Is the Bible the verbatim word of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercuriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Far from telling you how to think I’ll leave you with two quotes:

“All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal,”

This is from Thomas Aquinas and quoted by the CCC 116 in discussing Biblical interpretation.

“…] except of course in the case of Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains mystery, I translate, not word for word, but sense for sense.”

St. Jerome, doctor of the church regarding Scripture.

I for one, take every jot and tittle as being God breathed but if that’s not your conclusion, may your decision bring you to greater faith nonetheless.
 
Far from telling you how to think I’ll leave you with two quotes:

“All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal,”

This is from Thomas Aquinas and quoted by the CCC 116 in discussing Biblical interpretation.

“…] except of course in the case of Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains mystery, I translate, not word for word, but sense for sense.”

St. Jerome, doctor of the church regarding Scripture.

I for one, take every jot and tittle as being God breathed but if that’s not your conclusion, may your decision bring you to greater faith nonetheless.
And that is where we, as Dispensationalists, disagree. Augustine, Origen and Aquinas used a method of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. But much (most) of Scripture is not allegorical, but rather precise. Words have meanings, and mean what they say and convey in the context of the grammatical structure of the passage. To truly understand Scripture, we use many tools to read not only the translated passages, but the Original Greek and Hebrew, and look at the grammatical structure of the passage to determine the actual meaning.

youtube.com/watch?v=S7lnnaDCVFI&list=PLSKN1RQsCpUjy_qYDaAkSQ5nf65Nw5RAX
 
And that is where we, as Dispensationalists, disagree. Augustine, Origen and Aquinas used a method of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. But much (most) of Scripture is not allegorical, but rather precise. Words have meanings, and mean what they say and convey in the context of the grammatical structure of the passage. To truly understand Scripture, we use many tools to read not only the translated passages, but the Original Greek and Hebrew, and look at the grammatical structure of the passage to determine the actual meaning.

youtube.com/watch?v=S7lnnaDCVFI&list=PLSKN1RQsCpUjy_qYDaAkSQ5nf65Nw5RAX
Oh well, actually, that part you bolded in my Jerome quote wasn’t related to how he translated scripture. That part was how he normally translates from Greek, whereas when translating scripture, he doesn’t. Because in Scripture, to paraphrase, even the grammar and sentence structure contain mystery. Jerome did the first Latin translation of the Bible.

I’m not sure where our disagreement is though? I for one prefer to use an allegorical, spiritual interpretation but I defend the literal because I think along the same lines as Aquinas, that a thing in Scripture must be literally true (when it portrays itself as a true story), in order for it to be spiritually true.
 
For Catholics, Orthodox and some other Liturgical Churches, yes, your traditions and institutions are important. For Us, the Bible is the basis for all worship, belief and doctrine.
2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

“16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

This text was written by Paul in 66 A.D. right before he was martyred. It was one of his last epistles.
Unfortunately for the adherents of sola scriptura, this passage does not teach what they need it to teach in order for sola scriptura to be biblical. Here’s why:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.), 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.) 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top