formula88...Obviously you HAVE forgotten my post above. Clearly, I admit a mistake when made. Since I have't made one and since you STILL haven't cited your source for that "version" of the Old Testament I can only assume you are desparate to save face by employing a military tactic of going on the offensive. I'm not interested in playing. I asked a simple favor and you get all bent out of shape. FINE! I don't care what your "quote" source is. Since you refuse to post it, this discussion is over and I will ascribe the credibility to your statement that it deserves.
I've also quote many other translations to refute your insisting that Old Testament automatically means KJV, which is incorrect. The credibility you ascribe doesn't matter, because you're the one in error here. This became a Todd bashing fest because you pushed an incorrect idea and everyone knows it.
You complain about me "going on the offensive" when you are the one who said "bring the heat" in the first place. Did you mean it or not?
************************************************************************* And just what does a dispute about the translation of the bible have to do with a change in the US government from a one party system to a two party system???? **************************************************************************
We didn't go from a "one party system to a two party system". We always have been. What we've seen is a peaceful transition of power from one party to two parties. There is a big difference, but not one that we seem to be able to expect you to discern.
IP: Logged
02:23 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
What version do you use? In our area we have 4 or 5 fairly large Catholic churches and while I don't go to them very often, the last times I did they all used KJV and I understood that was common. Perhaps I was mistaken in that it's a regional thing.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by FrugalFiero:
I am a Roman Catholic and no Catholic church I am aware of uses the KJV of the bible.
IP: Logged
02:24 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
We didn't go from a "one party system to a two party system". We always have been. What we've seen is a peaceful transition of power from one party to two parties. There is a big difference, but not one that we seem to be able to expect you to discern.
Once again you have TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT of my post. But at least you're back on topic. Thank you for that.
------------------ "What I'm tryin' to say Is, don't they pray To the same God That we do? Tell me How does God choose? Whose prayers does he refuse?" -Tom Waits
IP: Logged
02:31 PM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
That's GALL, Einstein. Gaul is an old name for the part of Europe now mostly known as France. I would expect better from the infallible, all knowing, self anointed expert on everything under the sun. At least you haven't (yet) felt the need to start name calling. THAT is usually what ruins the party. ************************************************************************* And just what does a dispute about the translation of the bible have to do with a change in the US government from a one party system to a two party system???? **************************************************************************
Not much, but I found it more interesting than the Pelosi bashing based on how many parties/ceremonies/fundraisers she was going to attend. I'm just waiting for what ancestor Toddster pulls out of his ass to trump everyone... maybe the one that made the Pope's pointy hat. "Why I grew up reading St. Thomas Aquinas as a bedtime story and have a signed first edition of The Summa Theologica..."
Just a friendly jab Toddster... take it light.
IP: Logged
02:36 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
What version do you use? In our area we have 4 or 5 fairly large Catholic churches and while I don't go to them very often, the last times I did they all used KJV and I understood that was common. Perhaps I was mistaken in that it's a regional thing.
John Stricker
Perhaps...We use the New American edition around these parts. There would be NO way possible that any Catholic church would use a KJV for the reasons below.
Catholic and Protestant Bibles both include 27 books in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament, however, while Catholic Bibles have 46. The seven additional books included in Catholic Bibles are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in Protestant Bibles. These books are called the deuterocanonical books. The Catholic Church considers these books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps...We use the New American edition around these parts. There would be NO way possible that any Catholic church would use a KJV for the reasons below.
.
Both of the catholic churches I was an altar boy at used KJV bibles.
It wouldn't be so much fun if you weren't so self-righteous and totally indignant to everyone all the time. And then that pitiful tearjerker of a reply... man... Checkers speech by the Toddenator. I almost felt bad for the way we meanies have treated you (now don't go knock over a hotel.) I mean, you forgot more about "modern theology" than I will ever know? How interesting. I suppose I should brush up on my L. Ron Hubbard so we can discuss this modern theology that you've forgotten so much about.
As for Pelosi... I don't like her, but her skull isn't hard wired to K street (yet) so she's invariably going to be better for the Republic than the former Republicans. When the eventuality comes that she gets caught for burying dead gigolos in her back yard, you'll not have this face to wave your finger at....
Like I said, I don't like her.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Jeremiah...you and ray need to get a room together. I've forgotten more about modern theology that you will ever know. Perhaps you would care to post something of meaning to the discussion instead of just riding along with scott trolling for an excuse to jump me.
You all seem to be having such a good time so far be it for me to ruin the party. I'm onto other threads
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 01-07-2007).]
Both of the catholic churches I was an altar boy at used KJV bibles.
Well, I suppose should reword my statement. A Catholic COULD use the KJV, but when you WOULD need to read or follow along with a scripture reading from say, Sirach or the Book of Wisdom - how would you do it with a KJV?
( Apologies for this not being even remotely related to the Pelosi topic )
james was a catholic thats a big part in him losing his head btw the extra books are a part of the king james bible they are stuck in a special section but in the bible now a protestant version may omit them but the original KJB has all the books
the old latin catholic bible is called the vulgate but when they droped latin mass that went out too
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-07-2007).]
james was a catholic thats a big part in him losing his head btw the extra books are a part of the king james bible they are stuck in a special section but in the bible now a protestant version may omit them but the original KJB has all the books
the old latin catholic bible is called the vulgate but when they droped latin mass that went out too
eesh. have another hit.
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
Jan 8th, 2007
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
and that's new girl, o observant one. or chick. or woman. or broad. not boy, in any case.
ok mary his mom was catholic and his kid was the one beheaded
but the Apocrypha was too in the original and these guys tranlated it
Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:
John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, John Ward, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.
the original printing of the King James Version included the Apocrypha, so named in the text. It contained all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate's Old Testament but missing in the Hebrew. Under the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England established in 1563, these books were considered non-canonical but were to be "read for example of life and instruction of manners"[1]. This section also includes apocrypha from the Vulgate's appendix. (For more information, see the article on the biblical canon.) These texts are printed separately, between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. Verses unique to the Septuagint's version of the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna) were placed here, rather than included in the texts of those books. From approximately 1827, many editions have omitted this section, and the most common contemporary editions rarely include them.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Someone has to do it 
