Protestant interpretations...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scripture is great, but again, there was a church 1500 years before a printing press was invented, and even so, BARELY anyone knew how to read. It was the churches duty to teach. Today almost anyone can read a bible & easily access one, so it’s convenient to say, yes, all you need is the bible, because yeah, it’s easy to obtain & pretty much everyone knows how to read, so the dependence on the church isnt what it used to be. People have a hard time with that for some reason. ~Respectfully, Jason
This is a myth, also.

The Talmud tells of the requirement to send children to school and how these schools were to be maintained.

In and probably before the 1st century, Jewish Children were being educated in reading and writing for certain.

Gentiles must have received at least a basic education as well. Otherwise what good would have a Greek Bible done them if they couldn’t read it anyway???

Paul could have stopped at expounding the Scriptures orally and there would have been no need for a Scriptures written in their native tongue. 🙂

Ginger
 
This is a myth, also.

The Talmud tells of the requirement to send children to school and how these schools were to be maintained.

In and probably before the 1st century, Jewish Children were being educated in reading and writing for certain.

Gentiles must have received at least a basic education as well. Otherwise what good would have a Greek Bible done them if they couldn’t read it anyway???

Paul could have stopped at expounding the Scriptures orally and there would have been no need for a Scriptures written in their native tongue. 🙂

Ginger
Is it reasonable for God to setup Christianity only to have the faith behind it transmitted with a vehicle reachable (until the printing press) to only a very small percentage of the population?
  • Michael
 
Is it reasonable for God to setup Christianity only to have the faith behind it transmitted with a vehicle reachable (until the printing press) to only a very small percentage of the population?
  • Michael
What makes you think it was only a small percentage of people who could read?

Is there anything from the first century that says the average person could not read or that children were not being educated? Show me the historical documentation.

This is an argument used to defend “oral tradition”, but the Bible says Paul reasoned with the Bareans and they searched the Scriptures to see if Paul was telling the truth!

How could they search the Scriptures to see if what Paul claimed was true, if they couldn’t even read???

Ginger
 
What makes you think it was only a small percentage of people who could read?

Is there anything from the first century that says the average person could not read or that children were not being educated? Show me the historical documentation.

This is an argument used to defend “oral tradition”, but the Bible says Paul reasoned with the Bareans and they searched the Scriptures to see if Paul was telling the truth!

How could they search the Scriptures to see if what Paul claimed was true, if they couldn’t even read???

Ginger
well, based on the fact that I’ve been to europe several times in my travels & seeing many buildings with pictures on them, explaining what the place was in case you couldn’t read the sign, besides that, the rosary was at one point called the walking bible because people couldnt read so scripture was recited in the form of prayer. Easier to learn a prayer than to learn to read I suppose. Illiteracy was about 90% in the year 1500. (here’s an article to cite that:
(ask.com/bar?q=illiteracy+in+the+1500%27s&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Flibrary%2Fcyber%2Ftechcol%2F1028techcol.html)

pictures in the place of signs on buildings were very common. School & traveling is how I know literacy was bad. you can pretty much take that to the bank. it was the elite, for the most part, that could read and write.

Respectfully,

Jason
 
also in response to the last part…how could they search scripture? It was the job of the church to teach. THIS is why the importance of church and scripture are stressed & not just scripture. 99.9999999999% of the global population can not only read, but speak several languages now, but even though we can read, I think the ability for people to be misguided is still present because people will begin to fill in their own blanks (which is good, but a guiding hand should be present as well.) That would be like me saying, just because you know how to read, doesnt make you right.

Respectfully,

Jason
 
What makes you think it was only a small percentage of people who could read?

Is there anything from the first century that says the average person could not read or that children were not being educated? Show me the historical documentation.

This is an argument used to defend “oral tradition”, but the Bible says Paul reasoned with the Bareans and they searched the Scriptures to see if Paul was telling the truth!

How could they search the Scriptures to see if what Paul claimed was true, if they couldn’t even read???

Ginger
By the way, the scriptures the Bareans searched, was the Old Testament, but that you knew…

Let me ask you, in the dark ages we had a population of what less than a billion? (we’ve got 5 or so now)… And, most people did not live in metro areas like the bereans. They lived and farmed in small villages. Now, is it reasonable to assume that these small villages had personally hand copied Bibles? Because, they did not have a printing press, so it had to be copied by hand… The concept of large metro areas actually lost its luster after the fall of the Roman empire. Of course we had a number of larger cities, but like the United States in its formation, most people lived in small villages / rural. Again, do you think its reasonable for people farming and living in these small villages to have hand copied Bibles? Bibles that in some cases would take YEARS to copy.

Tell me… if the village did not have a Bible, how did they get to understand the Christian faith? And, can you personally guarantee that everyone in the Middle Ages had access to the Bible? If not, I ask again… do you think our Lord would setup Christianity to be transmitted to people via a Book… a Book that not everyone had access too.
  • Michael
 
well, based on the fact that I’ve been to europe several times in my travels & seeing many buildings with pictures on them, explaining what the place was in case you couldn’t read the sign,
Tee, hee, hee… we are not talking about tourists not knowing the language in a foreign country.
… Illiteracy was about 90% in the year 1500…
I thought we were talking about Jews in the first century. Historic documents speak of rules governing schools for children. The Bible talks about average citizens being able to read the Scriptures.

While literacy rates have risen and fallen throughout the ages, it seems obvious from before Christ until several centuries later, literacy was not a problem among Jews and Greeks.

Um, why are we discussing this, again…

Ginger
 
What makes you think it was only a small percentage of people who could read?

Is there anything from the first century that says the average person could not read or that children were not being educated? Show me the historical documentation.
Are you serious? If so a quick search brings up the following site that seems to estimate well less than 3% of the population could read, with a higher % among well to do Jewish males. (note I only skimmed the article)

evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4172
 
Are you serious? If so a quick search brings up the following site that seems to estimate well less than 3% of the population could read, with a higher % among well to do Jewish males. (note I only skimmed the article)

evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4172
Excerpts from your link:

At first glance this figure looks quite low, and maybe too low. However, in a traditional society, knowing how to read was not a necessity: neither
for economic reasons, nor for intellectual ones. On the contrary. Why
should a farmer send his son to learn how to read when it entails a waste
of working time (=money)?

According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as
mentioned above, it may be surmised

This author states that we have no reliable data from the first century on
literacy.

My personal speculation is that with the emphasis of the rabbis on Hebrew
study, the literacy rate among the Jews may have been slightly higher than
the 1.5% estimate by the author above.

In all fairness, I didn’t read your article, just looked at the first sentence of the last few paragraphs. It seems obvious this is a guessing game and not based on any evidence.

In contrast I researched actual documents from the time periods. 🙂
 
In contrast I researched actual documents from the time periods. 🙂
What about the documents from the Dark(Middle) Ages? have you determined the rate of literacy then?
  • Michael
PS: Could you please reply to my question a few messages back…
 
What about the documents from the Dark(Middle) Ages? have you determined the rate of literacy then?
  • Michael
:confused:

Maybe I need to go back and read how this subject got started…

I am not arguing that literacy rates rise and fall at different points in time. I am saying it is a documented fact first century Christian could read. Jews had schools and children were required to attend.

Ginger
 
:confused:

Maybe I need to go back and read how this subject got started…

I am not arguing that literacy rates rise and fall at different points in time. I am saying it is a documented fact first century Christian could read. Jews had schools and children were required to attend.

Ginger
With respect, I don’t care about 1st century literacy rates. I am interested in your logic behind our Lord using a book (Bible) to solely transmit his message about his Son. And… forget it… don’t need to repeat, , please read a few messages above. #243. Looking forward to your response.
  • Michael
 
Scripture is great, but again, there was a church 1500 years before a printing press was invented, and even so, BARELY anyone knew how to read. It was the churches duty to teach. …
This is what I was responding to.

Since the New Testament Bible was written in the first century, …

**what do you think the point was if no one could read it?

If people could read, it explains why they took so much time writing and copying their epistles.

If 3 or 4 hundred years later most people couldn’t read, do you think 1st century people knew that was going to happen? Again, why write anything down, then???
**

You arguments don’t make any sense. The Apostles were writing to people who were alive at the time. Other painstakingly copied their work to preserve it because they recognized its importance.

According to catholic thought, not everything needed to be written down but some could simply be passed on orally. If no one could read, why not trust everything to oral transmission???

Ginger
 
It just occurred to me I have won this canon debate, hands down.
lol, yes Ginger, you single handedly, what no others could do in the past 2000 years, brought about the demise of the Church and Her teachings regarding the Canon of Scripture. 😛
No matter how you look at it. The RC adopted a new canon at Trent.
Esdras & The Early Church: A Response to William Webster
Catholic Bibles mostly follow the Vulgate’s designation of these books, as can be seen in the old Douay-Rheims, though in today’s English translations 1 Esdras is usually called “Ezra” and 2 Esdras is called “Nehemiah”. To avoid confusing matters further, I shall refer to the canonical material as “Ezra-Nehemiah” mostly, but also as “canonical Esdras”. The apocryphal Esdras I shall refer to as “1 (3) Esdras” with the first number being the designation from the Septuagint and the latter from the Vulgate. At times, I shall also refer to it as “apocryphal Esdras”.

[28] “A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books…” Pope Innocent I’s Letter to Exuperius, translation from The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Herder & Co., 1954), Henry] Denzinger, p. 42.

Note that Innocent wrote this letter in 405 A.D., the same year the Vulgate was completed by Jerome and one year before the latter’s Letter Against Vigilantius wherein he claims that 1 (3) Esdras is not received by the Church. No move is made by Innocent to correct Jerome, nor is there any evidence that the pope adopted Jerome’s supposed innovation as opposed to the purported traditional one on 1 (3) Esdras [meaning apocryphal Esdras as “1 Esdras” and Ezra-Nehemiah as “2 Esdras”].
 
You arguments don’t make any sense. The Apostles were writing to people who were alive at the time. Other painstakingly copied their work to preserve it because they recognized its importance.

According to catholic thought, not everything needed to be written down but some could simply be passed on orally. If no one could read, why not trust everything to oral transmission???

Ginger
His argument makes perfect sense as he’s determining in logic why God would pass on to us what He says in Written form only, to a world who could not receive it in full because of a lack of printing press or a high literacy rate for hundreds and hundreds of years to come. It’s an absurd notion and one big enough to first spark the beginnings of the conversion process in most Converts.

Unless you’re now figuring the Written Word was for the first century believers only. 😉
 
His argument makes perfect sense as he’s determining in logic why God would pass on to us what He says in Written form only, to a world who could not receive it in full because of a lack of printing press or a high literacy rate for hundreds and hundreds of years to come. It’s an absurd notion and one big enough to first spark the beginnings of the conversion process in most Converts.

Unless you’re now figuring the Written Word was for the first century believers only. 😉
Oh, so you’re saying God knew people in the future wouldn’t be able to read, so God knew the written word was useless to them. Got it.

Ginger
 
Oh, so you’re saying God knew people in the future wouldn’t be able to read, so God knew the written word was useless to them. Got it.

Ginger
I’m missing the love… PLEASE answer my question #243. If you simply want to ignore my points, just tell me. Was my questions incorrect or wrong, or are you simply refusing to answer because you do no have a reasonable answer.

If you will not answer, i’ll be discouraged that you have not fully developed your thoughts on the subject, but I’ll get over it.
  • Michael
AND, by the way, I’ve not fully developed my thoughts on a ton of things… Its ok to admit that… I love the journey! We’re discovering truth!
 
Oh, so you’re saying God knew people in the future wouldn’t be able to read, so God knew the written word was useless to them. Got it.

Ginger
You are now going into silliness. That’s not what he said.

Is it reasonable to have the Faith of our Lord be transmitted by a method barely attainable by the masses. Do you think its reasonable?
  • Michael
 
Oh, so you’re saying God knew people in the future wouldn’t be able to read, so God knew the written word was useless to them. Got it.

Ginger
The key word here is Written Word Only. And what I am saying is it’s preposterous to remotely suggest God left us the Scriptures only, knowing most wouldn’t even be able to use them for well over a thousand years due to the cost, lack of the tools to duplicate them along with a high illiteracy rate, and no direct source to Biblical scholars that we are so fortunate enough to have to day who actually devote themselves to the translational and grammar structures.
You believe the Bible was what He left us all cause God was too incompetent to use men to spread His Word through successors after His last Apostle had died. So if this indeed were so, He obviously ceased caring about the Christians in the medieval period and started caring again after the reformation had taken place. Any neutral non religious person without the influence of his protestant peers can see how ludicrous this notion really is.
 
Tee, hee, hee… we are not talking about tourists not knowing the language in a foreign country.

I thought we were talking about Jews in the first century. Historic documents speak of rules governing schools for children. The Bible talks about average citizens being able to read the Scriptures.

While literacy rates have risen and fallen throughout the ages, it seems obvious from before Christ until several centuries later, literacy was not a problem among Jews and Greeks.

Um, why are we discussing this, again…

Ginger
Wow Ginger, you missed the mark, I mean on restaurants that USED to be butcher shops in the 1800’s or so, in Austria anyway, and other parts of Europe, there would be pictures of a cow, a chicken & a cleaver on the front of the building. A bakery had a painting of a loaf of bread on the front. I could read the signs quite well & my german to english dictionary covered what I couldnt on my own. THAT is not what I’m talking about. The pictures were not painted on the bldgs in the 18th or 19th centuries so 20th or 21st century tourists would know what the building used to be. (skewed logic a bit.) As far as schooling goes, it would seem at the time of the printing presses birth, literacy wasn’t so hot as I stated AND cited before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top