Scripture challenge!

[theefaith]

Scripture challenge!

Show me from or in “the Bible alone”?

1) a list (not contents) of the Ten Commandments.

2) what things is Lk 1:49 referring to.

3) what Christ commanded his apostles in Matt 28:20

 

[ReChoired]

Scripture challenge!

Show me from or in “the Bible alone”?

1) a list (not contents) of the Ten Commandments.

In Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4, the Bible (KJB) specifically states that God spoke and wrote "the ten commandments".

In Exodus 20:1-17 & Deuteronomy 5:4-22, both God and Moses state those "ten commandments".

Both Jesus, Paul and others in the NT show the delineation of the ten commandments.

As for instance, Jesus, in Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20, does something wonderful for the rich young ruler:

Mar 10:19: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

Luk 18:20: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother."

Jesus is specifically listing the commandments about love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:17-18), which were on the second table of stone.

So Jesus, trying to help the rich young ruler see his error by showing the surrounding commandments, so that the rich young ruler would fill in the blank.

The Final, or Tenth Commandment, is purposefully left out by Jesus, being the commandment on Covetous ness; Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21.

Even Paul lists the commandments on love of neighbor this way:

Rom 13:9: "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Paul lists honouring of Father and Mother as its own commandment:

Eph 6:2: "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)"

Paul even told us that it was "the first commandment" on the second table (love neighbor), "with promise".

According to scripture, the number "6" (as in six commandments on the second table) is the number of man, Genesis - Revelation.

This means that Honouring Father and Mother is the first commandment on the
Second Table, and since there are six commands we simply look at Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5 and see:

(SECOND TABLE)
1 (5) Honour Father & Mother
2 (6) No Killing
3 (7) No Adultery
4 (8) No stealing
5 (9) No bearing false witness
6 (10) No coveting

This means automatically that on the first Table are 4 Commandments.

Paul lists idolatry as an individual command, as he lists adultery as it's own command, and yet links the two, one command from each of the Two Tables.

Rom 2:22: "Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?"

John does the same when listing murder and idolatry and lying as individual commands:

Rev 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Rev 22:15: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Acts 17:29: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

We also know that when the Israelites were at Mt Sinai they made a golden image of a beast that was to represent, not a false god, but was to represent the True God, which means that idolatry and having other gods are separate and distinct commandments:

Exo 32:5: "And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD."

Paul specifically mentions the commandment about God's name and not to blaspheme it:

Rom 2:24: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

1Tim 6:1: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

Luke specifically records that the Sabbath is a commandment:

Luk 23:56: "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."

Paul specifically mentions the commandment about having no gods besides God:

Acts 19:26: "Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:"

Gal 4:8: "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."

(TABLE ONE)

1 (1) No other gods before God
2 (2) No idols
3 (3) No taking LORD'S name in vain
4 (4) Keep the Sabbath, the 7th day Holy

Thus they are "the ten commandments" and clearly delineated by scripture.

 

[ReChoired]

2) what things is Lk 1:49 referring to.

Read the context of Luke:

Luk 1:35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Luk 1:46: "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,"

Luk 1:47: "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."

Luk 1:48: "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

 

[ReChoired]

3) what Christ commanded his apostles in Matt 28:20

Read Luke & Acts:

Luk 1:1: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"

Luk 1:2: "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Luk 1:3: "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

Luk 1:4: "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Acts 1:1: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,"

Acts 1:2: "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"

All that Jesus taught and did that is needful for the Christian is in the Bible (KJB), the word of God which the Holy Ghost, from Jesus, leads us into, John 17:17.

Thus a Christian is not to go beyond the word of God, since it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17):

1Pet 4:11: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

 

[Mungo]

Both Jesus, Paul and others in the NT show the delineation of the ten commandments.

As for instance, Jesus, in Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20, does something wonderful for the rich young ruler:

Mar 10:19: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

"Defraud not is not one of the Ten Commandments.
It comes from Lev 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour" (KJV).

There are actually 13 commands in both Ex and Dt.

Also in Ex 34 Moses takes up new tablets of stone (vs 34) and God declares a covenant & gives them a series of commands ending with"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.” (vs 26)
God then says to Moses :
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
So there we have a different set of Ten Commanments

 

[ReChoired]

It comes from Lev 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour" (KJV).

Mat 22:29: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

Defraud not, is simply a summation of the last six commandments, and is showing that to honour one another, not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not lie (false witness), not covet others things, is showing how we defraud not our neighbour.

Leviticus 19:13 is in the very context of the Ten Commandments and love of neighbour:

Lev 19:17: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."

Lev 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

Both Jesus & Paul & James cite this as summing up the last 6 commandments of the Ten, which deals with defrauding not the neighbor:

Mat 22:39: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Mar 12:31: "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Luk 10:27: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Rom 13:9: "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Gal 5:14: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Jam 2:8: "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:"

To "defraud" is to oppress, and to keep back, or withhold what is rightfully anothers, or to remove from another what is rightfully theirs. The last six commandments deal with that in detail. This is simply a summation.

 

[ReChoired]

There are actually 13 commands in both Ex and Dt.

Mar 12:24: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

It is written:

Exo 34:28: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Deu 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Deu 10:4: "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me."

"ten commandments".

Nowhere, will you find in scripture, "thirteen commandments" written.

This is the problem with Roman Catholicism; it is so drunk on its own corrupt wine, it cannot even read or count properly.

 

[ReChoired]

Also in Ex 34 Moses takes up new tablets of stone (vs 34) and God declares a covenant & gives them a series of commands ending with"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.” (vs 26)
God then says to Moses :
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
So there we have a different set of Ten Commanments

Jam 1:16: "Do not err, my beloved brethren."

Read Exodus 34 more carefully, for it does not say what you said it does.

God's Covenant ("ten commandments") existed before the 'old covenant'.

It existed before the peoples of natural Israel even existed.

What words did Moses write?

They're in Exodus 34:10-26 ending with vs 27 (Exo 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.)

What are the words that God wrote?

They're in Exodus 34:1, the Ten Commandments ( Exo 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. )

That you confuse the two is because you read into the text words that are not present.

God's "ten commandments", that God wrote (His Covenant):

Exo 34:1: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

Moses wrote other commandments which were part of the old covenant, a differing covenant than God's covenant ("ten commandments"):

Exo 34:27: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."

You are in great error. Repent of your sin of self righteousness and take up God's righteousness. Repent of your sin of claiming infallibility, and acknowledge your errors and be clean and stand in the light and truth of God's infallible (John 10:35; Psalms 19:7) word (John 17:17; Psalms 119:160). Come out of that adulterous and great whore (Revelation 17), otherwise you will continue to be intoxicated, unable to read Scripture or think clearly, and will receive of her plagues. I have told you the truth.

 

[Enoch111]

Show me from or in “the Bible alone”?

Another tiresome thread to promote "Holy Tradition"? Why do you bother with the Bible? The Catholic church suppressed it for centuries, and you would love to go back to that time wouldn't you?

"Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar [common] tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation." -- The Translators to the Reader (Preface to the King James Bible)

 

[Mungo]

Mat 22:29: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

Defraud not, is simply a summation of the last six commandments, and is showing that to honour one another, not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not lie (false witness), not covet others things, is showing how we defraud not our neighbour.

Leviticus 19:13 is in the very context of the Ten Commandments and love of neighbour:

Lev 19:17: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."

Lev 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

Both Jesus & Paul & James cite this as summing up the last 6 commandments of the Ten, which deals with defrauding not the neighbor:

Mat 22:39: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Mar 12:31: "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Luk 10:27: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Rom 13:9: "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Gal 5:14: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Jam 2:8: "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:"

To "defraud" is to oppress, and to keep back, or withhold what is rightfully anothers, or to remove from another what is rightfully theirs. The last six commandments deal with that in detail. This is simply a summation.

That's just a nonsense reply. No way is defraud a summary of six commandments.
Look at the context of Lev 19:13. It's in the middle of a series of commands.
If you look at the whole of vs 19 it is very clear what it is about.
"Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning."

 

[Mungo]

Mar 12:24: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

It is written:

Exo 34:28: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Deu 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Deu 10:4: "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me."

"ten commandments".

Nowhere, will you find in scripture, "thirteen commandments" written.

This is the problem with Roman Catholicism; it is so drunk on its own corrupt wine, it cannot even read or count properly.

I didn't say that it "thirteen commandments" was written. I said there were thirteen commands (or Words the Jews call them).

Take Exodus first below (the numbering is mine)
1 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
2 “You shall have no other gods before me.
3 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
4 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
5 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
6 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
7 “Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
8 “You shall not kill.
9 “You shall not commit adultery.
10 “You shall not steal.
11 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
12 “You shall not covet your neighbour's house;
13 you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbour's.”

Deuteronomy is similar except for the last two
12 “‘Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife;
13 and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.’

The first might seem odd as it has no - "you shall not....". But the Jews treat is as one of the Ten Words. In order to get to ten you have to concatenate some.
Catholics and Lutherans treat 2,3 and 4 as one commandment. Catholics include 1 as well.
Protestants (excluding Lutherans) and Orthodox treat 3&4 as one commandment, and 12 & 13 as one commandment.
Catholics keep 12 & 13 separate but use the list from Dt 5, which I think is better as it gives dignity to the wife, not including her as household chattel.

 

[Mungo]

Another tiresome thread to promote "Holy Tradition"? Why do you bother with the Bible? The Catholic church suppressed it for centuries, and you would love to go back to that time wouldn't you?

"Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar [common] tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation." -- The Translators to the Reader (Preface to the King James Bible)

Rubbish. The Catholic Church never held back scriptures. There were translations in the vernacular from very early times.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'” (From Where We Got The Bible)

 

[Enoch111]

Rubbish. The Catholic Church never held back scriptures.

The Kinj James translators had first-hand knowledge about the operations of the Catholic Church. So that is not rubbish but historical reality (which you do not wish to face or acknowledge).

 

[amigo de christo]

The Kinj James translators had first-hand knowledge about the operations of the Catholic Church. So that is not rubbish but historical reality (which you do not wish to face or acknowledge).

I had just as soon lie rotting and dying in prison than ever once heed the covenant of the CC .
The lambs have a good end . Deception abounds big time now . Many are brainwashed now my friend .
Stick to the bible and let us learn that JESUS and all sound doctrine . This life is but a vapor .
Not only will i not enter into any kind of covenant with the CC , i will continue to warn all NOT to do so .
out of great love for the peoples , those who love must warn . As we desire not the death of one
and that none would perish . Thus let no man , woman or child
ever enter into convenant with a HARLOT . JUST seek ye the LORD and enter into HIS COVENANT in CHRIST JESUS .

 

[Mungo]

The Kinj James translators had first-hand knowledge about the operations of the Catholic Church. So that is not rubbish but historical reality (which you do not wish to face or acknowledge).

This is the reality.

The early Church used the Greek LXX Old Testament and the NT was written Greek anyway. So those that could read, read it in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the day. Later translations were also made into Latin. At the end of the fourth century Jerome, tri-lingual in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, made an updated Latin translation using Hebrew and Greek as well as earlier Latin texts. This was completed around 405 AD. This was the Vulgate - so called because it was the everyday Latin rather than classical Latin; rather like Kopine Greek as compared to classical Greek.

However in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Europe descended into barbarism. Learning was kept alive by the Church and Latin was the language of those that could read or write, and not many could.

As the Church expanded translations were made into local languages. For example at the beginning of the eighth century the Venerable Bede, living in his monastery in Jarrow in North East England, translated the Bible (or at least some of it) into Anglo-Saxon. Some say the whole Bible, but according to his scribe, the Deacon Cuthbert, he just completed translating John’s gospel before he died. I doubt he left that until last.

Saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Moravians in the 9th century and created the forerunner of the Cyrillic alphabet to translate the Bible into the local language.

Even earlier, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.”

Returning to English here are a few relevant quotes from "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham, chapter 11 which is entitled "Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff".

The Anglo Saxon Period:
“To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages.”

“....After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.....”

Witness of Thomas Moore, Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says:
'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III).

“Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'”

In the 16th century the English College in Rheims set out to produce a new English translation of the Bible. The New Testament was published in 1582. The first part of the Old Testament was published in 1609 and the second in 1610 – a year before the KJV was published.

Here are some dates of translations into vernacular languages before Martin Luther printed his German translation.:
By 400AD translations existed in Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Georgian Languages.
405 Jerome’s translation in the Latin (common language of the Roman Empire in the West.
406 Translation into Armenian
7th Century – First translation into French, First translation into German.
8th Century – first translation into English (Anglo Saxon) by Bede
9th Century – first translation into the Slavic language by Cyril and Methodius
1170 –Eadwine's Psalterium triplex, which contained the Latin versions of the Psalms accompanied by Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon English language renderings.
13thcentury – first translation into Spanish under King AlfonsoV
1300 - first translation into Norwegian
1454 – Catholic Gutenberg produced the first printed Bibles (in Latin)
1466 – first printed German Bible , 58 years before Luther’s
1470 – first printed Scandanvian Bible
1477 – first printed Italian Bible In the years before Luther's Bible was published, the Catholics printed 20 different Italian editions of the Bible.
1475 – first printed Dutch Bible
1466 – first printed French Bible
All Catholic Bibles, and yet the claim is that the Catholics Church suppressed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular.

 

[ReChoired]

I said there were thirteen commands (or Words the Jews call them).

As stated, Roman Catholicism cannot count or read properly due to their inebriated state.

The Bible says, "the ten commandments".

The Bible says, "the word", "it", since "the ten commandments" are a single "word" of God. They are not thirteen "commands" (as if the word command and commandments are differing things. You, as satanic Jesuitism does, play at subjective semantics, which etymologically and scripturally cannot be sustained:

"commandment (n.) late 13c., "an order from an authority," originally "any one of the ten injunctions engraved upon stone tablets and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai according to Exodus," from Old French comandement "order, command," from Latin *commandamentum, from *commandare (see command (v.)). Pronounced as four syllables until 17c." - commandment | Etymology, origin and meaning of commandment by etymonline

Deu 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Ps 103:20: "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word."

Isa 1:10: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah."

Etc)

You are in error, either in ignorance, which means you should not be speaking on a subject you are not informed in, or are deceiving to merely justify an evil corrupt and spiritually bankrupt religious system of satan, in which case you are again not qualified to make right pronouncements regarding God's word.

 

[ReChoired]

This is the reality.

No, it's phantasy.

The early Church used the Greek LXX Old Testament

No, it didn't. Again you live in phantasy.

The so called Septuagint (LXX) doesn't actually exist. It's actually Sinaiticus (& Vaticanus) from Origen's Hexapla and was never 300 BC, but rather hundreds AD passing itself off based on a discredited myth (Letter of Aristeas).

'Taint no such thing as "the Septuagint". What you are actually referring to is Origen's Hexapla (Catholic).

The so called "Septuagint", really being "septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)" of Origen's Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus and really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4.. : Humphrey Hody : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.

See also The Mythological Septuagint - https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/items/peter-s-ruckman-the-mythological-septuagint/Peter S Ruckman - The Mythological Septuagint.pdf

See also Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, "Chapter 4, the Mythological LXX" - https://ia801508.us.archive.org/8/items/peter-s-ruckman-the-christians-handbook-of-manuscript-evidence/Peter S Ruckman - The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence.pdf

1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics! - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] - https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/items/floyd-nolen-jones-which-version-is-the-bible/Floyd Nolen Jones - Which Version Is The Bible.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8

Stop living according to deception, and embrace truth.

 

[ReChoired]

N

405 Jerome’s translation in the Latin (common language of the Roman Empire in the West.

Roman Catholic revisionist history. Both Jerome and Helvidius state that Jerome was altering the actual and original latin vulgate (aka the Italic or Vetus Latina that already existed). Jerome corrupted the Bible by order of the 'pope'.

". . . As early as about the turn of the fifth century, Helvidius condemned the Latin Vulgate, then only recently translated by Jerome, in the most strident terms. You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us (Luke 2:33) "His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with marvelous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek MS is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left in their books, and not only these, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words of the same way. Jerome against Helvidius, from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Scribner’s Edition, vol. vi, 338 Noting this condemnation, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, president of Columbia Union College, commented: You will see by this that Helvidius, the great scholar of the Italic Church, which was the predecessor of the Waldensian or the pre-Waldensian Church, accuses Jerome of using Luke 2:33 just as we find it now in the American Revised Version from corrupt Greek MSS. It is clear that Helvidius had the pure Greek MSS, which were older than the corrupt Greek MSS used by Jerome. The pure Greek MSS read Luke 2:33 as we now read it in the King James Version; so on this one text the present battle between the King James and the American Revised Versions is the centuries-old battle fought between the pre-Waldensian Church and the growing Roman Catholic Church. B.G. Wilkinson, The Attitudes and Teachings of Mrs. E.G. White Toward Different Versions of the Bible, 2 . As early as about the turn of the fifth century, Helvidius condemned the Latin Vulgate, then only recently translated by Jerome, in the most strident terms. You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us (Luke 2:33) "His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with marvelous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek MS is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left in their books, and not only these, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words of the same way. Jerome against Helvidius, from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Scribner’s Edition, vol. vi, 338 Noting this condemnation, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, president of Columbia Union College, commented: You will see by this that Helvidius, the great scholar of the Italic Church, which was the predecessor of the Waldensian or the pre-Waldensian Church, accuses Jerome of using Luke 2:33 just as we find it now in the American Revised Version from corrupt Greek MSS. It is clear that Helvidius had the pure Greek MSS, which were older than the corrupt Greek MSS used by Jerome. The pure Greek MSS read Luke 2:33 as we now read it in the King James Version; so on this one text the present battle between the King James and the American Revised Versions is the centuries-old battle fought between the pre-Waldensian Church and the growing Roman Catholic Church. B.G. Wilkinson, The Attitudes and Teachings of Mrs. E.G. White Toward Different Versions of the Bible, 2 . . ." - Defaming Scripture

 

[Mungo]

As stated, Roman Catholicism cannot count or read properly due to their inebriated state.

The Bible says, "the ten commandments".

The Bible says, "the word", "it", since "the ten commandments" are a single "word" of God. They are not thirteen "commands" (as if the word command and commandments are differing things. You, as satanic Jesuitism does, play at subjective semantics, which etymologically and scripturally cannot be sustained:

"commandment (n.) late 13c., "an order from an authority," originally "any one of the ten injunctions engraved upon stone tablets and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai according to Exodus," from Old French comandement "order, command," from Latin *commandamentum, from *commandare (see command (v.)). Pronounced as four syllables until 17c." - commandment | Etymology, origin and meaning of commandment by etymonline

Deu 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Ps 103:20: "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word."

Isa 1:10: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah."

Etc)

You are in error, either in ignorance, which means you should not be speaking on a subject you are not informed in, or are deceiving to merely justify an evil corrupt and spiritually bankrupt religious system of satan, in which case you are again not qualified to make right pronouncements regarding God's word.

See post #11

 

[Mungo]

N Roman Catholic revisionist history. Both Jerome and Helvidius state that Jerome was altering the actual and original latin vulgate (aka the Italic or Vetus Latina that already existed).

As I said in my post

At the end of the fourth century Jerome, tri-lingual in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, made an updated Latin translation using Hebrew and Greek as well as earlier Latin texts.