However, there is a much older Latin version of the Bible, used for centuries by Christendom. This version, called The Old Latin Vulgate (or Itala), is known to have been in existence by AD 157. Church father Turtullian, in his own writings dated around 200 C.E, cited various Latin quotations directly from The Old Latin Vulgate. This “original” vulgate (Latin) version continued to be used for nearly a millennium, until Latin basically ceased being a common language.”

http://www.allabouttruth.org/oldest-bible-version-faq.htm

The truth is, all of the New Testiment was an oral tradition before someone finally decided to write it all down.

But, the earliest OLD LATIN versions were in the the year 157.

That seems to be pretty accurate, to me.

Anyone that wants to go back to the orginal Hebrew or the Original Greek would have the same problems:

The meaning of words changes, over time.

Latin, as a “dead language” actually avoided the corruption of the original text.

Probably not.

Just because something was written at the same time does not mean that it is authoritative.

In every age, some people are correct and some people are not correct.

Yes, there are lots of tough issues and seeming contradictions, in Christianity, over time.

However, the Heretical books are just that.

Interesting perhaps, but written by those without authority over doctrine.

So, all of you folks that think the “Arian” Hitler was “Christian”???

Arianism was rejected by the Church.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txs/councils.htm

“That book IS heretical!”

We now have, however, the REAL original texts, not the ones used for translations in 373 CE. Those “original text” no longer exist.

How then, are the Gnostic gospels heretical?

I am sure all of these Bishops were well versed in all of the cannonical and the heretical texts.

The Nicene Creed clearly rejects many different types of heretical texts.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

However, St. Jerome absolutely translated from the original texts.

Therefore, a St. Jerome translation is only from the ancient Hebrew or Greek to Latin, and then from Latin to the current, modern version of contemporary languages.

There are only 2 steps here. Ancient to Latin, Latin to contemporary.

The Bible wasn’t written in Latin. The Old Testament was written in Ancient Hebrew and the New Testament in Ancient Greek.

Jesus, Himself, spoke Aramaic, a Syrian dialect similar to Arabic.

The Gnostic gospels sat untouched for centuries, until discovered in 1947 (?) They were never translated from the Ancient Greek to Latin to German to English.

Historian place their origin as being before 300 CE.

All of the versions of the Bible known today are translations of translations of translations.

The Gnostic gospels are originals.

The words mean the same, even several centuries later.

Ever try to read “old English” text?

“Where we Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church” has been reprinted several times.

I like this version best:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888992042/ref=cm_cr_pr_orig_subj

It contains “From the Kirk to the Catholic Church” —

the conversion story of a Bible Scholar from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.

“Where we got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church” is a GREAT book.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0895557967?showViewpoints=1

It was written by a former Presbyterian who converted to the Catholic Church.
It is historically very accurate:

The difference between the “Gnostic gospels” and the ones in the Bible is that the Gnostic versions did not go through centuries of translations from the Ancient Greek language as did the “modern” version.

Ancient Greek is a dead language, having little or no resemblance to the modern Greek language.

Far from being heretical, it is likely that the untranslated Gnostic gospels are more accurate than the modern translated versions.

Just got an email.

Hillary is in Erie PA. I now have a picture of Hillary and Ed Rendell standing next to my girlfriend.

She can’t hang that one up unless I get to hang up all of MY pictures! lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Jerome was, primarily, a translator.

However, the Latin Bible that Jerome came up with, the Vulgate, is the basis for the Bible of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, and, up to the time of Martin Luther, the ONLY Bible text.

The King James editors tried to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek and then back to English.

There is some dispute about some Books recognized by the Catholic Church, which are Jewish in origin but always in Greek rather than Hebrew.

These are the Deuterocanonical Books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

Maccabees, for instance. Both of those (Catholic and Orthodox Accepted) Books recount things that happened prior to the birth of Jesus. These Books were, most likely, in the Jewish Temples when Jesus visited the Temples.

However, since they seem to support the idea of “Purgatory” as well as “prayer for the dead” Martin Luther did not accept these Books as Scriptural Doctrine. However, I do not think that Luther condemned these texts as “Heretical”.

There is little dispute about the the truly heretical texts.

When the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics and all of the mainline Protestant churches say that a book is “Heretical” — guess what?

That book IS heretical!

These Heretical texts are important, historically. They give us insight into various cultures and debates of that time.

But studying a heretical text is much like the study of Egyptian, Greek or Roman “gods” — historically interesting but not binding on Faith.

I think MonkeyHawk’s posts are generally well informed and interesting.

So, he comes here and bores the crap out of everyone here.

The way I read it, he came to Jerusalem to say his piece, knowing full well that it could get deadly fast, but also knowing that it was the only way to confront the Pharisees.

“Nathan” is a “cafeteria Christian.”

He takes what he likes and ignores the spinach.

As long as he thinks “Jesus will forgive all your sins,” he sets out to sinning all he can. Otherwise, why bother with Jesus?

I mean, what would be plastered on all your churches if Jesus had died of old age in his bed? A serta mattress?!

It hardly seems like betrayal if Judas’ role was to fulfill God’s will.