Posts by KalebOutWest

15

Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

by PeterNobody in

dear brothers!

you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

did you consider paul as a false prophet?

KalebOutWest

You as a bible researchers, refused the [sic] catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

I'm Jewish. We've been using the Bible long before there was a Catholic Church or Gentiles came into the picture, but...

You may be confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Marcion of Sinope and his followers, the Marcionists. Jehovah's Witnesses have often been compared to Marcionists as have been several other of the NRMs that have come forth from the Second Great Awakening, notably the sister religion of the Watchtower religion, the Worldwide Church of God (now defunct).

Roman Catholicism does not hold that Scripture is "the source of truth." In fact, it teaches (and always has) that Jesus Christ is "the source of truth." (CCC 2466) This was actually the reason for the controversy between Marcion of Sinope, his rejected canon, and the eventual canon of scriptures devised by the Catholic Church which would come to be called "the New Testament."

Marcion was a bishop of the 2nd century C.E. whose father actually purchased his bishopric rights for him. It appears that Marcion though highly educated was far removed from the people he was supposed to serve, and due to his upbringing was focused upon making a name for himself in history. And that he did, altough it would become one of great infamy.

Having a great love for the Hellenists, Marcion was obsessed with Greek mythology and religion. He began to see in the teachings of the Gnostics comparisons of "the select" who were granted special salvific divine status as possibly applicable to Jesus Christ. He devised a way to combine the two by rejecting everything that was not "Greek" about the Gospel, and creating a formula in which people could "learn" their way to salvific divine status, to become a "god" like Jesus.

This entailed rejection of all that was Hebrew about the religion of Christianity, including the rejection of the Septuagint. Since by the 2nd century, Christians were already considering that Jesus was likely divine, Marcion began to teach the Jesus was simply one of the gnostic-like "demi-gods" of the select who reached this status via gnosis or special divine knowledge. This knowledge, however, was in the reach of some others if they applied themselves.

Taking the writings of the apostle Paul, editing them for any mention of the Jews that favored them (this meant rejecting his letter to the Romans), and finding a gospel that was written by a gentile convert in Greek that he would claim was his own (that he edited as well), Marcion devised what he called was the "rule" (or in Greek kanon) for salvation. Anyone who studied it could expose themselves to the proper knowledge that led them to become like the demi-god, Jesus.

Marcion gained followers and felt his place in history and the Church was now solidified. He felt all he had to do now was go to Rome to show the Pope what he had done. But upon arrival it is reported that Marcion was "surprised" when he found himself excommunicated for his efforts.

Apparently he had been warned along the way to stop his work but would not listen. Gnosticism had been the Church's greatest threat. And while the Church treasured the Scriptures, it never viewed salvation as based upon one's study of them. Some people could not read as many people in the world were still illiterate in those days. Salvation, the Church taught, was katholicos or universal (where we get the word "Catholic" from today). Any person can be saved whether they read the gospel for themselves from the Bible, hear it preached from a sermon or learn it from another Christian who teaches it to them personally. One isn't saved via contact with the Scriptures, no matter how holy these texts are. People are saved, the Church teaches, via Jesus.

To stop the Marcionist threat, the Church studied the spreading problem as copies of Marcion's canon were growing. It appeared that Marcion had merely copied the gospel of Luke and claimed it as his own, minus the first two chapters (because they are very "Jewish"). And spending about almost 200 years of study and discussion with the churches around the world regarding what was being used during the liturgy, the New Testament was eventually (albeit slowly) canonized. It was not the basis for the faith, but the standard for what was Scripture for the Christians to counter the Marcionist movement.

If you notice, it is heavy with Pauline writings and includes a non-apostolic gospel, that of Luke. This is due to Marcion since his Bible used only the works of Paul and stole that singular gospel. Marcion claimed Paul was anti-Jewish. So the Church proved that he was not by using Paul's best work, especially Romans to counter Marcion. Romans even begins the Pauline library if you notice, and in it Paul teaches that despite the fact that the Jews rejected Christ, the covenant is still intact and that somehow, in the end, the Jews will still be saved.

Luke, even though not one of the apostles, is a witness to Jesus as a gospel writer. He even writes the only history of the apostles in the canon. This is likely to counter the claims of Marcion. Luke is likely a Gentile convert to Judaism. Marcion claimed he wrote the gospel of Luke and that Judaism was rejected by Jesus and unnecessary. But if you replace in the portions of this gospel that Marcion removed (chapters 1 & 2), they are some of the most Old Testament-sounding pieces found in the whole New Testament. Mary and others sing in canticle form to the Lord in Hebrew style and the Temple is described in detail. In both Luke and in Acts it is demonstrated that Luke and Paul obviously worshipped in the Temple regularly, a point Marcion would not have other know.

Except for groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and a few other rare Fundamentalists that may be labeled as cults as well, most Christians, even Sola Scripturians, do not rely solely on Scripture alone. Much Tradition lies at the center of their faith. The creation of the canon, for instance, is Tradition, and belief in it as a Standard is outside of the Bible's scriptural reach as there are no Bible texts that tell us what books should be in the Bible and what should be excluded, or that there should even be a divine library in the first place.

But one thing is clear: Catholics do not teach that the Bible is the source of salvation. If they did, the Protestant Reformation never would have occurred.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

Halcon:

...since God is spirit. The gnostics would say that "God is mind"...

While I don't know or cannot address Halcon's personal views on "God," neither is it any of my business, I should explain what I said at the end of my last post before I get into any debates.

I am an ignostic. No an "agnostic" but an ignostic. That generally doesn't exist much in Christianity or in the Western world due to the influence of Christian thought. In Judaism, one can be atheist and agnostic and fully practice the religion of Judaism. It doesn't change anything. You can still "do good to your neighbor" and "not worship" any other God but the God of Abraham (the Torah doesn't require prayer or belief as worship, for instance).

An "ignostic" is someone who doesn't view that it is possible or efficacious to discuss or debate about "God" since God is either Ineffable or people have different views, understanding or the term cannot be or isn't/hasn't been defined to the point that all can agree upon.

In Judaism, idolatry is wrong. If you build a god out of wood or stone or metal and call that God or a deity and worship it, we know that is not right.

But what if you create a god out of words? If you make up definitions for God and claim that God "is" this and God "is" that, and then worship what you have created via definitions, aren't you creating a God of words? How do you know that God is really what you define God to be? Isn't God self-defining?--Exodus 3:14.

Even the Jews stopped taking the anthropomorphic descriptions of God literally and no longer view God as personal to a great extent--not having human qualities like jealousy or anger, and not being a king or being of any gender or a "Lord." God is often not viewed as a person by many Jews. This is what is often meant by God being Ineffable.

God is not a spirit in Jewish thought or has a spirit body like in Christian or Watchtower thought. God might be a force or something experienced as happening more than an entity as in Christian thought. The ideas in the Bible are seen as mythical compared to what "God" actually could be.

But since "God" is Ineffable, to attempt to define and debate "God" is not worth it. Time could be better spent helping those in need, caring for family, finding ways to mend what is broken, aid others in practical terms. Be "God" to others instead of arguing God to win pointless debates, that is my motto.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

The Torah wasn't written by the Gnostics or for the Gnostics. They had no idea of its existence. They were Hellenists, Greeks. The Torah was written by the Jews to teach them to observe the Mosaic Law. It wasn't written for the Gentiles.

While I lived for a few years with a JW aunt after my family dissolved, I was born and raised Jewish and continue to be to this day. One of the things my Jewish education has afforded me is to know the difference between when the Gnostics came on the scene and when the Levitical priesthood did, which was centuries before.

The Kohen line, otherwise known as the Levites, were influencing the people of the Levant to Judahite religion long before Babylon came and drove the people away in chains. The Yahveh God may not have been the only God the Kohens promoted at the time, but eventually they developed their trademark monotheism that Judaism became known for. Some time before 586 B.C E. these priests and their scribes (and their prophets) were a group, even though they didn't resemble the Bible tales exactly the way they are portrayed in the narratives.

The Gnostics, who are Gentiles of Greek origin, did not come onto the scene until circa 300 B.C.E., maybe 400, but that is stretching it. Most scholars actually put their arrival at about 200 B.C.E.. But the ones who studied the Gnostics who studied the Jewish texts? Those are the generally known as the Marcionists.

Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd-century (C.E.) Christian bishop who went rogue by creating (get this) the very first Biblical canon (as the Church Fathers did not believe the Christian congregation needed an official Biblical canon), made things worse by threatening the Church with Gnosticism and the teaching that salvation came to a select group that could glean enough gnosis from holy writings and become demi-gods like Jesus. (The Church countered this with the teaching that salvation was "katholicos" or "universal"--catholic, open to all who had faith in the gospel, whether they read it from Scripture or merely heard it preached from another Christian. And the Church thereby set to creating an official list of canonical writings, excommunicating the Marcionists.)

Plato was born in 428 BCE. He did not read, study or teach the Hebrew text. In fact, there is no textual evidence which shows any early Greek philosopher (from Thales to Epicurus) quoting or commenting on The Old Testament. Both Phythagoras and Plato were reported by some to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East but there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this.

I am Jewish. I know the interpretation of my own people's culture. The reason for the narratives and the characters of Eve and Balaam are placed in the Torah is to teach Law--this is not a book of "History." This is the Law, a book of binding commands. Any narratives within the Law teach Jews how to apply the Law by illustration, not history or a bedtime story. These narratives do not teach Greeks wisdom. They are designed to teach my people how to apply the Mosaic Law. Five books of Law. Not history. Not tales of wisdom. Law. Torah.

In Judaism, God is not spirit or mind. God is Ineffable.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

Well of course. And I am not arguing with your general conclusions.

The Christians and the Gnostics later saw things in the words the same way that rabbinical sages of the Talmud composing midrash would from these texts. This was not the original intent, any more than Balaam telling his donkey that her warning was making him a "fool" or "made a mockery of me" at Numbers 22:29. Was the donkey likewise wise, shrewd, able to "navigate" in a way that Balaam could not? Or was this just a device for what he could do himself if he followed the Law? What was the intent of the authors of the Torah but to tell Jews to observe the Mosaic Law?

The Christian and Gnostic commentators and theologians of later ages endowed the serpent not only with qualities, but entirely disconnected it from the Torah. In both Genesis and Numbers the "speaking animal" is simply a stand-in for the Jewish conscience telling the Jew not to break any of the Ten Commandments. (Later, Jews would actually invent what cartoonists would much later depict as an "angel" on one shoulder and a "devil's advocate" on the other.)

Eventually the serpent became an entity of its own for Christians, but it's all unassociacted invention whether it's Christology, Gnostic teaching or even Jewish Midrash.

I can invent anything after the fact that looks like it matches the original material. Anybody can do that. To "ooh" and "aah" over something that is not original is to give a lot of credit where it just isn't due.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

I don't think the serpent "possesses" any "knowledge" or is meant to be a separate entity from Eve. It is just an early Hebrew narrative device explaining a character's crisis of conscience, as in the case of Balaam and his donkey.

The talking donkey is the same device. It has no knowledge. It is just Balaam too, trying to decide whether he should break the Mosaic Law or not, just like Eve.

Neither animal existed. Neither event is historical. The Garden of Eden is a myth and the Balaam tale is folklore, but both contain the same Jewish trope.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

The word in Hebrew is aROOM, and it means "sensible," to have "smarts," which is why the RJPS 2023 renders Genesis 3:1:

The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the Eternal God had made.

It means "shrewd" in the sense of "prudence" in clever knowledge and sight, usually in navigation.

The idea, when absent of all Christian influence, is to be compared to the only other time, later in the Torah when an animal speaks, Numbers 22, when a jenny, or female donkey, talks to the prophet Balaam.

The situations are identical. Both people act as if animals always speak. Both talk back to the animals like normal. An angel with a sword is present in both accounts. A sin against the Mosaic Law is what is being considered by each player.

But the stories end differently. In Genesis, Eve breaks the Mosaic Law, the Law against stealing. Balaam does not, the Law against testifying falsely against one's neighbor (and using God's Name is vain in a curse--since he is a prophet). Both narratives seem to be lessons in dealing with breaking Decalogue terms of the covenant and their outcomes.

Due to the influence of Christology, most readers cannot see beyond the idea that the serpent must be "Satan the Devil," and thus the "shrewd" abilities of the "serpent" must be of "evil" intent. But there was no such being in Judaism at the time this was composed (and there continues to be none).

Yet when compared to the donkey in Numbers 22, the idea is that serpent is a narrative device of warning, having foresight into Eve's inner conflict over whether or not the idea of taking the steps she is contemplating is really a good idea. The same is to be said about the jenny in Balaam's story. The donkey can be likened to an inner dialogue, a form of narrative device that had yet to be invented for Balaam's "crisis of conscience." (Such "inner dialogue" would later be found in Hellenistic writings and even suggested in the Song of Songs.)

The angel with the sword at the end of both tales shows that deadly error for the negative path could be the outcome, but only one takes it. The other hears the warning, Balaam. Neither talking animal is a demon.

The idea of "Satan the Devil" as an evil entity would not be fully created until Christianity fleshed itself out as a facet within Judaism. For a brief time Judaism itself considered the idea that some angels were separate entities, some of which could be demonic as the Hellenists taught, but this idea fell to the wayside as the idea of God as an anthropomorphic deity was abandoned in favor of being the Ineffable concept it is today. It was during this period that Christianity developed the idea that Jesus was likely divine, and thus an "archenemy" in the Devil made more and more sense.

49

40 Years Ago Today: May 15th 1984 "1914 Generation" issue was released. False prophecy, thy name is WatchTower.

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

it's incredible how this cover, and also this "series" of watchtower's is burned into my mind.

i was almost 5 years old when these were released.

“1914 and you” — may 1, 1984 watchtower.

KalebOutWest

Ratigan350:

FYI, it is not a false prophesy because it was not a prophesy. IT was an interpretation of scripture. That's why people proclaiming the rapture is not a false prophesy as that also is an interpretation of scripture. That is a misinterpretation of scripture. 1914 is a valid interpretation of scripture. You all are just disappointed because it didn't result in what you wanted it to be.

The term "prophesy," as in a "prophet" from the Bible era does not refer to someone who can foretell the future. It refers to someone who speaks the words of God to the people of God or to people who God wants to speak to.

For instance, the prophet Jonah gives a prophecy that Ninevah will be destroyed due to their sins, but the people in Ninevah repent. Jonah's words do not come true. Jonah gets very angry because this is what he expected to happen in the first place. He doesn't want to talk to God after his prophetic warnings do not come to pass, even when God comes to him to converse about the situation.--Jonah chapter 4.

The entire Mosaic Law forbids "soothsayers" from existing among the people. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) A "soothsayer" is anyone who can "foretell the future." The difference between foretelling the future, which is what a soothsayer does and uttering a prophecy, which is what a prophet does, is that the message of a prophet is not a foretelling of events or a forecast. It is often a message, a lesson, and sometimes, like in the case of Jonah and the people of Ninevah, a warning.

But warnings are just that, warnings. When parents warn you that something may happen, they are not telling you that it will happen. They are telling you it may happen. "If you keep walking too close to the edge, you may fall," or "if you play too close to the stove while I am cooking something, you might burn yourself." The choice in such warnings is yours.

This is why Jonah is not a false prophet. If you notice, God wanted Jonah to understand that the work of a prophet was not to bring judgment or foretell the future, but to offer a means of light, a way out, a road to repentance. God tried to teach that lesson to Jonah, explaining to him at the end of the book that he should be rejoicing that his message was heard, not that he is someone who is a foreteller of events.

It is in this light that the text in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is written:

Any prophet who presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command to be uttered, or who speaks in the name of other gods--that prophet shall die....If the prophet speaks in God's name and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by God; the prophet has uttered it presumptiously: do not be in dread ot them.--RJPS 2023

A prophet is anyone who claims to speak for God. Oracles that foretell events or deal with forecasting the future on a timeline are what are specifically being warned about in the context of Deuteronomy chapter 18. Immediately before verse 20, the previous verses forewarn the people against the practice of foretelling the future via the dark arts, like soothsaying. The main type of "oracle" that is being spoken of here in verses 20-22 are those that claim to make forecasts of future events regarding dates in God's name. Here the Mosaic Law it is basically telling the Jews that no such prophet will ever rise that will have that ability whatsoever.

No one outside of the Watchtower religion thinks there is an invisible Jesus who has "returned to power" or whose "invisible parousia" has started around October 2nd, 1914. People don't believe that on their own. People outside the Watchtower religion don't come to those views spontaneously. They have to come into contact with Watchtower literature and people who have been taught by Watchtower leaders who teach these things.

So everything one learns about the Watchtower religion's expectations regarding 1914 is dependent not upon a personal expectation regarding 1914 but upon what is officially taught via official theology from official Jehovah's Witnesses theology.

The 1914 information disappoints because it fails. It doesn't fail because of what people believe about it.

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

KalebOutWest

I do feel he is misreading Mark's article or not reading it at all.

Either you are hurt somewhere by what I wrote or upset, because it is obviously apparent that I did read it. I quoted from it, remember?

Because of your "vampire" title and because of it's Catholic theme on creation, I had to even call someone who told me he was sure I knew Mark (we were in the same room at several events and he just never introduced me).

Mark is quite clear he sees a related parallel myth to the Ugaritic.

I also ended my comments on the article saying it was related to this myth, commenting on how after my discussion with my scholar/translator friend it was explained to me that the idea was that the Psalm might be advancing some inner hymn to a third cosmological creation mythology.

Like Judaism, Catholicism also holds that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is allegorical, so this makes these references equally so.

But since in Catholicism there is great richness in the Garden of Eden allegory, Psalm 8, being a Messianianic/Christological hymn in Catholic liturgy, the idea that it has cosmological creation allegory is important to Catholics. This last part is what I knew I was missing from the article, and was a central point. But being Jewish I needed help since I didn't get it.

The idea that you think Mark is a Catholic apologist like Jimmy Akin makes me realize why you would think I don't know what I don't know what I am talking about. You are still not outside the world of the Witnesses in some ways, despite how many years you have between them or what you have studied. You are thus working hard and perhaps struggling to create your own worldview, which I forget can be difficult to do. Sometimes we feel we can be there only to suddenly realize, no, not yet. Other times we feel like we will never make it to shore. It isn't our fault. We are cast out to see by a system controlled by the Governing Body and I don't think the outside world knows how hard it is to build a person from scratch afterwards.

For many I've met, leaving the Watchtower has meant seeing God as a monster. Why? Because that religion is controlled by monsters. It ruins people's lives. So anything in any form of academic paper that highlights a connection with God as something monstrous or grotesque becomes appealing in a way to sort of say: "See? Here's the proof! I was right. God is a monster."

In reality, Judaism and its writings are quite modern. It is just as much of a false story as what the Jehovah's Witnesses offer, but there was never a Governing Body or masters of one's faith. Instead of a monster at the head, there was status and reward. Instead of a visible idol, our God was invisible. There was no idol to care for in a shrine. The myths could not be verified. There were tons of laws, but they were designed to keep a person Jewish in a world where identity was valuable. God was in the stories of the past. There was no one looking over your shoulder. Judaism was practiced in our home where the doors were closed.

The reward for keeping the rules was eternal, true, but even better for now, there was a feeling of superiority over your Gentile neighbors who you could look down upon for being idol worshipers and stupid. A monster God could not be at the center of all this. Something more "human" had to be there.

The Levitical priesthood was intelligent enough to create a Deity unlike the gods of the nations. The stories may have been distant in time, but the character of the God of Abraham was definitely not. YHVH may have created us in his image, but the Levitical priesthood created God in the image of man. God feels, loves, gets jealous, debates, saves, gets angry, wages war, etc. YHVH is relatable unlike the gods before him. Still not a perfect "image-less" God, but monotheism was on its way.

This was late in the era of Babylon's existence. This is why there is a Babylonian Talmud. The Jewish sages took residence there even after most returned to Jerusalem and created a great center of learning. From the time of the Exile onward, the Levites began developing their system of cultural preservation, and at the center of it was a new and improved God, unlike anything seen before, even unlike anything they worshiped before the Exile.

You cannot recreate something that did not come from your culture and your language. You cannot tell Native American people that they got their myths wrong or Japanese that you know more about Shinto than they do, especially when you don't read or understand their languages or lived their lives or practiced their religions. Can you imagine what you must sound like to me?

But I understand that you are trying to make sense of things, struggling to find a path of knowledge. I will stop trying to convince you of something that you don't want to hear.

Along your way way in life, however, don't accuse people of not reading things they have. You don't know what they know. And especially when it's the works and mythology of their own culture in the native language that they speak in everyday. Especially right now when it's tough to go outside and just be who you are. The "vampire" comment right now isn't helping.

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

KalebOutWest

I gave you the link to Mark's Prineston Seminary profile. He is a full-blood Roman Catholic, alright. But he is not an apologist. A Catholic apologist is a different sort of person, usually not an academic, but a religious (a member of a Catholic religious order), like a monk or nun, sometimes a layperson who is not even a scholar but assigned a ministry in the church to defend the faith. Smith is a professor. They don't do the work of a Catholic apologist as that requires a religious calling of some kind.

The problem is that you've never been exposed to Catholic theology. Just read the footnotes to the NABRE, the official Catholic Bible.

Or better yet, read the New Collegeville Bible Commentary.

You will find that Catholic theology is very hardline critical. There is no room for a Jesus that can foretell the future. There is no "Moses" who wrote the books of Moses. There is no prophet Daniel who prophesied about the coming of Jesus. Isaiah did not foretell the virgin birth, so who knows where Matthew got his quote. And none of the apostles wrote any of the books assigned to them.

This is just the beginning, the surface, and it is a hard and bumpy ride for many Catholics who have to do a balancing act between "faith" and data which Rome says each of the faithful must be exposed to.

Smith is mild by comparison to what you read in Collegeville and some of the footnotes of the NABRE. Some Catholics damn the NABRE as heretical, but it is what the USCCB and Rome have put their stamp of approval on.

Catholic apologists are people like Jimmy Akin and individuals associated with the ministry of Catholic Answers. These individuals are not necessarily academics, nor do they work in my profession. They generally do not speak or learn Biblical languages like me or like Smith.

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

KalebOutWest

P.S.:

That new Psalter, The Abbey Psalms and Canticles, already published for the U.S. market, won't be issued here in the American Church until about a year later due to a delay in the publication of the Liturgy of the Hours, the Church's official prayer book, which includes the Psalms throughout.

It should be about only one year later, with an entire update of the NABRE incorporated along with it. The pandemic was mostly to blame for the delay, but the project was massive, as can be seen by this update page at the USCCB.