Why are we not consistent?
make no apologies for any of the following. For me it is an
imperative that I seek God in the Scriptures. Those who have managed
to wander through the wanderings of my mind with me know my feelings
on things truly Catholic. I have no time for anyone who does not keep
his or her mind open and FAITHFULLY struggle to inform their
consciences. I have very little time for those who say, “My
conscience is clear and I believe in mechanical and chemical birth
control”. I consider both methods an act of war against creation
and very definitely against its Author. It is as bad as if Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of life.
many of us do truly ask ourselves or question the reason why events,
actions or movements, sinful or otherwise are allowed by God to
influence the life of the Church or whether they are for our good or
for our destruction? They, as we reflect on them further, should
cause us to ask, “is this, a punishment for our foolishness or for
some great stupidity we commit, as a congregation?” “Can I ask,
many of these occasions really be a coincidence or are they the
management of our lifes by a logical entity or better still an
essence that has our good in mind?”
are so many irritants in today's Catholic Church. So many acts that are a
canker, a sore or heartache in the life of the Church. Surely I can
ask, “Who is to fix them?” Who will make us spiritually well? Are
we to or do you honestly believe we must offer it all up to
God? Is our faith truly one of action or “inaction”. I tell on my
behalf that for me not to act is sinful, as both Scriptures and the
Catechism tell us we should. To do nothing take no action so our sisters and
brothers commit spiritual suicide on themselves or commit an act of
spiritual homicide on the souls our children, is nothing short of hell-bent foolishness. It is an act of omission. Do I need to remind
any of the clash of Catholic Practices with the traddies and the
libbies clashing so vigorously over the two Masses. Just who benefits
when the liturgy alone is a veritable battleground and a moment of disunity. ?
me candidly ask you all, “Why the Poem of the Man-God?” What is the purpose of this book? Why did God allow it to be written? Did
God want it written? Did God dictate it and made His life for
Maria Valtorta a beautiful vision of truth? Does this Poem do any
good for our relationship with Jesus? Does it correct any errors in
scriptures but above all will it bring us any closer to God?
Therefore to answer the last question in a Catholic Manner we must
ascertain if it adds in any way to grace? If it does then to read it
is a meritous act according to the catechism. How many can answer
those things truthfully. If we find it does or can truly believe it
does then it is not private revelations given to comfort a bed-ridden
woman but more it is an enlargement of the Life of Christ. Can it be
an action to help us into a closer relationship with Him? Actually I
think it is a corollary to St John’s Gospel, where John wrote of
the large number of libraries needed to contain the works of Christ.
One only has to read the Passion of Christ in book 5 to know what is the truth. So let me start my argument by being charitable and writing Jesus
wanted or decided it was time for us to know more about Himself. Also
count on the words of Pius 12th., “There
is nothing in this book which will cause you to
loose your soul". Echoed later, I believe by Cardinal Ratzinger. This is the
whole premise of what I want to write. So I ask is the Bible today
accurate or as we get further from the time, Christ came to teach us
by example and words, have we wandered off the path of He taught and
showed to us? Have we, I ask you again? This begs the question of
today’s apostles are they trustworthy? Do the actions of the Latter
day Apostles and their behaviour enkindle in us a sense that the Holy
Spirit is there in them? Only you or God can answer that as you
examine their mindset. These latter day Apostles, princes of the
Catholic Church today have as we all can see, have a long way to go to
restore our respect and trust in them. Am I wrong?
are my thoughts on the Holy Bible and mine alone. Last week I was in
deep trouble with one strange evangelist from one of those strange
cults who want to do so much good but so often fall short. They are
just a little short from tripping into the Abyss. This man eerie in his behaviour, was trying to
convert a friend, to his beliefs, using some non catholic translation of the
scriptures. I asked him who gave the world the Bible. He started by
saying Moses had some thoughts and put them down on paper. Almost
right but not very intelligent was my answer, two errors. One...
Moses wrote down what was Hebrew oral teachings and two brought to
the Hebrews the Ten Commandments written on stone by God and three wrote a diary of what happened to him personally.
Bible today is mish-mash of personal opinions of those who firmly
believe they are better linguists. They are, by their opinion,
which are sensual, far more facile in the grammar and styles of
those who used them daily all those years ago. Far more in experience
in the “slang” and colloquial use of words of all those years
ago. I could go on in this vein for quite some pages. Instead I ask
you let me build up the walls of my beliefs so you can blow your
trumpet and knock them down.
is a document you will find, will give you some idea of how The Bible
has been gerrymandered to suit modern theological thoughts. You will
probably as Catholics of today not consider it dangerous to our souls.
Although, I add, with the dreadful translations of liturgical Latin for the Liturgy,
this article from the Magazine, “Orthodox Tradition Volume 25
book1” will not raise your eyebrows.
AND BIBLICAL TRANSLATION: AN ORTHODOX SCHOLAR RESPONDS
VERY REVEREND DR. SERAPHIM (ALEXIEV). who reposed in 1993, was
Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological Academy in Sofia, Bulgaria.
He was dismissed from his post in 1968, after refusing to accept the
New Calendar, which was adopted that year by the Patriarchate in
Sofia, and entered into the resistance. He was the spiritual Father
of Bishop Photini of Triaditza, the sole Hierarch of our Sister
Church of the True (Old Calendar) Orthodox Christians of Bulgaria,
and is revered by the Faithful of that Church as a confessor and man
of singular spiritual stature. The present essay is adapted from
Chapter XIV, Section D, of his book Orthodoxy
and Ecumenism, which
has appeared both in Bulgarian (Sofia, 1992) and in Russian (St.
LATE there has been a growing tendency to interpret the Bible without
heeding the dogmatic differences which divide mankind. For example,
in the weekly ecumenical bulletin of the World Council of Churches
(WCC) in Geneva, Okumenische
36, October 16, 1969, p. 8), we find a brief, but quite remarkable
common Christian Bible will contain notes and commentaries evidencing
doctrinal elements" (emphasis
with the assistance of Jewish scholars, the Bible was to be
“updated.” Divine Truths, doctrines, were no longer to draw from
the Source of Truth. This new Bible was to contribute to the (false)
ecumenical equation of the Christian confession with Judaism. My
Brackets are to add “false”
an ecumenical Bible.
such a translation, carried out in the Netherlands, was produced in
France. It was there that, in 1972, an ecumenical version of the New
Testament was issued and where, in 1975, a
new ecumenical translation of the Old Testament
also published and came into use. The occasion of this latter
publication was dubbed an
event" by the French daily Le
7, 1975). Let us note, here, that the separate publication of the Old
Testament, without the New Testament, is unprecedented for Catholics. (???) This is because, in its essence, the Old Testament is not
self-contained, but finds its full meaning and significance solely in
its relationship to the New Testament, for
which it is but a preparation “Christ is the end [telos] of the
law” (Romans 10:4).
review of this new ecumenical translation cites a statement made in
1950 by the Parisian theologian and ecumenist the Orthodox Dr. Paul Evdokimov:
“While closed, the Bible unites us. But when we turn its pages, the
open Bible divides us. We interpret it differently. We read different
truths in it.” In order to overcome the “different
interpretations” of the Bible, the team of translators decided “to
hold out a hand to the Jews.” And how was this rapprochement
realized? Here we have it: The translators of the Old Testament were
wholly guided by the Masoretic
by the Jewish text, that established by rabbinical tradition (in the
middle centuries) and put forth in Jewish Bibles. (My brackets).
in the foregoing comments from the French press, we read: “Until
Christians and Jews actually unite, the current state of
Judaeo-Christian relations entails nothing analogous to this
ecumenical translation of the Bible. However, a positive prospect can
be found in the fact that, in recapturing the original meaning of
certain difficult elements, as well as in the composition of a wide
variety of notes, the interpreters have used the works of such great
Medieval interpreters as Rashl, Kimkhi, and Ibn Ezra, and, in
addition, have cited modem Jewish Biblical scholars. With regard to
methodology, great heed has been shown to two principles in this
significant venture: the scientific method and collaboration. Each
book of the Old Testament has been interpreted by two translators-a
Roman Catholic and a Protestant. There were sixty-four translators in
would have been more appropriate) my thoughts again.
A coordinating committee was responsible for common agreement on the
texts, and all translations were examined by a skilled Orthodox [??]
exegete. [Apparently he was the only one, though his name is not
addenda Dr Seraphim's).
authors of this translation write: “Certainly
this translation is not the best one,
nor is it final in comparison with the majority of contemporary
translations. However, it is the only one, simply because it
perfectly satisfies everyone and has been brought into use by the
various ‘churches’. Thus far, it is the only common text”
ecumenical New Testament and Old Testament in combined form. In
the publication notice for The
Jerusalem Bible (Paris,
1975), the combined text of these ecumenical translations of the Old
and New Testaments" which is subtitled “The Holy Bible,
translated into French under the direction of the Ecole Biblique de
Jerusalem,” we read: “For the Old Testament, we have followed the
Masoretic text, that is to say, the Hebrew text, compiled
from the eighth to the ninth centuries A.D. by Jewish sages,
who undertook its writing and popularized it. This is the text which
reproduces the majority of manuscripts” (p. 13).
us see how this “Bible” presents the famous “Proto-Gospel,”
that is, the first “Good News”-the promise given by God to our
Forefathers (Adam and Eve) about the future Savior, represented by
the “seed of the woman,” Who smote the head of the serpent
(Genesis 3: 15). The Lord God says to the serpent: “I will make you
enemies of each other: you and the woman, your offspring and her
offspring. It will crush your head and you will strike its heel”
unaltered Biblical text, we read: “And
I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed; he shall watch against (or ”smite”
or “crush,” according to another MS tradition] thy head and thou
shalt watch against his heel" (3:16 in the Septuaginta).
to the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, the “seed of the woman”
is Christ, Who smote the head of the serpent, that is, the Devil.
Yet, according to the altered text, the offspring
Eve conquered evil, represented by the snake, wholly on their own.
Thus, the new Jerusalem
faith in Jesus Christ as the unique Savior and Redeemer of the world.
Orthodox Church absolutely cannot agree with such an alteration of
this Sacred Text; it has always understood the “seed of the woman”
to be the
Messiah promised by God. With
this same meaning in mind, S1. Paul connects the word “seed” to
in his Epistle to the Galatians (3:
16): “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which
counterbalance all of this, we must point out the following:
only authoritative text of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament,
which the Orthodox Church has used from the very
beginning until the present day, is
the so-called Septuaginta
a Greek translation by the “seventy translators” (hence,
the Latin for “seventy”).
was undertaken in the third century B.C., in Alexandria, at the order
of King Ptolemy Philadelphus by pious and learned Jews (see Professor
(The Translation of the Seventy: Its Importance in the History of
Greek Language and Literature], St.
Sergius-Holy Trinity Monastery.
fact that all Greek-speaking Jews accepted this most ancient and
unique of Biblical translations as wholly authoritative speaks to its
merits. The classical Jewish writers Flavius Josephus and Philo
attest to this fact, drawing as they do all Biblical citations from
of the Seventy, which
translators, Josephus even calls “prophets”.
Divinely-inspired books of the New Testament also draw on the same
Greek text, the
Translation of the Seventy: of the two hundred thirty-eight passages
from the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament by the sacred
writers of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles, only four are
taken from the Hebrew text of the Bible; the rest are taken from the
Translation of the Seventy (see Bishop Theophan, Collected Letters,
seventh edition, Moscow, 1900, pp. 70-71)
John Chrysostom says the following about this succession of Grace:
“The Holy Spirit appointed that the Holy Books be translated by the
seventy interpreters Jesus Christ came and accepted them. And the
Apostles spread them everywhere” (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 8, 4).
quoting the Old Testament, the ancient Holy Fathers also used the
Septuagint, citing the Hebrew text only on rare occasions (cf
Korsunskii). The Ecumenical Synods likewise used the Translation of
the Seventy. (Of course I must add, as did Jesus and the Apostles) My
translation, to this very day, constitutes the official version of
the Bible, employed in the Orthodox services as a Divinely-inspired
translation. The ancient Slavonic version of the Bible was translated
from the Translation of the Seventy and perfectly reproduces it.
Thus, the Orthodox Church should always hold to this age old
tradition and use this translation as its authoritative text.
Unfortunately, today, by way of the foregoing ecumenical translation
of the Bible, prepared under the aegis of the World Council of
Churches, the Jewish Masoretic text of the Old Testament-established
by rabbinical tradition, has prevailed.
Masoretic text. What is the nature of the Hebrew Masoretic text of
the Bible? It is a deliberately expurgated, distorted, and inaccurate
text which does not correspond to the original text of the Bible.
rejecting Christ, Jewish leaders engaged in a bitter struggle against
the Holy Apostles, who proved, on the basis of Old Testament
Scriptures, that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah (Acts
5:17-32; 18:28). This struggle was waged against the Apostles’
successors and continues to this day. The Jews, who would not believe
in Christ, openly denied that the various Messianic prophecies
contained in the Old Testament referred to Christ, our Savior. To
justify their erroneous position, they undertook, from the Christian
times, to edit those texts containing Messianic prophecies. At times,
they intentionally distorted the texts, while at other times they
cunningly deleted them. Their purpose was to obfuscate the amazing
fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the Person of our Lord,
Jesus Christ (St. Luke 24:44). To conceal their deceptions, they
began to decry the established text of the Septuagint. As evidenced
in the Talmud, they proceeded to impugn its undeniable merits.
Moreover, they fell to falsifying the very text of the Translation of
the Seventy in their editing of it. This accounts for the variable
readings that can be found therein. However, they were unable to
corrupt it significantly, for prior to the attempts of the Jews to
alter this translation, it has already achieved wide distribution in
a multitude of manuscripts.
is no doubt that the Hebrew text of the Bible has many passages that
have been intentionally distorted. The ancient Fathers and
ecclesiastical writers testify thereto. For example, Justin Martyr,
the philosopher, who lived in the second century (circa.165 A.D.), in
his remarkable essay, “A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” (Chapter
71), points out the disingenuous attitude of the Jews towards the
Septuagint and states: “But I am far from putting reliance on your
teachers, who refuse to admit that the translation made by the
seventy elders who were with [King] Ptolemy of the Egyptians is a
correct one, but attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe,
that they have altogether destroyed many passages from the
translation of scripture produced by these seventy elders who were
with Ptolemy, and by which this very Man, who was crucified, is
proved to have been sent forth expressly as God, and Man, and as
to my thoughts and knowledge, the original Douai Rheims Bible of the
English Language translated from the Latin in the 1500's came with
the New Testament published two years before the translation of the
Old. To be honest, I perceive what may be a problem with the Medieval
Masoretic translation. It seems that there are two masorete methods
which can be defined. One is seen in the very old Catholic Habit of
comparing each translation to the previous for continuity of belief.
We received this from the original masoretic tradition of the Jewish
Teaching Tradition. In the medieval years they changed their method.
I once read of a Rabbi Aaron ben Asher when using their oral
tradition of cantoring the learning of the Tanakh, decided the
manuscript before him had an amount of fly specks and dirt. He
determined to correct these false accents and cantation marks. The
example I read of his corrections made rope into camel, and rod into
bed. It would seem to use later hebrew translations is suspect.
Obviously words have been changed. I wonder how this effects the
Hebrew Bible Code Theology? It would suggest to me that everyone has
lined up with opinions on how to translate the Catholic Bible ac
cording to what they feel, and this is sensual, certainly not Holy
Spirit driven. It seems if Justin Martyr was correct they still, the
Jews, still have a passionate desire to destroy the Catholic Version
of Christ our Saviour.
Permissio, let me give you a historical take on the Latin Vulgate.
Using the Divine Revelation document of Vatican 2 and studying, using
the signs of the time when the Bible was made a canon. In 362 at the
Synod of Rome of that year we received what is generally known as the
Latin Vulgate. What kind of men were these Bishops. They were members
of the Catholic Church, the roman west and byzantine east. They used
Latin many them but only as a second language. Politically. it was
the official language of communication used by the ruling government
in Rome and her officials elsewhere. They could speak many other
languages including dog Latin, the polyglot everyday language of the
uneducated roman citizen and most were extremely fluent in Greek.
Jerome, a Dalmatian monk priest was chosen to collect and translate
the canon of the Bible into Latin. He could not go wrong for every
language he translated there were Bishops of who many could fluently
translate their language into Latin. You can count on every nuance,
every colloquialism was thoroughly known and understood. Just as
critical would be the Hebrews who would not want the correct
translation made but would have to accept it because of the Jews who
the sudden need for a written word. Well the old records were worn
out from constant use and old means of recording had rotted and many
Bishops had handed over their books to be burnt or otherwise
destroyed by the Romans at the time of persecution and martyrdom. How
can we know the right and correct manuscripts were translated. Well
any Monastery, any presbyter, any basilica would know the truth of
their records and as was the Hebrew custom margin note, footnotes
would have been corrected and any copying errors noted too. These
ancients of our Church would know better than the self claimed expert
linguists or archaeologists of today what was right. Errors,
heretical errors of some magnitude had crept in and the Bishops of
that time had to put them to the sword. I have some benchmarks I have
used to check the veracity of the translations I use. Try Ezechiel
18:4 "souls" is the correct word not power. Try Deuteronomy 23:18. the
price of a dog at the temple. Very important in the description of the male prostitutes selling their wares at the Temple.
Also check the words in various translations of First Corinthians 6:9...10. In the Greek Interlinear Bible (find it on line) Paul who could speak Greek superbly but using a colloquial Greek here uses words like catamite and sodomite. By the way you will not find catamite in any spell checker. I have a table I have made which
includes various translations and it would scandalize you to see what
personal opinions have made of as Christ's words. To use an very English phrase why do we now mince words and not say it like it is?
again do not think for one moment I need you to believe what I have
written. I would love you too but go to your parish priests and
bishops ask for their opinion. See what they counsel. If they
disagree get them to prove their points. Do not take any advice that
says read this or read that. Get them to read it with you.
so I pray, “Wisdom of the Sacred Head guide us in all Your ways, O
Love of the Sacred Heart consume us with Your fire”
Labels: Bible Translations, bishops pope, Ezekiel, Jerome synod of Rome., Sodom, Vulgate Greek Interlinear