Sola scriptura marches into uncharted territory

[Mornac]

No, Mornac. 'We' don't use "definitive articles."

--We’ve only had one Bible since we merged our writings with some of the ancient Jewish scripture and we began referring to the product as “the Bible”. Grant it, there are those who in later centuries had their way with it and referred to their products as “Bibles”, and grant it some of them contain an overwhelming majority of the Bible within their pages. Still and all, insofar as they waiver from the actual Bible, they cannot correctly bear the name.
 
While it is true that 'We' don't use "definitive articles" when referring to these knock-offs (as well we shouldn’t), anyone respectful of the English language will use definitive articles when referring to the authentic Bible.

Try again.

--No need.

[notoc]

--We’ve only had one Bible since we merged our writings with some of the ancient Jewish scripture and we began referring to the product as “the Bible”. Grant it, there are those who in later centuries had their way with it and referred to their products as “Bibles”, and grant it some of them contain an overwhelming majority of the Bible within their pages. Still and all, insofar as they waiver from the actual Bible, they cannot correctly bear the name.
 
While it is true that 'We' don't use "definitive articles" when referring to these knock-offs (as well we shouldn’t), anyone respectful of the English language will use definitive articles when referring to the authentic Bible.
--No need.

Time for you to define what you mean by "definitive articles."

[Mornac]

Time for you to define what you mean by "definitive articles."

--Wow notoc. You're behaving more an more like a government school victim everyday. My definition is the same as that of everyone else who is familiar with proper use of the language:

'The' is the definite article is English. It is used to restrict the meaning of a noun to make it refer to something that is known by both the speaker or writer and the listener or reader:

He's gone to the shops. (Here the listener knows which shops I mean)

It can also be used to refer back to something that has already been mentioned:

There's a word for that. Now, what is the word?

It can be used to refer forwards to something that is coming:

The key to the front door is under the mat.

It can be used to refer to a group:

The car has changed our way of living.

[notoc]

--Wow notoc. You're behaving more an more like a government school victim everyday. My definition is the same as that of everyone else who is familiar with proper use of the language

Either the nuns weren't up to teaching you or you weren't up to learning from them.

Try again.

--There is one Bible. That is why we use definitive articles when we refer to it.

I asked you to define "definitive articles."

[Mornac]

See reply #32

[notoc]

See reply #32

Oh, I see ... your "definitive articles" was a typo. What you meant to say was, "There is one Bible. That is why we use the definite article when we refer to it."

Why didn't you just say you'd made a mistake and I could have got right into why the use of a definite article offers no proof at all to your claim that there is only one bible?

There was I thinking you had knowledge of definitive articles proving the existence of one true bible.  

[Mornac]

Oh, I see ... your "definitive articles" was a typo. What you meant to say was, "There is one Bible. That is why we use the definite article when we refer to it."

--Oh, it was the plural that was bothering you. Why didn’t you just say so.

Why didn't you just say you'd made a mistake
--If you would have specified what it was, I would have.

and I could have got right into why the use of a definite article offers no proof at all to your claim that there is only one bible?

--I didn’t say it was proof. I said that we use it when we describe the Bible. I guess I should have specified “we who recognize the sole authentic Bible” as opposed to those who have made redacted versions based on it. My mistake.

There was I thinking you had knowledge of definitive articles proving the existence of one true bible.

--“There was I thinking”? Ya got a typo somewhere in there notoc?

[notoc]

--Oh, it was the plural that was bothering you. Why didn’t you just say so.
--If you would have specified what it was, I would have.
--I didn’t say it was proof. I said that we use it when we describe the Bible. I guess I should have specified “we who recognize the sole authentic Bible” as opposed to those who have made redacted versions based on it. My mistake.
--“There was I thinking”? Ya got a typo somewhere in there notoc?

You're a blustering, blundering, blithering idiot. You just can't help yourself.

[DougRich]

Mornac, the original question was "Which Bible is being altered?" Your pious little non-answer, and subsequent prevarication ignores the fact that, when you consider the enormous number of versions (some with more books than others, if you'll recall), translations, and translations of translations, that exist today, it was a very simple and reasonable question.

If you would climb down off your arrogant high horse every once in a while and take a look around, you might see that the reason you are held in such genuinely low regard in this forum is not because your critics are all God-hating, anti-Church bigots and secular humanist fanatics - it's almost entirely due to your really juvenile, pedantic and vastly superior attitude and tone.

You might actually find that there are people on this forum who'd be interested in having a frank, honest and serious discussion with you on some of these topics...assuming, of course, that you would actually like that. Folks come to discussion boards for a lot of different reasons, and each with his or her own agenda. If yours has, up to now, been to carve yourself out a little niche as the lone voice of piety, universally reviled and insulted for His sake, and that's how you see yourself - well, that would explain much. If you're satisfied with the quality of your witness, after looking both within and without, then nothing I say, quite obviously, is going to have any effect.

[johnhp]

Mornac, the original question was "Which Bible is being altered?" Your pious little non-answer, and subsequent prevarication ignores the fact that, when you consider the enormous number of versions (some with more books than others, if you'll recall), translations, and translations of translations, that exist today, it was a very simple and reasonable question.

If you would climb down off your arrogant high horse every once in a while and take a look around, you might see that the reason you are held in such genuinely low regard in this forum is not because your critics are all God-hating, anti-Church bigots and secular humanist fanatics - it's almost entirely due to your really juvenile, pedantic and vastly superior attitude and tone.

You might actually find that there are people on this forum who'd be interested in having a frank, honest and serious discussion with you on some of these topics...assuming, of course, that you would actually like that. Folks come to discussion boards for a lot of different reasons, and each with his or her own agenda. If yours has, up to now, been to carve yourself out a little niche as the lone voice of piety, universally reviled and insulted for His sake, and that's how you see yourself - well, that would explain much. If you're satisfied with the quality of your witness, after looking both within and without, then nothing I say, quite obviously, is going to have any effect.

There is yet another layer of complexity you ar eneglecting.  In addition to the various collections referred to as "the Bible" is the almost complete lack of autograph manuscripts and that the earliest extant collections are not copies of autograph texts but, indeed, copies of copies.  Mornac wishes to sidestep this problem by suggesting that Tradition secures for him the cetainty of biblical meaning but, of course, he demonstrates an incapability of understanding Tradition.

[notoc]

There is yet another layer of complexity you ar eneglecting.  In addition to the various collections referred to as "the Bible" is the almost complete lack of autograph manuscripts and that the earliest extant collections are not copies of autograph texts but, indeed, copies of copies.  Mornac wishes to sidestep this problem by suggesting that Tradition secures for him the cetainty of biblical meaning but, of course, he demonstrates an incapability of understanding Tradition.

It was some such autograph manuscripts that I thought Mornac might have been obliquely referring to when he crowed, That is why we use definitive articles when we refer to it.

I found it hard to believe, even of Mornac, that he was seriously attempting to prove the originality of a bible by pointing to the use of a grammatical definitive ... and since he is still claiming that it wasn't a typo, if he was actually taught that the terms 'definite articles' and 'definitive articles' are synonymous, whoever paid his school fees is due a refund.

I can't wait for him to give us a lesson on the usage of 'indefinitive articles.'

[johnhp]

It was some such autograph manuscripts that I thought Mornac might have been obliquely referring to when he crowed, That is why we use definitive articles when we refer to it.

I found it hard to believe, even of Mornac, that he was seriously attempting to prove the originality of a bible by pointing to the use of a grammatical definitive ... and since he is still claiming that it wasn't a typo, if he was actually taught that the terms 'definite articles' and 'definitive articles' are synonymous, whoever paid his school fees is due a refund.

I can't wait for him to give us a lesson on the usage of 'indefinitive articles.'

Actually, i would not take anything he writes to be what he was taught.  Theologically, we Catholics believe that Tradition is the proper context for the interpretation of Revelation.  But that is a far cry from proclaiming ownership of Scripture or of singling out a particular version as the proper version or any issues like this.  It is also another issue altogether to reject the critical study and appropriation of Scrupture as always already a "sola scriptura" principle. 

[notoc]

Actually, i would not take anything he writes to be what he was taught.

With his kind of specialness I seriously doubt it was ever possible to teach Mornac anything.

[johnhp]

With his kind of specialness I seriously doubt it was ever possible to teach Mornac anything.

Agreed.

[Mornac]

You're a blustering, blundering, blithering idiot.

--Sometimes I can be – like now for example.

You just can't help yourself.

--Sure I can. Watch.