Quote
Young Catholic said:
Quote
Honestly, does Rome treat the early church fathers the same way?

Not at all- most of the Church Fathers spoke in latin- a tounge very familiar to the Roman Church.

So I presume all of the scholars in the Roman Church speak Latin as their native tongue and nothing is "lost in translation"? The Greek Orthodox claim that, because they still speak Greek, they alone are capable of properly understanding the New Testament and Septuagint.

Quote
Quote
But the real problem for Rome is not one of Bible translations, it's one of dogmatic foundations on patristic, conciliar, and papal theology and traditions.

That's a terrible claim to make about the Roman Church. If you were talking about the Mideval church- I might let you off with such a generalization- but the modern Church- no. While there are obviously some conservative factions in Rome (what denomination doesn't have such factions?) the problem is not politically and traditionally.

What's terrible about it? Vatican II was a council. John Paul II was, and Benedict XVI is, a pope. And certainly patristic theology is still influential. But the dogmatic foundations of the Roman Church are not Scripture; Scripture is mostly filtered through a thick haze of Magisterium.

Quote
The Catholic Church does not have problems with modern translations as long as they are accurate translations. In fact, the Bible I have with me now is the NAB (CE).

Like I said, the Roman Church's problem is not Bible translations.

Quote
I am merely reminding people of the fact that translators are always free to add their own thoughts about the passage and do not always stick to just translating the text.

No, what you were doing was implicitly undermining the trustworthniness of translations of the Bible in general.

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.