit you were boasting about? You gotta laugh.

 

I wasn't going to bring this up, but - - -
Some people tend to shy away from the term "firstborn," because they fear it will imply that Christ is actually the son of Joseph.

The view being that he isn't the firstborn child of Mary and God. He is the ONLY child of Mary and God.

Those who worry about this, refer to the oldest son born to Joseph as "firstborn."

 

TexasSky said:

I don't know any Catholics who think Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. That isn't what "virgin Mary" is about.

Maybe some rank-and-file Catholics do not believe this, but if so, they are in opposition to the official teaching of the Church of Rome, which is that Mary was the "ever-Virgin."

However, the issue at hand whether this position can be sustained from modern translations of the Bible, a claim which icthus has yet to substantiate with anything other than insinuation and alarmism.

 

We had a discussion in another forum of this board with Ituttut. He reminds us that the genealogy of Joseph is given to show he was not only a descendant of David's, but also a descendant of JECONIAH'S, whose posterity God had declared ineligible to sit on the throne of David, thus DQing Joseph from being Jesus' "biological" father.

There's no doubt that Joseph was Jesus' ADOPTIVE father, however, so the KJVO argument that "the MVs deny the deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His father"(Although the KJV does the VERY SAME THING!) is false. Neither the KJV nor any other version is wrong to call Joseph His father, as it was he who served in that role during Jesus' childhood.

We must remember that most of the AV translators were Anglican, which is pseudo-RCC minus the Pope.

 

Lancelot Andrewes, a leading KJV translator
and referred to as the chairman of all the translators, is said to have accepted Mary's perpetual virginity. Andrewes referred to "Mary evervirgin" (PRIVATE DEVOTIONS, p. 59). Marianne Dorman cited one passage where it is claimed that Andrewes referred to "the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin" (LANCELOT ANDREWES: PERENNIAL PREACHER OF THE POST-REFORMATION ENGLISH CHURCH, p. 69).

 

icthus asked:

Ransom, what is your understanding of Textual Criticism?

That it is not the kind of "slippery slope" activity you seem to think it is, where eeeeevil critics take more and more stuff away just because it suits them to do so (e.g. they took away the word "firstborn," now they're going to start taking away Jesus' brothers and sisters too).

 

Oh, yes! Real problems! "Our Father, which is in Rome"....LOL Yep....Those MV's are a RCC conspiracy!


NOT!!!

 

Icthus, was Joseph NOT acting as Jesus father here on earth? We're they not "his parents"? I was raised by an adoptive father and my birth mother. They were my parents. Geesh....get a grip! For you KJV'ers who want to claim that the KJV is such a perfect book and the thing we should be using today...why in the world do you keep having us go back to the Greek? I thought it was so PERFECTLY translated......

 

icthus says:>>>>Let me leave you with an example from James Moffat's New Testament. Where he has Matthew 1:16,

"and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus, who is called 'Christ"

Here Moffatt follows the heretical reading that made Joseph the actual father of Jesus. Look into this reading before making any remarks.

You're interpretation of what Moffatt follows. Joseph was ACTING father of Christ. Gosh, do you KJVO's always have to try to read into things things that AREN'T there?

You didn't say that MV's were corrupted by Rome, no...but you implied that they support the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't think so, ic...not more than the KJV.