Many new versions corrupt Rom 15:16 and make it sound like Paul is performing the Catholic Mass.

SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-known member
Many new versions corrupt Rom 15:16 and make it sound like Paul is performing the Catholic Mass.

Here is the King James Bible. When was Paul a priest? The RCC priests perform the mass and have the eucharist and the cup. For the RCC the mass and specifically the wafer and cup are the center of their gospel. Many new versions also change "the gospel of Christ" to "the gospel" in Romans 1:16. This allows for the change in Rom 15:16 to argue for the mass as the gospel.

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. - Romans 15:16, KJB

Here is the NASB.

to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15:16, NASB

Here is the RSV.

to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15:16, RSV

Even worse the RCC says that it is a sacrifice. See 1414 of the RCC Catechism. So note the RSV version.

Of course the word of God is against this.

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. - 1 Cor 10:20-21

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: - Hebrews 10:11

Vaticanus is missing the above verse.
And almost all new versions corrupt 1 Cor 10:20 by changing "Gentiles" to "pagans" in that verse.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
Many new versions corrupt Rom 15:16 and make it sound like Paul is performing the Catholic Mass.

Here is the King James Bible. When was Paul a priest? The RCC priests perform the mass and have the eucharist and the cup. For the RCC the mass and specifically the wafer and cup are the center of their gospel. Many new versions also change "the gospel of Christ" to "the gospel" in Romans 1:16. This allows for the change in Rom 15:16 to argue for the mass as the gospel.

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. - Romans 15:16, KJB

Here is the NASB.

to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15:16, NASB

Here is the RSV.

to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15:16, RSV

Even worse the RCC says that it is a sacrifice. See 1414 of the RCC Catechism. So note the RSV version.

Of course the word of God is against this.

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. - 1 Cor 10:20-21

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: - Hebrews 10:11

Vaticanus is missing the above verse.
And almost all new versions corrupt 1 Cor 10:20 by changing "Gentiles" to "pagans" in that verse.
Click to expand...
Yet another interpretation from the infallible one.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
Do you believe that Paul was a priest?
Click to expand...
Yes, according to New Testament teaching, all believers are priests. Do you this reject New Testament doctrine?

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5a)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9a)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6a)
 
logos1560 said:
Yes, according to New Testament teaching, all believers are priests. Do you this reject New Testament doctrine?

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5a)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9a)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6a)
Click to expand...
?
 
SavedByTheLord said:
But Paul never says that he had the office of a priest.
Click to expand...
Many of the Church of England makers of the KJV had had or had the office of priest in the Church of England. At the time of the making of the KJV, many of them had offices in the Church of England that were considered higher in rank than the office of priest.


Do you consider the KJV to have an error when it added the word "office" with no Greek word for it? The KJV could be properly considered to have strengthened Episcopal church government views with its renderings at 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13. Ross Purdy asserted: “We see this agenda of promoting ecclesiastical rule foisted on us twice more in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 60). Gail Riplinger quoted W. E. Vine as charging “the KJV with ‘ecclesiastical bias’ when it uses the term ‘office’ of a deacon” (Hazardous Materials, p. 472). Herbert Lockyer observed that deacons “were not regarded as being in office, (the phrase, ‘the office of a deacon’ 1 Timothy 3:10, is one word, meaning ‘to serve’” (All the Doctrines, p. 246). Concerning 1 Timothy 3:10, George Bush claimed: “In this instance ‘the office of a deacon’ is wholly imaginary; in the original it is, let them serve, or be in service” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 70). George Bush contended that “the two pompous nouns substantive, ‘the office of a deacon’ when examined by the original, turn out to be phantoms of the translators, introduced into the text to take the place of a verb expressing quite another thought” (Ibid.). George Bush also maintained that this rendering “is plainly a coinage of the translators” (p. 73). At 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to “use the office of a deacon.” What truth of the original demanded that this change or revision introducing an ecclesiastical term be made? Is it possible that this alteration introduced in the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bible connects to the 1611 edition’s content headings for Acts chapter 6 [“3 Appoint the office of Deaconship to seven chosen men”]? Is this contents heading at Acts 6 another example of episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV? The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in these two verses as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times). The makers of the KJV had translated the same Greek verb as “serve” in Acts 6:2 while they in effect suggested a different understanding of it in their content heading for the chapter. The Latin Vulgate edition in the 1538 Coverdale’s Latin-English New Testament has the Latin verb ministrare at Acts 6:2. At 1 Timothy 3:10 in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark has this rendering: “serve” (p. 60). The 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible has “minister” at 1 Timothy 3:10. Ross Purdy maintained that “an honest translation of the Greek without bias” at 1 Timothy 3:10 would have the verb “serve” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 61). For the phrase “used the office of a deacon” that translates one Greek word at 1 Timothy 3:13, the 1611 KJV may have a more accurate rendering in its marginal note: “ministered.” There is no Greek word for office in these two verses.
 
logos1560 said:
Many of the Church of England makers of the KJV had had or had the office of priest in the Church of England. At the time of the making of the KJV, many of them had offices in the Church of England that were considered higher in rank than the office of priest.


Do you consider the KJV to have an error when it added the word "office" with no Greek word for it? The KJV could be properly considered to have strengthened Episcopal church government views with its renderings at 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13. Ross Purdy asserted: “We see this agenda of promoting ecclesiastical rule foisted on us twice more in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 13” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 60). Gail Riplinger quoted W. E. Vine as charging “the KJV with ‘ecclesiastical bias’ when it uses the term ‘office’ of a deacon” (Hazardous Materials, p. 472). Herbert Lockyer observed that deacons “were not regarded as being in office, (the phrase, ‘the office of a deacon’ 1 Timothy 3:10, is one word, meaning ‘to serve’” (All the Doctrines, p. 246). Concerning 1 Timothy 3:10, George Bush claimed: “In this instance ‘the office of a deacon’ is wholly imaginary; in the original it is, let them serve, or be in service” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 70). George Bush contended that “the two pompous nouns substantive, ‘the office of a deacon’ when examined by the original, turn out to be phantoms of the translators, introduced into the text to take the place of a verb expressing quite another thought” (Ibid.). George Bush also maintained that this rendering “is plainly a coinage of the translators” (p. 73). At 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to “use the office of a deacon.” What truth of the original demanded that this change or revision introducing an ecclesiastical term be made? Is it possible that this alteration introduced in the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bible connects to the 1611 edition’s content headings for Acts chapter 6 [“3 Appoint the office of Deaconship to seven chosen men”]? Is this contents heading at Acts 6 another example of episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV? The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in these two verses as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times). The makers of the KJV had translated the same Greek verb as “serve” in Acts 6:2 while they in effect suggested a different understanding of it in their content heading for the chapter. The Latin Vulgate edition in the 1538 Coverdale’s Latin-English New Testament has the Latin verb ministrare at Acts 6:2. At 1 Timothy 3:10 in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark has this rendering: “serve” (p. 60). The 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible has “minister” at 1 Timothy 3:10. Ross Purdy maintained that “an honest translation of the Greek without bias” at 1 Timothy 3:10 would have the verb “serve” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 61). For the phrase “used the office of a deacon” that translates one Greek word at 1 Timothy 3:13, the 1611 KJV may have a more accurate rendering in its marginal note: “ministered.” There is no Greek word for office in these two verses.
Click to expand...
Well that is true.

But from the letters of Paul there are apostles, bishops or pastors, deacons, evangelists, and teachers but the office of a priests make no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top