Bible Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter sodak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Catholics have many choices when it comes to Sacred Scripture. We come to translations in the same way other Christians (maybe except for the KJV-only folks, who rate their own category for screwy thinking) come to it. The best way is to have knowledge of the original languages, and with a good scholarly version of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, including apparatus indicating the variant readings in the different manuscript traditions, we can figure out what is being said with a fair degree of confidence. Just like any other Christian does.

What Catholics and the Orthodox have that others have not, is the assurance that the books we call “the Bible” actually ARE the Bible.
 
The point that I’m trying to make is that which version is inspired, especially if 2 versions have material differences…
which 2 versions are you refering to?
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…
:rolleyes: not sure if you are looking for a response here or if you are just taking a cheep shot.
Please re-read the original post before getting too far off topic. Here, I’ll state it again:
I was responding to your statement below where you seemed to say that no Protestant would address these issues.
“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 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).
ok I think you answered your own question.
How do you know that you have the one that is inspired, and not a heretical copy someone edited?
I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me when I check the Bible I am using against other historical accounts, that include the Hebrew, Greek, and even the Latin:eek:
 
What Catholics and the Orthodox have that others have not, is the assurance that the books we call “the Bible” actually ARE the Bible.
but the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Catholics don’t even agree on this point.
 
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.
It’s just my 2 cents and a fair exchange too, but with logic like yours you could take an Italian Lira, flip it 7 times, look at the outcome and call “heads” or “tails” correctly to declare yourself inspired too. But you’d still have to give the credit to Rome for minting the coin and putting the right face on the right side of the blank. What books in the NT would you say are prophetic and have you advanced into the future to see prophecy fulfilled? 😊

Here’s a prediction I have - you will convert to Catholicism within 18 months. Consider this inspired knowledge. 😉

The real question is who ever told you the non-biblical lie that scripture ever saved or self taught anyone? Chapter and verse please…

James
 
Not in extremis. Not like taking out 7 books. Not regarding doctrinal exclusions.
7 books or 2 books that is still a difference. and to take the OP point who is to say who is right? is it the Orthodox, is it Rome or is it the Protestants:eek: :D.
Both RC and O claim a direct line to the original church and one thing that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox may not understand about Protestants is this: Protestantism is an attempt to get back to the Original teachings of the Apostles. that is one reason we place so much on the Bible it is the written record of Apostolic teaching so anything extra biblical is placed at a lower level of Authority.
but let me say this all three major Christian Branches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) agree that the books that I read are inspired 😃 😃 😃 .
 
but let me say this all three major Christian Branches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) agree that the books that I read are inspired 😃 😃 😃 .
Satan regarded scripture as inspired too - so much so that he tried to tempt Jesus by misquoting it in the way he wanted the inspiration to spin. And that was counter clockwise to tradition…

James
 
7 books or 2 books that is still a difference. and to take the OP point who is to say who is right? is it the Orthodox, is it Rome or is it the Protestants:eek: :D.
Both RC and O claim a direct line to the original church and one thing that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox may not understand about Protestants is this: Protestantism is an attempt to get back to the Original teachings of the Apostles. that is one reason we place so much on the Bible it is the written record of Apostolic teaching so anything extra biblical is placed at a lower level of Authority.
but let me say this all three major Christian Branches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) agree that the books that I read are inspired 😃 😃 😃 .
Right, the books you read ARE inspired, and you can know that partly for some of the reasons you propose (“because the Holy Spirit tells me so” is NOT one of them, however). Insofar as who is right: I stand in the Apostolic tradition as Our Lord Himself demonstrates in promising the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Eleven, in giving the Great Commission, including the mandate to teach, to the Eleven, and in agreement with Mt. 16:18: not WITHOUT Peter. There is no “original” teaching of the Apostles without the Apostles because the successors are guided “into all the truth” by the Spirit sent by Christ.
 
It’s just my 2 cents and a fair exchange too, but with logic like yours …What books in the NT would you say are prophetic and have you advanced into the future to see prophecy fulfilled? 😊
I think you missed the point, but one Prophecy in the NT was the distruction of the temple (Mt. 24:2), and yes it came true. if you would like name another book and I’ll see if I can find a Prophetic message in it.
I was not the one who came up with the test of Prophecy it is not my logic (De. 18:22, Jer 28:9)
Here’s a prediction I have - you will convert to Catholicism within 18 months. Consider this inspired knowledge. 😉
on what do you base that? but i can tell you this, that will not happen until a lot of Reforms are made
The real question is who ever told you the non-biblical lie that scripture ever saved or self taught anyone?
you think that Reformers believe that Scripture saves:tsktsk: have you read anything that a Reformer has written? we believe that what is contained in scripture can lead someone to salvation; and that Jesus Christ Saves, By Grace though Faith.:gopray2:
Satan regarded scripture as inspired too -
James
:mad: I’m not really sure where you are going with this, but I would like to point out that Jesus had some pretty strong words for the Magisterium of that day. and he used scripture to correct them, showing the authority of scripture.
Right, the books you read ARE inspired, and you can know that partly for some of the reasons you propose (“because the Holy Spirit tells me so” is NOT one of them, however).
MG come on, don’t you see you are not holding the Roman Catholic Church to the same standards as you hold Reformers? what is the difference between saying “the Holy Spirit told me” and saying “the Church told me and the Holy Spirit told them,”?
Insofar as who is right: I stand in the Apostolic tradition as Our Lord Himself demonstrates in promising the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Eleven, in giving the Great Commission, including the mandate to teach, to the Eleven, and in agreement with Mt. 16:18: not WITHOUT Peter.
the Church is built upon the confession of Peter and John 16 can apply to all Christians.
There is no “original” teaching of the Apostles without the Apostles
but there is no Apostle alive today (you have to have seen the risen Chirst to be an Apostle); however the Holy Spirit saw fit to have the Apostles write the teaching down so that future Chiristians could see what was taught in the age of the Apostles, and that writting is what we call scripture , Giving scripture Apostolic Authority,

back to the OP, I would like to know which two Bible he had in mind
 
MG come on, don’t you see you are not holding the Roman Catholic Church to the same standards as you hold Reformers? what is the difference between saying “the Holy Spirit told me” and saying “the Church told me and the Holy Spirit told them,”?

The difference is that the Church was founded on (and by) Jesus, and has his promise of endurance. He founded the authority and gave the keys to Peter, who gave them to his successors. Big difference.

back to the OP, I would like to know which two Bible he had in mind
As already stated, my choice would be a Bible with both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. I like the RSV 2nd edition Catholic version. As for the other choice, your pick.

Again, how do you know that the Bible you are reading is the Bible which is inspired and inerrant?
 
As already stated, my choice would be a Bible with both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
which is another way of saying that “the Roman Catholic Church told me and the Holy Spirit told them”, do you think the Holy Spirit is not able to work outside your Church?
the “keys debate” is for another Thread if you or another would like to start one, i will put in my 2 cents.
 
No, I have no desire to start another thread. You aren’t answering my question in this one.

As for the Holy Spirit not being able to work outside of my Church, I don’t see it that way. I see it as Jesus’s Church. And it’s the only one with Jesus’s assurance. Yes, the Holy Spirit can work outside of it, but I doubt that the Holy Spirit can be nearly as effective outside of it, due to the stubbornness and pride of the people who choose to remain outside of it. You can lead a horse to water…

I think that not only is the Holy Spirit not able to work as well outside of the Catholic Church, but I firmly believe that the Devil is MUCH more effective outside of it also. If you reject Christ’s Church, you step outside of his “umbrella”, and you are going to get wet.

So, how do you know that your Bible is not a heretical one? By all your dodging, it’s becoming obvious to me that you don’t know.
 
So, how do you know that your Bible is not a heretical one? By all your dodging, it’s becoming obvious to me that you don’t know.
I know the same way you do, It is a matter of faith, except I can make an argument to the truthfulness of scripture without saying “because they told me so”
 
No, I have no desire to start another thread. You aren’t answering my question in this one.
when I tried to answer you in my other post you said I was going off topic, when I was only following your lead; that is why I refuse to go down the “Keys debate” road on this thread. and suggest you start another Thread.
I think that not only is the Holy Spirit not able to work as well outside of the Catholic Church,
well I would never say that. who are you to say where the Holy Spirit is and is not able to work, or do you forget that you are referring to the creator of the universe
but I firmly believe that the Devil is MUCH more effective outside of it also.
careful my friend don’t fall asleep at your post in your warm sense of security.
 
well I would never say that. who are you to say where the Holy Spirit is and is not able to work, or do you forget that you are referring to the creator of the universe
The same Creator doesn’t force himself upon us. We are free to reject him - which is the point here, rejecting his Church.
 
MG come on, don’t you see you are not holding the Roman Catholic Church to the same standards as you hold Reformers? what is the difference between saying “the Holy Spirit told me” and saying “the Church told me and the Holy Spirit told them,”?
I do not hold the reformers to any standard at all. By what whim did they decide the canon needed to be revised?

The difference between “the Holy Spirit and me” and “the Holy Spirit and the Church and me” is that the Church HAS the authority to determine such matters. The canon was decided by the successors of the Eleven, to whom Jesus promised to send “another paraclete to guide you into all the truth.” And to those Eleven Christ promised “to be with you always.” He did not say He would be with them until 450 A.D. and then He was cutting out.

The canon was decided according to pretty unexceptional criteria: Authorship by an apostle or someone close to an apostle, consistency with the rest of Scripture and with the teaching of the Church and whether the text in question was being read in the liturgy. So the canon was chosen to a large degree according to a liturgical standard.

There is a lot more to trust in “the Holy Spirit and the Church and me” than in any one individual’s personal confidence that the Holy Spirit is giving them a private revelation apart from the Body of Christ. Particularly with something like this because the Scripture is a public witness and voice.
the Church is built upon the confession of Peter and John 16 can apply to all Christians. This should go to another thread, but the idea that “the Church” is something separate from the people apart from those upon whom it is founded is a novelty of recent development. BTW, Catholics agree that the Church is founded on Peter’s Confession, and that faith MUST apply to all Christians. But that in no way suggests that Peter’s confession either can be or should be separated from Peter himself.
 
I know the same way you do, It is a matter of faith, except I can make an argument to the truthfulness of scripture without saying “because they told me so”
But the best translations of scripture in modern times have been produced cooperatively by teams of both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. People of good faith who stick to their job of TRANSLATING and not exercising dogmatic judgments will do the best job. This does not exclude genuine differences of opinion, possibly grounded in theological positions, but honest translators will give an honest rendering.
 
I think you missed the point, but one Prophecy in the NT was the distruction of the temple (Mt. 24:2), and yes it came true. if you would like name another book and I’ll see if I can find a Prophetic message in it.
I was not the one who came up with the test of Prophecy it is not my logic (De. 18:22, Jer 28:9)
I think you ducked my question. You made a weak statement about how you take bible as inspired because it is so full of prophecy that has come true. Yet you can only give one prophecy example and then you turn around and ask me to give you more examples of prophecy when it was you that was inspired by it. Come on guy - show us what inspired you to believe that scripture is inspired outside of the Catholic Church giving you your bible and telling you it was inspired.

Also note that you can’t use unfulfilled prophecy since that violates the so called “rule” you dug up out of the OT. There are actually a set of criteria that the early Catholic Church father’s used to discern inspired from non-inspired - but what was your private criteria outside of the one case of prophecy you give?

The problem with your rule is that those scriptures apply to prophets NOT to all of scripture (don’t forget scripture contains history, song, and non-prophetic portions). Note too that the pragmatic problem with “waiting” to assess a prophets legitimacy is figuring out just how long one waits before they can discount a false prophet if a prophecy does not come true in one’s lifetime.
on what do you base that? but i can tell you this, that will not happen until a lot of Reforms are made
Why don’t you ask that question to the prophets. Are you looking for a rational or Aristotelian explanation? Anyone can call themselves a prophet given your criteria as long as we can convince them to wait long enough that they either die of old age or become senile and forget what they are waiting to ratify. You will note that not too many prophets ever put a time constraint on their prophecy. I am still sticking to my prediction since it takes about that long for a true seeker of truth to see for themselves just how weak and irrational the protestant theology is. Essentially I am betting (not prophesying) that you are at least rational.
you think that Reformers believe that Scripture saves:tsktsk: have you read anything that a Reformer has written? we believe that what is contained in scripture can lead someone to salvation; and that Jesus Christ Saves, By Grace though Faith.:gopray2:
Which reformers are you speaking for when you say “we”? There are so many different ones. But yes, in general, I have read plenty of the heresies that the original reformers have written - one is sola scripture, another is “once saved always saved” . Have you read Luther’s infamous anti-Jewish works calling for Christians to persecute Jews and to take their property etc.? It just seems ironic to me that Protestants would choose to follow such depraved and blatantly hate filled individuals as Luther rather than the popes who got their authority directly from the apostolic succession. I suppose that anyone who says what people want to hear through demogogery and can get people to think they can appoint themselves divine authority are what makes PT Barnum’s famous quote true - “there is a sucker born every minute”.

But it does sound like you and I at least agree that there is nothing in scripture that teaches itself nor leads to salvation. All we need to hash out is “who” teaches and “who” has the authority to teach.
:mad: I’m not really sure where you are going with this, but I would like to point out that Jesus had some pretty strong words for the Magisterium of that day. and he used scripture to correct them, showing the authority of scripture.
No, he had some strong words for the lawyers and the Pharisees and the Sadducee’s. He told people to respect their authority and to do as they say not as they do. Where we principally differ is that you totally reject the notion that Jesus works solely through His Church to save people - he did not pass out KJVs to everyone and say do-it-yourself and follow me when you have it figured out.

The household of God, which is the Church of the living God, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]

No one is saved without in some way being linked to Jesus through The Catholic Church.

James
 
But the best translations of scripture in modern times have been produced cooperatively by teams of both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. People of good faith who stick to their job of TRANSLATING and not exercising dogmatic judgments will do the best job. This does not exclude genuine differences of opinion, possibly grounded in theological positions, but honest translators will give an honest rendering.
I have no argument with this
 
The same Creator doesn’t force himself upon us. We are free to reject him - which is the point here, rejecting his Church.
I agree (I’m not a calvinist) but the difference is I don’t think rejecting some of the Roman Catholic Dogma, is the same thing as rejecting God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top