Question about Sola Scriptura

[NotWorthy]

I use several but my favorite is the KJV. Not the newer one, I like the old wording of the original KJV.

Interesting fact I heard about the “old wording” used in the original King James Version. It was already “old wording” by the time it was written. The grammar used in the KJV was not used in King James’ time. It was used in King Henry’s time (what is that? 100 years or so prior to James? I’m not sure), but it was already out of style during King James time.

It seems the translators used this grammatical style to give the text a more ancient and respected tone.

OS, is this the way you heard it? I’m curious, because only recently did I hear this and only from one source.

 

[Michael_G]

Ezekiel 18:4 *Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: **the soul that sinneth, it shall die. ***

---

Further proof that we die:

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

And what happens when we die?

Eccl 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Translated comes from the Greek word “metatilthemi” and it means transfer, transport, exchange or change sides. Nowhere in the Bible where this word is used does it mean to *make immortal *and that is what would have happened if God had taken him to heaven.

Hebrews 11:5 *By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. *

You asked why I didn’t answer your posting of early church father’s teachings. Well I asked for traditions, not comments from hundreds of years later. I asked that you show the Apostolic tradition and you can’t say someone wrote the tradition hundreds of years later. That is no proof at all. That is why I didn’t comment on that.

Very good at selective Scriptures–only pay attention to those you agree with, and those you disagree with you don’t pay attention, same is true with church fathers, when they serve your purpose to support you theology, you use them for doctrine, when they do not support your theology you dismiss them.

Now I suppose in Mathew Christ conversing with elijah and Moses he was conversing with dust right…
**Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him.

and Christ preached to dust after he descended to the dead-Apostles Creed
1Pe 3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

Christ claims to be the God of the living, the saints of the old their souls still live

Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.

of course in 1 Samuel Saul talked to the dust of Samuel;

1Sa 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up? And Saul said: I am in great distress: for the Philistines
**

 

[Michael_G]

You asked why I didn’t answer your posting of early church father’s teachings. Well I asked for traditions, not comments from hundreds of years later. I asked that you show the Apostolic tradition and you can’t say someone wrote the tradition hundreds of years later. That is no proof at all. That is why I didn’t comment on that.

I quoted Scripture in regards to Sacred Oral tradition, found in the NT from OT times, you ignored that too, such as the Pharesis sit on the seat of Moses not found in OT. I pointed out a number things in the NT for Sacred Oral tradition the biggest problem is you have no way of saying who truly wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John apart from the Church, apart from those early church fathers who you write off when they do not agree with your presumptions. I also when quoting the church fathers pointed out a number instance which they used scripture to support the Catholic teaching but since you are better at interpreting Scripture than they are that is probably the reason why you ignored that too. It is apparent that you have also ignored a previous post using Protestant dictionaries which show that brothers in the Greek has multiple meanings and does not prove they are blood brothers of Christ. Only seem to pay attention to the Scriptures and church fathers which support what your presumptions are while ignoring those that do not agree. You are making my points…This is bad…

 

[po18guy]

Would you mind telling me what I should apologize for?

Nothing. Never mind.

 

[guanophore]

The time has come. That’ why so many doctrines don’t have Scriptural support in the RCC.

All of the doctrines have scriptural support, OS, it is just impossible for some people to see this because they read the scripture with their anti-catholic lenses on their face.

None of the Catholic doctrines originate from the NT. They all come directly from Jesus, and were delivered complete and entire to the Apostles before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT reflects the Catholic doctrine delivered once and for all to the saints by Jesus through His apostles and prophets. That is why there is no disagreement between the Teachings and the Writings.

No I don’t. James’ words tell the story. He said:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

His sentence was the final decision. He was the head of the church and the authority was his, no one elses.

It amazes me that you can recognize this God given authority in the Apostolic ministry, but that you then believe it died with them.

What did Christ say about the “doctrines of man?”

Irrelevant in this context, since the Apostolic Authority was established by Christ,a nd the direction to continue it given by the Holy Spirt.

Well I asked for traditions, not comments from hundreds of years later. I asked that you show the Apostolic tradition and you can’t say someone wrote the tradition hundreds of years later.

2 Tim 2:2
“…what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

Paul here is speaking to the young bishop he ordained of the Sacred Tradition. This is the Divine Deposit of faith that has been passed from the Apostles to the bishops, and from them to their successors from that day until this.

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Titus 2:15

Bishops ordained by the Apostles have Apostolic authority. this is why the Fathers wrote “let nothing be done without the bishop”.

You see, your first paragraph is where you are wrong. My Bible survived inspite of the Catholic Church. Not because of it. They thought they had burned them all but they didn’t. The Catholic church never had my Bible.

This is true to an extent. I agree that the Catholic Churhc never had your bible. The Catholic Church preserved the scriptures that were used by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church promulgated this canon, and preserved, it. The Church attempted to eliminate incomplete and mistranslated versions of that Bible, such as you use. Even Satan was able to misuse the Word of God with the Lord, so it is not surprising that this still happens.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that Irenæus did not use Scripture to refute heretics?

No, I am saying that the Word of God has two strands, one in Sacred Tradition, and one in Sacred Writings. Both are the Word of God, and equal in their Source and authority. Irenaeus did not use scripture “apart” from the Apostolic Tradition, as you attempt to do. You are trying to use Catholics, who are in union with the bishops, to support your contention that you can be practicing a “true catholic” without this unity.

 

[Static]

The time has come. That’ why so many doctrines don’t have Scriptural support in the RCC.

This could get dragged out & should not be asked because we will be getting off topic but, name one doctrine ? You don’t have to answer but, if you have answered something like this on another thread point me in the right direction please, thanks.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Static]

It is not I who disregards Scripture. I am the one who said Irenæus and others used them to refute heretics.

But you do. I commented on one of many verses that you used & you have not commented on the context. ( 2 Cor 3:5, for example)

May God Bless, Static

 

[brotherhrolf]

You see, your first paragraph is where you are wrong. My Bible survived inspite of the Catholic Church. Not because of it. They thought they had burned them all but they didn’t. The Catholic church never had my Bible.

Would this be that same bible that translates the Lord’s Prayer into “Give us this day our supersubtanial bread”? The one that talks about the “good” god and the god of this earth?

 

[Static]

I use several but my favorite is the KJV. Not the newer one, I like the old wording of the original KJV.

Which one were you refering to when you said, “My Bible survived inspite of the Catholic Church. Not because of it. They thought they had burned them all but they didn’t. The Catholic church never had my Bible.” Because, If it was the KJV then, yes, many of them had errors that needed to be corrected. What other way to correct the error(s) should one use as to not suffer the loss of souls ?

May God Bless, Static

 

[Static]

No I don’t. James’ words tell the story. He said:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

His sentence was the final decision. He was the head of the church and the authority was his, no one elses.

Since you like the ECF’s so much, do you see support from them on this interpretation of yours ? In vs.13 after all had fell silent from Peter’s words, James responded. Responded to what ?
Please do not disregard the context of Acts on Peter’s role.

May God Bless, Static

 

[Old_Scholar]

Interesting fact I heard about the “old wording” used in the original King James Version. It was already “old wording” by the time it was written. The grammar used in the KJV was not used in King James’ time. It was used in King Henry’s time (what is that? 100 years or so prior to James? I’m not sure), but it was already out of style during King James time.

It seems the translators used this grammatical style to give the text a more ancient and respected tone.

OS, is this the way you heard it? I’m curious, because only recently did I hear this and only from one source.

The Geneva Bible was the one brought to the new world on the Mayflower. It was the most common one used at that time. In translating the KJV, it was the primary source to check against the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Another Bible used was the Bishop’s Bible. Although King James did not want this one used as a reference, the translators used it anyhow. It was not translated from but used merely as a reference whens they were trying to get a word translated from the original correctly. It was important to know how it had been translated before.

Here is an example of the Geneva vs the KJV

Geneva Bible

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun was as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon was like blood. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her green figs, when it is shaken of a mighty wind. And heaven departed away, as a scroll, when it is rolled, and every mountain and isle were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in dens, and among the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the presence of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come, and who can stand?

King James Bible

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island was moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The language was certainly a problem as well. I have read much older versions but this one is one of the minor ones:

From the Geneva Bible:

Romans Chapter 5:2 By whom also wee haue accesse by faith, into this grace wherein wee stand, and reioyce in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not onely so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience:

Notice the use of the “u” figure for a “v”. That was changed as well as other things such as the letter j.

From the KJV

Romans Chapter 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

There are much more variations in language but within 100 years of King James, the English language went through a big change. There are good examples of that available on the internet but that is a subject for another thread.

My favorite part of the language of the KJV is the use of “thee’s’” and “thou’s.” That language was very popularly used when this country began and settlers first came.

Much of the newer translations are to take those out but the NKJV has already done that. The claim is that it is to make it easier for a person to read but when one compares it, there are many changes made to the meaning of the text as well.

King James also instructed his translators to go heavy on the Episcopal authority as did the translators of the Rheims version did. One must remember that the English Church had adopted the style of the RCC and it was important that the Bible reflected those beliefs. That is why one needs to go back further and read older versions when possible.

IMHO there will never be another book as interesting to read as the Bible, in as original a language as you can get. I do not like the newer translations because I can give hundreds of things that have been changed.

God Bless…CR

 

[Old_Scholar]

Since you like the ECF’s so much, do you see support from them on this interpretation of yours ? In vs.13 after all had fell silent from Peter’s words, James responded. Responded to what ?
Please do not disregard the context of Acts on Peter’s role.

May God Bless, Static

All you have to do is read the entire text. From debating classes in school and study of rules of order, you would have found out that once the final decision has been made, there is no further discussion. It is obvious from the text that the decision was made by James as well as obvious that he knew his word would be final. He listened to all the discussion, started by Peter who brought the matter before the council, listened to Paul and Barnabas and then reached his decision. How can you read that any other way? This doesn’t require any special interpreting…

 

[Static]

**Old Scholar said:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Context, context ! The soul that turns away from sin shall live
( Ez 18:27 )

**Old Scholar said :

And what happens when we die?

Eccl 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.**

*Context. Please read before & after this verse & the rest of the book.
( Eccl 12:7) - And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.

Doesn’t sound like both body & soul go to the grave*

**Old Scholar said:

At that time, according to Scripture, we will be given a new soul and it will be immortal, never again to die.**

*Again, I missed the verse in scripture that said we get a new soul. If both body & soul are destroyed, why the judgment ? What’s left to judge ?

    It would make no sense of the scriptures when St. Paul said, " Be not troubled, for his soul is in him," refering to when Eutychus fell out the window to his supposed death if you say that both the body & soul are not separated at death & that both die. ( Acts 20:7-12 ) Try & tell me that St. Paul was not catholic clergy by what happens with in an extended homily ! ( LOL )*

May God Bless, Static**

 

[Static]

All you have to do is read the entire text. From debating classes in school and study of rules of order, you would have found out that once the final decision has been made, there is no further discussion. It is obvious from the text that the decision was made by James as well as obvious that he knew his word would be final. He listened to all the discussion, started by Peter who brought the matter before the council, listened to Paul and Barnabas and then reached his decision. How can you read that any other way? This doesn’t require any special interpreting…

At least not on your part anyway, but thanks for the ECF’s quotes on James being the leader. I will look them up when I get a chance.

May God Bless, Static

 

[Static]

**Old Scholar said :

The Geneva Bible was the one brought to the new world on the Mayflower. It was the most common one used at that time. In translating the KJV, it was the primary source to check against the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Another Bible used was the Bishop’s Bible. Although King James did not want this one used as a reference, the translators used it anyhow. It was not translated from but used merely as a reference whens they were trying to get a word translated from the original correctly. It was important to know how it had been translated before.**

*So, do you have an original translation KJV (1611) that had the 73 books in it before the other 7 were dumped in the 1620’s ? *

I was going to ask you if you found a difference between the NKJV & the KJV but, you answered that when you said, "Much of the newer translations are to take those out but the NKJV has already done that. The claim is that it is to make it easier for a person to read but when one compares it, there are many changes made to the meaning of the text as well. Don’t you find this dangerous to ones salvation ? We have modern translations that need be done away with too.

By what authority does King James have to have his own translation ? I mean, if the president of the U.S of A. decided to translate the scriptures would one want to go out & purchase
one ? I wouldn’t.

May God Bless, Static

 

[Old_Scholar]

**Old Scholar said:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.**

Context, context ! The soul that turns away from sin shall live
( Ez 18:27 )

That is true. It will live again at the resurrection, but it is appointed to man once to die. If he is raised incorruptible, then he will receive an immortal soul.

**Old Scholar said :

And what happens when we die?

Eccl 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.**

*Context. Please read before & after this verse & the rest of the book.
( Eccl 12:7) - And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.

**Are you saying the soul and spirit are the same thing? You need to read a little more carefully. The spirit is the breath God breathed into man. The body and soul are the man. ***

Doesn’t sound like both body & soul go to the grave

Read it again…They are not separate. The Scriptures say that man became a “living soul.” Body and soul are one, not separate.

**Old Scholar said:

At that time, according to Scripture, we will be given a new soul and it will be immortal, never again to die.**

*Again, I missed the verse in scripture that said we get a new soul. If both body & soul are destroyed, why the judgment ? What’s left to judge ?

You really need to read what I listed. That’s what happens when you don’t study Scripture but just take someone’s word. Our body and soul will be new. They are the same thing. Only the spirit is different and when man dies, that returns to God. Much like the electricity, when you turn off a light bulb, returns to the power company.*

    It would make no sense of the scriptures when St. Paul said, " Be not troubled, for his soul is in him," refering to when Eutychus fell out the window to his supposed death if you say that both the body & soul are not separated at death & that both die. ( Acts 20:7-12 ) Try & tell me that St. Paul was not catholic clergy by what happens with in an extended homily ! ( LOL )

They thought the man was dead. Either he wasn’t and Paul revived him or Paul raised him from the dead. In any event. he was still a living soul. He went back up and ate with them. Do you not believe he died later on? We all shall die, unless we are alive when Christ comes. Then we will go directly to be with him.

May God Bless, Static

STY

 

[Old_Scholar]

**Old Scholar said :

The Geneva Bible was the one brought to the new world on the Mayflower. It was the most common one used at that time. In translating the KJV, it was the primary source to check against the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Another Bible used was the Bishop’s Bible. Although King James did not want this one used as a reference, the translators used it anyhow. It was not translated from but used merely as a reference whens they were trying to get a word translated from the original correctly. It was important to know how it had been translated before.**

*So, do you have an original translation KJV (1611) that had the 73 books in it before the other 7 were dumped in the 1620’s ? *

I have one that goes back to the 1600s, handwritten, and like the one I use here, it contains the Apocryphal books but they are distinguished by a comment saying they are not canonical, but are listed for reading and historical value only. Just like the original KJV.

I was going to ask you if you found a difference between the NKJV & the KJV but, you answered that when you said, "Much of the newer translations are to take those out but the NKJV has already done that. The claim is that it is to make it easier for a person to read but when one compares it, there are many changes made to the meaning of the text as well. Don’t you find this dangerous to ones salvation ? We have modern translations that need be done away with too.

The New King James Version only makes the wording easier to understand. There are no significant faith or moral changes. Thbe 2000 New King James however does have some changes I disapprove of.

By what authority does King James have to have his own translation ? I mean, if the president of the U.S of A. decided to translate the scriptures would one want to go out & purchase
one ? I wouldn’t.

**He was King of England. He had all the power in the world to do whatever he wanted to do in England. In 1600, every country was heavily religious and most were Christians. I could tell you the entire story, about the “reason” King James wanted his own Bible but it is too far off topic for here. It is quite interesting however and involves the pope. you should read it…

And if this was still a Christian country, as it was founded, then the President could order a translation of his own. Thomas Jefferson had his own translation and many others did as well. However, since this country vowed to keep religion and politics separate, there is no Biblical power there. Are you familiar with Thomas Jefferson’s Bible?**

May God Bless, Static

 

[NotWorthy]

**
Old Scholar:

And if this was still a Christian country, as it was founded, then the President could order a translation of his own. Thomas Jefferson had his own translation and many others did as well. However, since this country vowed to keep religion and politics separate, there is no Biblical power there. Are you familiar with Thomas Jefferson’s Bible?

**
It’s interesting to note the Thomas Jefferson also had a Quran. Well, at least, I find it interesting.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having drifted off topic from Sola Scriptura to a debate/discussion of the Bible and its translations this thread is now closed.
MF