Bible Question

[tee_eff_em]

Oooooookay. Re-reading your OP I see I was confused by your seeking a test for “the One” Bible, while allowing others-not-materially-different-from-the-One.

(Which just strikes me as a funny use of “One”, but whatever – Carry on)

tee

 

[sodak]

Sorry for the confusion. There are a bunch of threads going on right now which I see a lot of Protestants arguing that they can back up their position in Scripture, no problem.

Okay, fine. First convince me that:

1. The Bible is more than just “a nice book of stories”.
2. That the Bible that you are using is inspired and inerrant.
3. Do 1 and 2 without the Catholic Church.

I had one poster even try to claim he believed in the Bible due to private revelation. Well, maybe that would work for him, but what about everyone else?

Actually, number 1 has been discussed somewhat in other threads, but number 2 really interests me. How does someone know (without guidance) that the Bible they are reading is correct? Trusting the publisher?

 

[AlegreFe]

Catholic translators are getting wiser and no longer mistakenly translating the Greek into “full of grace.” They have realized this error in the DR-V and are correcting it in modern translations.
Here is the Catholic NAB:
“Hail, favored one!”
Here is the Catholic NJB:
'Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour!"
These are more accurate translations and I do not think you will have many more future RC translations coming out with “full of grace” from knowledgable Catholic translators.

Just because the NAB is newer than the DR-V does not mean that it is a better translation. And the NJB is not one that I, as a Catholic, would read. No Way!

Where is your source of the Greek that would state that NAB and NJB are better and closer translations to the original Greek?

 

[JTBT]

NO! Not at all!

The present day bibles such as the NAB, which is the only bible approved for liturgy, was directly translated from the earliest available texts, even some founs in the caves of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)

And as far as “heretical” bibles, the only one I can say for sure is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They actually have taken out any reference to the deity of Christ.

Sub

that is not completely true, they missed a couple of verses in the book of Revelation. Where Jehovah says “I am the one who was dead” the next time a JW comes to your door point that one out.
but the Mormons also have their translation the JSV, but I have not read it so I cannot say that it is heritical although I do assume that it is.

 

[JTBT]

Sorry for the confusion. There are a bunch of threads going on right now which I see a lot of Protestants arguing that they can back up their position in Scripture, no problem.

Okay, fine. First convince me that:

1. The Bible is more than just “a nice book of stories”.
2. That the Bible that you are using is inspired and inerrant.
3. Do 1 and 2 without the Catholic Church.

I had one poster even try to claim he believed in the Bible due to private revelation. Well, maybe that would work for him, but what about everyone else?

Actually, number 1 has been discussed somewhat in other threads, but number 2 really interests me. How does someone know (without guidance) that the Bible they are reading is correct? Trusting the publisher?

Prophecy

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Ecumenical Council of Trent said that the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith and morals and that it can be used in all disputations.

Case Closed.

 

[sodak]

Prophecy

Can you expand on that?

 

[CentralFLJames]

With regards to accuracy in translating from the original words to the English language, I’ve heard time and time again that no version is nearly as close to the actual words than the KING JAMES VERSION.

KJV can get somone in “the ballpark” of what they need to know as a Christian but its the cult like culture around KJV that tries to elevate it to divinity itself that is gravely in error.

The real problem for sola scripturists is that scripture is inspired but the translators outside of the Catholic Church were not. Besides all that the KJV is a tithe lite - the Reformers stripped a full 10% of God’s word from the scripture! It’s impossible for fundamentalists to reconcile this fact.

At a technical and theological level there are many problems with KJV:

1. It uses completely outdated language semantics that require the reader to essentially do 2 translations - one to current English semantics then a historical and context translation.
2. It has quite a few recognized translation errors
3. It has a lot of translation inconsistencies
4. It has a lot of human teaching in the margin notes that is completely wrong and opinionated and at odds with “by scripture alone” (itself an unscriptural doctrine)

To me the biggest problem with KJV is its cult like status that distracts from the larger message of Christ and his disciples. Carrying a KJV as a life preserver will not save anyone. Nor will “by scripture alone” save anyone. It is only through “hearing” AND believing AND responding to God’s grace through works of faith AND being obedient to The Church authority that one is sure to be saved.

James

 

[JTBT]

Can you expand on that?

youtube.com/watch?v=stS4eveIbQQ
here is a debate from the 80’s where the Propecy answer is given, the debate is very and I have not watched the whole thing, but i would love to read you response. the argument starts at the 18 min mark, but you can watch the whole thing if you want. I’m not sure who he Preacher is, but I think the Catholic is Karl Keating.

 

[sodak]

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but around 18 min to the 29 min mark. My take is this. The minister had a Baptist audience, who pretty much kept agreeing with him vocally. He, in my opinion, is an accomplished performer. He has pet phrases that sound cool, and he rattles them off so fast, I had to backtrack to see what he was saying. He was also derogatory towards Mr. Keating and the Catholic Church, which turns me off right away.

He didn’t really say anything. I’ve heard this argument before. He is saying that the Bible must be inspired because it is “Scientific Mathematical Statistical Computerized Probability”. Whatever that nonsense means. And yes, I’m a mathematician, by the way. He was trying to say that there are (supposedly) 548 prophesies in Isaiah about Christ, all of which came true. He only gave 2 or 3 examples. Since all of them are true, that proves that the Bible is inspired, since who else could beat those odds except God? I attended an Alpha course where they said there were over 700 prophecies.

Of course, that is an astounding statistic. And if all of those prophecies were in Isaiah (they aren’t, some are in Daniel and other books), then Mr. Keating correctly pointed out that they only prove the inspiration of the books they come from. What about non-prophetic books? There are also some books which get the chronology of some of the Jewish rulers wrong. Are they non-inspired?

Here’s my take. Whether 500 or 700, it is certainly strong evidence indeed for inspiration. But the Bible didn’t drop out of the sky, nor was it handed to Moses in stone. Christ founded a Church, and that Church safeguarded and selected inspired Scripture. And the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The Church that is safeguarded from error by the Holy Spirit has, through a long period of time and prayer, given us the Bible. To see someone not only turn their back on this and disparage the Church angers me.

 

[JTBT]

He was also derogatory towards Mr. Keating and the Catholic Church, which turns me off right away.

what did he say that was derogatory?

Since all of them are true, that proves that the Bible is inspired, since who else could beat those odds except God? .

it not a matter of odds; it is a matter of who can know the future except God

What about non-prophetic books?.

which one?

But the Bible didn’t drop out of the sky,

it also was not written by just one person or organization

Christ founded a Church, and that Church safeguarded and selected inspired Scripture.

so who safeguarded the Old Testament.

 

[sodak]

what did he say that was derogatory?

Several things, along with his manner. Watch minutes 19 - 29 and you can see for yourself. He had nothing good to say about the Church.

it not a matter of odds; it is a matter of who can know the future except God
which one?

Sorry, but the Baptist minister WAS arguing about the odds. It was his argument, not mine.

it also was not written by just one person or organization

Very true. Deciding what would be included in Sacred Scripture, was, however, decided upon by one organization. The Catholic Church. The Baptist Church wasn’t around back then.

so who safeguarded the Old Testament.

The Jews, presumably.

Sorry if you don’t like my analysis. I found this guy more a showman than a minister. His arguments leave much to be desired.

 

[JTBT]

Sorry if you don’t like my analysis. I found this guy more a showman than a minister. His arguments leave much to be desired.

You ask for a way that we can know that scripture is inspired, and I gave it to you.
I’m sure that I do not agree with that minister about everything he preaches, but his point here was not about odds he was using odds to make his point, but his point was who can know the future accept God. the Bible predicts the furture (rightly) and therefore it is inspired.
this is a stronger case for the inspiration of the Bible than “the Bible is inspired because Rome said so”.

the larger question is where do we place the Bible in the order of importance? knowing that scripture is inspired I place it 1st and all my beliefs are subject to it.

 

[Subrosa]

the larger question is where do we place the Bible in the order of importance? knowing that scripture is inspired I place it 1st and all my beliefs are subject to it.

Hi JT -

You are correct to say that the bible is inspired and also correct to understand it’s words as true.

The problem occurs when people decide for themselves what those words mean, or how they interpret the words.

What the Catholic Church teaches about those words it has taught from the beginning. It has never varied. This is important because it is a propagation of the original faith of the Apostles who were, of course, taught by Christ Himself.

When disagreement came over the meaning of scripture as it has to do with faith the church has always submitted to the earliest teachings, the bishops and church councils. If you make a directed study of Acts chapter 15 you will see that councils involve the Holy Spirit. Bishops are specifically trained in faith porpagation.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is actively participating in the councils is why they are considered infallible: i.e., the Holy Spirit cannot err.

God bless you, my sister.
Subrosa

 

[mercygate]

With regards to accuracy in translating from the original words to the English language, I’ve heard time and time again that no version is nearly as close to the actual words than the KING JAMES VERSION.

While the KJV was an outstanding translation in its day, anybody who reads Hebrew and Greek would be able to give you a very strong argument that the RSV, for today’s English – and because of the manuscript evidence that emerged long after the KJV was published – is MUCH closer to the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[mercygate]

Someone once told me that if the Bible version that you use has a copyright, then it CAN’T be the true word of God.

A copyright gives legal protection to authors to prevent anybody from copying THEIR work without THEIR consent. If the words are not your own, you can’t legally take out a copyright. In other words, evidence of a copyright on your bible proves that these are not God’s words you’re reading, rather someone else’s.

I’d be intrigued to know what bible version you own that you believe is the true word of God. Of course, you needn’t answer that to me. I’m just wondering out loud.

Peace.

Christian: THINK. The copyright protects the translation. All translations vary. Does that mean that they do not convey the word of God? Of course not.

Catholics do not believe that ANY translation is “THE” word of God since translations are just that – translations. The books of the Bible were not written in Latin or Spanish or English. The Church accepts the Vulgate as its official translation, which is as close as we can get to “THE” Word of God.

This is where Catholic teaching is consistent. Since there are no “original” manuscripts of Scripture, we understand that it is the living Word of God, by the Holy Spirit working in the Church, that assures us of the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

The Ecumenical Council of Trent said that the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith and morals and that it can be used in all disputations.

Case Closed.

But it’s in Latin. Since Trent (actually in the last couple of decades) the Vulgate has been completely revamped using the latest manuscripts and at this point the Nova Vulgata is “THE” Bible of the Catholic Church. I like it very much.

 

[edjco]

Someone once told me that if the Bible version that you use has a copyright, then it CAN’T be the true word of God.

A copyright gives legal protection to authors to prevent anybody from copying THEIR work without THEIR consent. If the words are not your own, you can’t legally take out a copyright. In other words, evidence of a copyright on your bible proves that these are not God’s words you’re reading, rather someone else’s.

I’d be intrigued to know what bible version you own that you believe is the true word of God. Of course, you needn’t answer that to me. I’m just wondering out loud.

Peace.

The King James Bible that I’m holding in my hands says:

“COPYRIGHT 1970 BY THOMAS NELSON INC.
Camden, New Jersey 08103”

So, I guess if we base it on copyright, the KJV isn’t inspired either…

 

[JTBT]

Hi JT -

You are correct to say that the bible is inspired and also correct to understand it’s words as true.

Hi Sub-
the point I was making above is the Bible is inspired and my knowledge of it’s inspiration does not rest on the word of the Magisterium.

The problem occurs when people decide for themselves what those words mean, or how they interpret the words.

Well I agree with you insofar as the problem occurs when people decide without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is up to us as individuals to follow the Holy Spirit and to test what we taught
(1Th 5:21) because if we are deceived the blame rest on us (Gal 6:7)
God bless

 

[sodak]

The point that I’m trying to make is that which version is inspired, especially if 2 versions have material differences.

As to your “inspired” argument, it’s a good start, but I think there needs to be more. Jesus gave Peter the keys, and promised that the Church would withstand the gates of Hell. I didn’t see him mention anything in there about the King James Version, but I can check…

Please re-read the original post before getting too far off topic. Here, I’ll state it again:

I believe there is only one inspired Bible. It might be translated into different languages, and have different writing styles. As long as there are no material differences, then two differently styled Bibles are the same (to me).

How do you know that you have the one that is inspired, and not a heretical copy someone edited?