#3 – Ignorance of Scripture Verses

[Damascus]

Hey Al,

What’s your take on Scott Hahn’s Bible interpretations and his study?

He is a convert to the Catholic faith and is pretty good at going into a lot of detail answering common misunderstandings., any thoughts?
He tends to be pretty “literal” though., Thats where I wonder sometimes, but what are your thoughts?

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
… I agree that the Gospel message was spread orally because our version of the NT was not put together yet. But that doesnt mean Timothy or anyone else for that matter taught anything that was not later written down in the bible.

I agree with you here. Although, if God wanted it written, it would be written:thumbsup:

The Incarnation of Jesus was yet another way God revealed himself further to us without using writers or a book to do so.

Jesus= the Living Word. The living truth.

There is no verse in the entire bible that makes the claim that all teachings of Christ are in the book.

And actually, there is a bible verse that tells us that not everything Jesus did was written down and all the books in the world could contain what He had done

:bible1:John 21:25But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

But these comments by AllForHim struck me. We do in fact have scripture that tells us to hold fast to the written as well as the Oral. There is no distinction made between the two.

:bible1: 2 Thes 3:15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

And while we do not have inspired written scripture on some subjects, we can see in the writings of the ECF, some of those Oral teachings.

For example: Infant baptism. There is absolutely not one explicit verse telling us that Children should be baptized. Lots of scripture on how it should be for adults (repent and be baptized) It is easy to see how, from scripture alone, one could come to the belief in a believers baptism. (Although baptism is compared to circumcision . Why would God inspire those words comparing the old covenant with the new convenant and why would God change the rules on who could enter into the covenant. OT infants and adults may enter through circumcision. NT covenant, no infants allowed?)

From CA Library Infant Baptism
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

These oral teachings that Catholics call Sacred Tradition did in fact get written down and were talked about. You can read some of them for yourself here in CA Library Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

For me, a very literal, Bible believing Christian, the question once one becomes aware of this is not where is it written in the Bible since in scripture it tells us quite clearly to hold fast to what is written and what is oral making no distinction between the two; But the question you should be asking yourself is where is the spoken word/traditions that scripture tells us to hold fast to? The Catholic Church claims this oral teaching is sacred tradition. Where does your church say it is?

God’s Word will never pass away. Where is the spoken word of God we are told to hold fast to? The Catholic Church says we know. Does yours? Or does it hold that what is written is sufficient or all there is and ignore the instructions of scripture itself to hold fast to the oral as well as the written?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Which concordances do you use?

There are a variety of different translations available. My experience with translations is that oftentimes the English “versions” differ substantially from one another and also differ substantially from how I would translate from the original language.

I know a little Latin, but no Hebrew or Greek.

One of my “wishes” would be to study Hebrew and Greek.

Every language has it’s own peculiarities and it is really difficult to get past the cultural differences [the Middle Eastern culture versus “Western Culture”] and the “temporal” differences [differences owing to Jesus’ and the Apostlies preaching and writing taking place 2000 years ago]

For example, few people in Western Civilization have ever raised sheep. Yet Jesus talks about sheep all the time.

Jesus talks about mustard seeds and fig trees… He talks about fishing. He talks about letting weeds and wheat grow together.

When Jesus rescued the woman who was about to be stoned to death, … we cannot relate to that.

A lot of Jesus’ talks wove in references to “Old Testament” quotations, so any study of the New Testament must also be accompanied by the “Old Testament” laid open along side the “New Testament”.

Maybe also, writings of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church from the first three centuries should accompany New Testament study… because they “amplified” and explained the Christian faith to their “parishioners”. And they did it under conditions of persecution.

I was reading an English translation of some Psalms … really part of the Old Testament. And came across the expression “Son of Man” … in the Old Testament!! I was pretty surprised. And the publisher/editor had added a footnote in Hebrew suggesting that the original text used the expression “ben Adom”, which of course is not in Hebrew writing, but “ben Adom” [Son of Adam] suggests a totally different nuance from “Son of Man”.

So, anyway, sorry for being so long winded… but I am “wary” [not the right word, sorry] of rigid adherence to interpretations of English text that may or may not be accurate representations of the Hebrew.

Hi,
I know what you mean about the languages. Its ALL GREEK to me. My minister and I were talking one day about studying the bible completely(Which Im sure Ill never do)I started later in life. He said the only way to completely understand the bible is to also know all the langueages involved. That is just way too much work for me. Anyway, the commentary I use is called Believer’s Bible Commentary by William McDonald and is based on the New King James Version. I also have 2 study bibles one NIV and the other NASB. My friend just gave me another but I have never heard of the version . It is a devotional bible by Max Lucado(who is a great writer:thumbsup: ) and the version is the New Century version. I also go to my minister’s often and ask them to help me. I do use humans dont get me wrong but ultimately I trust God is leading me in the right direction. I cant explain how I know this other than to say I am at peace with where I am biblically. I have not always been at peace so I know what the difference is. For me anyway.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Hi,
I know what you mean about the languages. Its ALL GREEK to me. My minister and I were talking one day about studying the bible completely(Which Im sure Ill never do)I started later in life. He said the only way to completely understand the bible is to also know all the langueages involved.

They weren’t kidding when they say that alot gets lost in translation. Whew! Unfortunately, I never pursued other languages so all I know is English.

 

[mrs_abbott]

And actually, there is a bible verse that tells us that not everything Jesus did was written down and all the books in the world could contain what He had done

:bible1:John 21:25But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

But these comments by AllForHim struck me. We do in fact have scripture that tells us to hold fast to the written as well as the Oral. There is no distinction made between the two.

:bible1: 2 Thes 3:15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Very well put!!!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

They weren’t kidding when they say that alot gets lost in translation. Whew! Unfortunately, I never pursued other languages so all I know is English.

Yeah It is mind blowing!!! I dont think I have the patience to study Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. Well, maybe when my kids are grown and Im going through the empty nest syndrome.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Yeah It is mind blowing!!! I dont think I have the patience to study Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. Well, maybe when my kids are grown and Im going through the empty nest syndrome.

Ya, me too cuz I can’t myself devoting the time to learn it unless I didn’t have any children at home. lol

 

[Damascus]

Ya, me too cuz I can’t myself devoting the time to learn it unless I didn’t have any children at home. lol

The thing is, who are you going to be able to talk to that knows it?

Sure, I cant think of one person I know that knows biblical Greek or the rest, and I know Greeks. LOL.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Hey Al,

What’s your take on Scott Hahn’s Bible interpretations and his study?

He is a convert to the Catholic faith and is pretty good at going into a lot of detail answering common misunderstandings., any thoughts?
He tends to be pretty “literal” though., Thats where I wonder sometimes, but what are your thoughts?

My thought is, for example, to pick one specific Biblical passage, perhaps from Scott Hahn’s writing, and then visit that quotation in five or six or ten different translations/concordances/ study aids.

In other words, pick one (any one) and study that one in great detail. For a month.

Then pick another one. And study that one in great detail.

After a while, the “student” would gain a tremendous familiarity with both the methodoly and the study aids, not to mention the specific passages.

Then by comparing the different translations, one against the other, the student would also gain an appreciation of which ones are “best” or “truest”. This can be subjective, but what brought this methodology to home was when I chose to read “Dark Night of the Soul” by St. John of the Cross. All was fine until I found multiple translations in the stacks of a university library. When I sat them all side by side, I was shocked … shocked … at the radical differences in the translations. I had the Spanish “original” as well.

Later on, I got interested in St. Thomas Aquinas and found a Latin-English edition and got “mildly” ticked off when I concluded that the English translation was not terribly representative of what was written in the Latin “original”.

Then later on I found that Old Testament / Psalm with “Son of Man” with the Hebrew…

So, the usual English is only merely “ok”. But for some passages of particular interest, I’d like to spend some time and effort going into more detailed exploration.

I know it takes a lot of time and time is precious. But just pick one and work at it, even if it takes a few months.

---

Somewhere around here, I have a Navarre (sp?) New Testament, which is supposed to be newer and pretty good. You all might want to pick one up and see how that compares with the other translations.

 

[Damascus]

The Navarre is excellent! Scepter publishers NY.

I’ll try to find the link to it.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The thing is, who are you going to be able to talk to that knows it?

Sure, I cant think of one person I know that knows biblical Greek or the rest, and I know Greeks. LOL.

Oh, I know I probably wouldn’t be able to discuss it with anyone but I think it’d be interesting to see how much is actually lost in translation, though.

 

[Damascus]

Oh, I know I probably wouldn’t be able to discuss it with anyone but I think it’d be interesting to see how much is actually lost in translation, though.

Here is a group that believes they have it right from the bible to have house churches:
house-church.net/house.htm

I say save the effort and trust Jesus did not hang us out to dry on this one.

 

[jim1130]

Here is a group that believes they have it right from the bible to have house churches:
house-church.net/house.htm

I say save the effort and trust Jesus did not hang us out to dry on this one.

I thought the info on the Anabaptist Forum from the Web site you provided was a nice touch:

For Christians who have Anabaptist ideals. In our opinion, the list below lists Anabaptist beliefs.

1. 
   *]Infant baptism is not the true baptism. Moreover, baptism does not save. One has to be saved in order to be baptised.
   *]Church and the State should be separated.
   *]The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ.
   *]Calvinist theology of God’s election is wrong. God does not unconditionally reprobate people to Hell. Rather, God’s Manifested Wrath is conditional, and the condition is of not being in Christ. God will show His wrath only to people who are not in Christ. Likewise, God’s election is conditional, and the condition is being in Christ. God elects only people who are in Christ.
   *]Lutheran doctrine on salvation is wrong. Faith in Christ should be a living faith, faith which is confirmed in the fruits of Spirit. People who are living sinful life, without true repentance, will end in Hell. Living in sin and falling occasionally in sin are not the same thing. All children of God can fall in sin because of our weaknesses, but they do not live in sin.
   *]Worshiping God is a very serious thing, and we ought not to introduce new things in our Worship, of which the Bible doesn’t say anything about.
   *]There are no new revelations or prophecies, and all supernatural Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are no more present in the children of God. The Charismatic gifts were only present during the Apostolic period of Church age (the 1st. century). There are no more apostles. The Bible is our necessary and sufficient supreme authority in our lives.
   
   We wish to be in contact with all Christians who are skeptical towards Charismatic movement, who neither are influenced by Lutheran/Calvinist ideas nor are Catholics. If you share our beliefs then we would be happy to know you, so that we can mutually benefit in the fellowship within the Body of Christ. Welcome to join us.

 

[MariaG]

We wish to be in contact with all Christians who are skeptical towards Charismatic movement, who neither are influenced by Lutheran/Calvinist ideas nor are Catholics. If you share our beliefs then we would be happy to know you, so that we can mutually benefit in the fellowship within the Body of Christ. Welcome to join us.

I particulary like this part.

I mean, we only want followers of Christ who read scripture through modern eyes and are not corrupted by history

 

[dalcent]

ALLFORHIM:

My minister…said the only way to completely understand the bible is to also know all the langueages involved.

Hi there,
This is an interesting admission from your minister. I see this as an argument against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. i.e. you can’t understand the Bible completely unless you become a specialist in biblical languages.

So everyone in history, according to your minister, who wasn’t skilled in ancient biblical languages, wouldn’t have understood the bible completely.

Of course, your minister is right. That’s why you need to hold a PhD/S.S.D. in Biblical studies in the Catholic Church to be considered a proper biblical scholar.

Archbishop Michael Sheenan - Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine:

It is sheer absurdity to say that ordinary people, with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, archaeology, ancient history or the wrtings of the Fathers of the Church, are competent to interpret it.

I studied NT Greek as an undergraduate and it was useful. The layman can certainly benefit from beginning to learn Greek. There are plenty of Interlinear’s available. The main insight I’ve gained is that all evangelical bibles (NASB, NIIV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, et al) bodge some key verses relevent to the Catholic/evangelical disputes. One of the most important things to do is to study lexicons to understand what the Greek words mean.

I have to say that many Evangelicals appeal to the ‘original Greek’ to support their exegetical gymnastics. I have questioned them on say John 20:23 'If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ and the reply was “Aah, but if you go to the original Greek, it means something else.” I never hear exactly what (certainly nothing compelling) but I’ve come across this tactic quite frequently.

The only valid interpreter of Scripture is the Church; laymen are to read and learn from her teaching authority.

Protestants need to understand the former : English Catholics need to practise the latter.

Dal

 

[mrs_abbott]

The only valid interpreter of Scripture is the Church; laymen are to read and learn from her teaching authority.

Protestants need to understand the former : English Catholics need to practise the latter.

Dal

So you’re not leaving the Church anymore?

 

[dalcent]

So you’re not leaving the Church anymore?

Not whilst Joseph Ratzinger lives!

If you want me to be honest, could I ever see myself as SSPX, Orthodox, High Anglican, Old Calendar Orthodox depending how things go? [see K. Keating’s *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Preface, pg. 9] Yes, but I’m sticking it for now hoping things are going to get a lot better in this neck of the woods.

(P.S. My wife and I are looking into conditional baptism because of the issue previously mentioned. I wasn’t lying.)

 

[Redbandito]

Hi,
I know what you mean about the languages. Its ALL GREEK to me. My minister and I were talking one day about studying the bible completely(Which Im sure Ill never do)I started later in life. He said the only way to completely understand the bible is to also know all the langueages involved.

Well if that’s true, it sure presents a lot of problems for the sola scriptura believing Protestant.

 

[Redbandito]

I thought the info on the Anabaptist Forum from the Web site you provided was a nice touch:

For Christians who have Anabaptist ideals. In our opinion, the list below lists Anabaptist beliefs.

1. 
   *]Infant baptism is not the true baptism. Moreover, baptism does not save. One has to be saved in order to be baptised.
   *]Church and the State should be separated.
   *]The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ.
   *]Calvinist theology of God’s election is wrong. God does not unconditionally reprobate people to Hell. Rather, God’s Manifested Wrath is conditional, and the condition is of not being in Christ. God will show His wrath only to people who are not in Christ. Likewise, God’s election is conditional, and the condition is being in Christ. God elects only people who are in Christ.
   *]Lutheran doctrine on salvation is wrong. Faith in Christ should be a living faith, faith which is confirmed in the fruits of Spirit. People who are living sinful life, without true repentance, will end in Hell. Living in sin and falling occasionally in sin are not the same thing. All children of God can fall in sin because of our weaknesses, but they do not live in sin.
   *]Worshiping God is a very serious thing, and we ought not to introduce new things in our Worship, of which the Bible doesn’t say anything about.
   *]There are no new revelations or prophecies, and all supernatural Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are no more present in the children of God. The Charismatic gifts were only present during the Apostolic period of Church age (the 1st. century). There are no more apostles. The Bible is our necessary and sufficient supreme authority in our lives.
   
   We wish to be in contact with all Christians who are skeptical towards Charismatic movement, who neither are influenced by Lutheran/Calvinist ideas nor are Catholics. If you share our beliefs then we would be happy to know you, so that we can mutually benefit in the fellowship within the Body of Christ. Welcome to join us.

1. 
   What does this post have to do with the thread?

 

[mrs_abbott]

Not whilst Joseph Ratzinger lives!

If you want me to be honest, could I ever see myself as SSPX, Orthodox, High Anglican, Old Calendar Orthodox depending how things go? [see K. Keating’s *Catholicism and Fundamentalism

, Preface, pg. 9] Yes, but I’m sticking it for now hoping things are going to get a lot better in this neck of the woods.

(P.S. My wife and I are looking into conditional baptism because of the issue previously mentioned. I wasn’t lying.)

What’s conditional baptism? (Sorry if I seem ignorant but I really don’t know as much as I should. )