EWTN TV and EWTN Radio, Global Catholic Networks Live Video of Catholic Programs 24 Hours a Day

EWTN TV and EWTN Radio, Global Catholic Networks Live Video of Catholic Programs 24 Hours a Day







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

Hey Candy -

Next week hundreds of Catholic youth will be gathering for the Youth Conference in Ohio - and there are conferences all summer long! Behold the future of the Catholic Church!!

Candy's Changing Bible

Candy is writing on speaking in tongues today (technically known as glossolalia).

Open your Bible, and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Now, if you have a Nelson King James Study Bible (a fabulous Bible, BTW, but, like all study Bibles, it has its doctrinal flaws and imperfections)

All study Bibles have doctrinal flaws and imperfections, but not Candy's interpretations . . .

What jumped out at me in her entry is her double standard on Bible translation. Let me refresh your memory of her view of Roman Catholic translation:

Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself. reference 1

God says - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. -Mark 7:13

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -Colossians 2:8

My Notes: This is WHY God gave us the Bible, so that we have His Word, written down, so that we don't have to depend on traditions to know what is right. Any tradition that goes against scripture, or that adds to it, is a tradition not needed, and could be eternally harmful.

Yet Candy writes today:

"Unknown tongues (lit. "tongue"): Omit unknown in this chapter whenever it occurs with tongues; it was supplied by the translators. Paul's discussion of tongues follow the same idea as the tongues in Acts which were foreign languages miraculously heard and translated by the recipients." Page 1784

I believe the above note to be wrong. The KJV translators were right to insert unknown in the text, because it makes the text more clear to the English ear. Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are both speaking of the gift of tongues, BUT, they are speaking of two different types of tongue gifts. There is a distinction here, which a lot of people seem to miss. Remember, the Bible is full of fine distinctions like this.

So, adding to Scripture is wrong when Catholics do it, but not when the King James translators do it? I know, because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the King James translators are divinely inspired. Really, she favors the KJV translation because it agrees with her interpretation.

She spends most of her article claiming an important distinction between "other tongues" and "unknown tongues" and then looks to Paul to approve her interpretation. But what are her proof texts?

Remember, forget what your church teaches on tongues, and let's see what the apostle Paul thinks of tongues. Does he approve of speaking in tongues? Let's read what he said on the matter:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"- vs 18

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." -vs. 39

These verses only say "tongues" and do not specify unknown or other. Was Paul speaking in other tongues or unknown tongues?

Also, in typical Candy manner, she neatly pretends to best the Baptist argument against speaking in tongues while she never even presents their theological basis. From my understanding (and I'm always open to correction here, folks) Baptists don't deny that Paul or any of the early Christians spoken in tongues. They only feel that that particular gift was for the apostolic age and does not continue to the modern day.