Let's Be Honest(Bible based Religion).

[%75life4Him]

Now if Matthew 6:11 latin vulgate is the verse to use to support the eucharist is weak. Because "supersubstantialem" doesnt mean that it can transformed into another substance. Because it simply means a necessary substance above anything else. A need. We all agree that food is a need. So sayop ni nga exegesis sa usa ka sama ni Mandirigma to support the unbiblical eucharist. Kung ma transubstantiate ang bread pagtulon nimo, nan unsa may substance na sa bread?Di ba i digest mana nimo sa imong physical nga lawas?Dili sa spiritu.So ang substance magpabiblilin diha sa physical realm gihapun. Infact dili ka mahimong si Darna kong makakaun ka ug bread sa Eucharist.

Dia pa jud, ang Ginoo niingun John 6: 55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.".Kung makakaun ka sa bread there will a mutual dwelling of man and the Lord kay " abides in Me and I in him" man. Pero ang teaching sa transubstantiation, kung imong sabton, denies the mutual dwelling of both kay ginakalibang raman nato ang tanan musulod sa ato baba diba? Mao nay giingun sa Matthew 15:17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the astomach and is expelled into the drain?". Now, kung si Christ tong imo gidawat sa eucharist, asa nahuman ang mutual abiding ninyo ni Christ? So binoang ug walay biblical basis ang doctrine of transubstantiation.

[Mandirigma]

Walay klaro ang iyang pangutana. Unsa kaha iyang gipangitaan ug sayop nga bible, ang mga manuscripts or ang english translated bible? Nangutana siya nganung "daily" ang rendered sa english translation sa GK word epiooseaos.

Well, because "daily" is the exact meaning of the word. Infact, the term could also be translated "substantial" according to Strong's Concordance. "epiooseaos" is not an invented word by Matthew to echo the Lord, I believe this is a common greek word of his day which doesnt have a equivalent english term, even, in our day to match the term. Of course, I am not speaking on behalf of the scholars because I am not, but they cannot just invent a new term in the purpose of just proving to others that they know the exact meaning of the term. We have to remember that an "ecclesiastical slang" and personal conclusion cannot be brought into the work of translation. Besides the manuscripts used by Tyndale was not a translation of Jerome in 6th Century. He used the textus receptus of Erasmus and not the latin vulgate. He went to the original.

So I think the reason why the scholar community was silent about this because there isnt really a difference between the invented word of the Catholic Theologian Jerome, "supersubstantialem", in latin, "daily" by Tyndale I presumed (because he was the one who first translated the bible from greek textus receptus to English) in 16th Century. So there isnt really an issue which is the better translation is it "supersubstantialem" in latin or "daily" in english. After all, they both are just translations.

Now lets be honest. So let's say that the term "daily" is or may not be the perfect term that should have been used, and I agree, but it is niether a wrong term to use. My stand is that the term "daily" rendered is the best translation that an english scholar and linguist like Tyndale could use for "epi-OO-sea-os". So what would be a non-invented english word that should have been used then? Now if we think that we are smart enough to think that the term "daily" is wrong, what would it be then?

inyo ng opinion dodong and im sure the Catholics would disagree. so again proving that dunay mga bias ang pag translate ninyo sa bibliya just to suit sa inyong theological leaning.

[hstrikeh]

I believe the words in the bible is not from an entity but purely words of men. If were talking about errors, I would like to point out other gospels which were not included in the bible today. Likewise, the gospel of Judas, gospel of philip, gospel of mary magdalene and 22 other gospels.

The bible isn't a work of God but men.