BJ Bear
Well-known member
Yet the church, including the Orthodox Church, have no trouble treating them differently than the sixty-six books.
Jerome and the Apocrypha
- Thread starter Mr.Butter
- Start date
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Specific about what? I asked if Gods name was allowed in the NT in the latin vulgate after Jerome who had originals told the Pope Gods name belongs in the NT. Catholicism kept Gods word in latin so no one could read it for themselves beside upper clergy. Up until the 1500,s they wouldnt allow the flock to read for themselves. Once allowed the protestants broke away because their own translating exposed them as false religion.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
There are some unusual ideas floating around regarding the name or names of God. I asked the question to try and figure out what you were asking.
Are you of the school of thought that thinks Jerome thought that God's name can't or shouldn't be translated into another language?
BJ Bear
Well-known member
It would be helpful if you cité the letter you are thinking of or provide a link to it. Thanks.
No, Jerome told the Pope, Gods name is supposed to be in the NT. He translated the latin Vulgate, i was wondering if Gods name was allowed in the NT in that translation? Gods name has been removed in trinity translations by satans will. Nearly 6800 spots in the OT( GOD or LORD all capitols) YHWH( Jehovah)belongs in every one of those spots. over 200 of those spots are quoted in the NT-those are the spots Jerome was referring to. God inspired his name in nearly 7000 places because he wants it there. Thus all using the altered versions are being mislead to support satans will over Gods will. Then every religion claiming to be christian and serves a trinity condemned the translators for putting Gods name back. WHY? Because with that name back in place it exposes them as false religions. That is why they keep Gods name out.
Example of the misleading it causes. At Joel 2:21-22--Those who call on the name of YHWH(Jehovah) will be saved..quoted in 2 spots in the NT, but trinity translation has Lord in both spots. Thus they will call on the name Jesus and that is not what Gods word teaches to do.
I put Jerome in my bing search and walla there it was.
rakovsky
Well-known member
OK.
It would be helpful if you could rephrase your answer.
It sounds like you are saying that "sacred scripture" refers to the books used for the OT and NT readings during liturgy. You are adding that just because a book is used during liturgy doesn't mean that they are all part of a class (the "canon of scripture") because there are different canon lists in use. That is, just because a book is read solemnly during liturgy doesn't mean that the church considers it part of the "canon of scripture."
Your reasoning makes sense that just because some book is read during liturgy doesn't make it "canon". The Anglicans read some of their Apocrypha in their schedule of services.
I am pondering whether Jerome specifically simply meant liturgically-used OT books, and wasn't referring to canonicity when he referred to "sacred scriptures". This is because on one hand, Jerome in his writings and in this context doesn't seem to focus on the liturgy so much as on textuality, literature, spirituality, theology. On the other hand, Church fathers, when categorizing OT texts and writings like John's Revelation considered whether they were "read" in church.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I am using generic language with the intent that the largest number of readers will readily understand what is being said.
I can see why someone might interpret it that way, but most people interested in church history already know that there were numerous works read or used during services which are not and were not canonical in the sense which most readers today use the term.
That is a good summary of the history. That there are different canons sanctioned for use indicates that the word canon is being used in more than one sense. In other words, among those who use the short canon are those who have no trouble iin describing or referring to the other longer canons as "canonical."
In the same way, those who use the inclusive canon or longest canon, have no trouble in referring to or describing the shorter canons as "canonical." The odd birds out are the RCC and the fundamentalist leaning churches who are reluctant to use the word Canon or canonical in any religious sense other than their own chosen sense.
Yes.
Hopefully, we can agree that what is excluded from that term is profane or secular writings. Writings considered "religious" by Jerome and others could be and sometimes were considered sacred writings, for example, Judith, the rest of the apocrypha, and some writings which ultimately were excluded from use in the service by the church at large.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Ok, but I see from your further comments that you do hold to the idea that God's name shouldn't be translated but instead transliterated.
Regardless of what Jerome thought, as a translator of God's word he had to be true to the Greek NT, that which he was translating. Or do you also believe that the true Apostolic witness was satanic from the moment it was first written?
As far as the benefit of knowing both the OT and the NT according to the original languages that is a given. It is a good reason why all pastors should be trained in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Your comments regarding the trinity are non sequiturs.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
So do you have an actual letter written by Jerome to reference or do you only have internet gossip as a reference?
Jerome had the originals, He told the Pope Gods name belonged in the NT because it was in the originals. Thus reality= Those using translations with Gods name removed by satans will, are being mislead to support satans will over Gods will. Jesus at Matt 7:21 assures that is not a wise place to be standing.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Jerome was a late fourth century through and early fifth century person so what do you mean when you write that he had the originals?
So which letter are you referring to? Most collections of ancient letters make use of identifiers, for example, numbers or some other unique identifier, or a detailed title.
When you say it was in the originals it is easy to see how that works out with regard to the Law and the Prophets, but it won't work out in the same way with the Greek gospels and epistles unless you are willing to claim that no one ever had the original gospels and epistles.
Otherwise, you are saying that your idea in this regard (You haven't yet provided any primary source evidence of Jerome's belief in this idea.) is better and trumps the work of the Holy Spirit guided Apostles and Evangelists.
Again, unless you can demonstrate with direct evidence that all of Christianity has been using forged gospels and epistles then your "thus" only serves as an introduction to man's imagiimagination rather than reality.
Anyone who knows the bible knows the tetragramoton was in the OT nearly 6800 places=YHWH, replaced by satans will with titles-GOD or LORD all capitols. The OT is quoted in the NT in over 200 spots where the name belongs. Every trinity scholar on earth knows its fact. The divine name kjv came out in 2015, but they only put the name back in the OT. I am not sure if in every spot or just some.
The original writings i was referring to. The transformation between languages altered true meanings of what was being said. Take the word Proskenaue--5 different meanings from Greek to English. It translates to bow and kiss the feet. Worship to God, Obesiance to a king, Honor to a judge, plus 2 others. The Israelites knew 100% the Messiah has a God like we do,( Psalm 45:7) so they would never bow in worship to Jesus. They bowed in obesiance to Gods appointed king. One of the major errors in your translations.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
So again your position with regard to the OT is one of transliteration rather than translation in this instance. That is fine, as you posted those who care to know already know of it'.
It is still best to defer to the Apostolic witness when translating the NT.
Translators try make their work understandable to the target audience. There are many translations because there are different target audiences and different ideas on how to best convey the source langusge into the target language.
Regardless of how something is translated never underestimate the ability of some to misunderstand it.
Yes misunderstanding is an under statement--a mass of confusion is more correct in 34,000 trinity based religions. a house divided will not stand--They arent able to understand simple english. Jesus is with a single religion-1Cor 1:10
BJ Bear
Well-known member
That is an interesting demonstration of misunderstanding based on using text as a pretext and spoof texting. Thus far you have been unable and unwilling to provide any primary source evidence from Jerome regarding your claim, a claim which aldo has nothing to do with Jerome's interaction with Apocrypha.
Any who understand english- no division = 1 single religion. Unified in love, peace, and unity of thought on all of Gods 1 truth.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
So is it your claim that if you make up enough stories that you will bring unity in love and peace to church? If so then that would be illogical and false.
Jesus brought those things to his 1 single religion-1Cor 1:10.