Sola Scriptura and English Translations

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Luke 24
27: And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And Jesus open the scrolls and read from Isaiha in the temple. There are dozens of examples so when someone makes such a statement again, I’m on your side.

Question for you. Was there something wrong with the conversions of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailor, and others because they did not go and search the scriptures but just took Peter and Paul’s word for it? How about the Eunuch in Acts 8 who couldn’t even read? He didn’t do alot of searching.

Blessings

The two examples of Jesus explaining scripture emphasize what part of the justification for Sola Scriptura is - that scripture itself shows a preference for scripture rather than oral “tradition”. Jesus is explaining how scripture pointed to Him, he’s not quoting “tradition”, and the Jews had alot of traditions.

No there’s obviously nothing wrong with these conversions at all.

Although I would point out that the Eunuch was reading Isaiah, I believe, and even posed a question to Phillip regarding the meaning of the text. But there’s no defect in any of these conversions.

So no disagreement.

Sola Scriptura does not declare that the Gospels cannot be shared orally, or that people must respond only to the scripture they “read” on their own. What it does say is that Scripture is the final authority for faith and morals.

My understanding of the Catholic teaching of the deposit of faith is that there is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magesterium (which is validated by Apostolic Succession). I have seen and heard the analogy of a three-legged stool.

Sola Scriptura says “the deposit of:faith” is Scripture. That deposit of faith is not invalidated by it’s translation into English. The cardinals and bishops in the US conduct their business and teaching almost exclusively in English, does this render their teaching invalid in your mind? Of course not.

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_MAN,

I emailed a question on this to a Protestant pastor I know. He says that a symposium of Protestant theologians in the 70’s came to the conclusion that English translations were not infallible and that one needed scholarly work along with scripture. I’ll post his email excepts that deal with the topic monday. This was not a liberal consortium of Protestants. The Chicago 300 (as it is called) study is summed up in a book by Norman Geisler (hardly liberal). Think I will pick up a copy.

I also pressed him on wether the Greek and Hebrew versions we have that are not in the pen of the Apostles were infallible. He would not come out and say they were directly. Basically did some handwaving about methods and the Holy Spirit. This is a very conservative, sola scriptura preaching, Bible Believing Protestant pastor.

Blessings

 

[reen12]

My copy of Quick Verse 8 came in today!

reen

 

[thessalonian]

“No there’s obviously nothing wrong with these conversions at all.”

They didn’t search the scriptures to see if these things were true? So these conversions were less Noble? Or was the nobility of the Bereans that they were open to Paul’s teaching. That is my point. These converts just took the preaching of a man straight up without comparing it to scripture.

“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magesterium (which is validated by Apostolic Succession). I have seen and heard the analogy of a three-legged stool.”

Scripture is tradition. Did you know that. READ CAREFULLY.

2 Thess
15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONSSSSS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Catch that. Further what you will not admit is that you have follwed an oral traditoin which you have heard. It sets your mind on what is true about scripture. We have the same thing of course but we admit it. Now I do not see how you can say that this verse is saying that what is spoken is EXACTLY what was written and contained all that was written. Further, where in scripture does it say that everything would be written down? At the end of John’s Gospel it says that Jesus did many things which were not recorded. And at the end of his third letter he tells them that he has much more to write but that he would deliver it in person.

1 John 3
13: I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
14: I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.

THese things were unimportant?

The other questoin of course that you will not address is who has the authority to make things explicit that are implicit? Jesus says the story of Jonah is a forshadowing of his being three days in the belly of the earth. Huh? No it was a forshadowing, an allegory. Does this mean it did not happen and Johan was a myth? Some have said so, but God I believe was so much in control of history that it really happened. It spoke to us of Christ. Have you seen the parrellel of the Ark of the Covanent with Mary. Quite fascinating. Most Protestants deny it’s there or it’s significance. It is not made explicit in scripture what the significance is. But I assure you it is. So who has the authority to make it explicit.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Here is the answer to my question I got from a pastor I know. He is quite conservitive with regard to sola scriptura (by the way, he doesn’t like altar calls either (not biblical he says).

This is a complex issue. Usually they talk about the original manuscripts. Those who question the doctrine of inerrancy speak of people “retreating” to the non-extant original manuscripts. There was a symposium on this in the 1970’s that resulted in a statement called the Chicago 300 statement. The issues are thoroughly discussed in a book called “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Norm Geisler.

But the short answer is that English versions are not infallible/inerrant but are translations from other languages. However, any good literal translation of the Bible is able to make one wise unto salvation (2tim 3) and bring one God’s truths. Scholars nevertheless become experts in the original languages so that they can create resources for the rest of us to understand whatever textual issues there may be.

 

[thessalonian]

Here is the answer to my question I got from a pastor I know. He is quite conservitive with regard to sola scriptura (by the way, he doesn’t like altar calls either (not biblical he says).

This is a complex issue. Usually they talk about the original manuscripts. Those who question the doctrine of inerrancy speak of people “retreating” to the non-extant original manuscripts. There was a symposium on this in the 1970’s that resulted in a statement called the Chicago 300 statement. The issues are thoroughly discussed in a book called “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Norm Geisler.

But the short answer is that English versions are not infallible/inerrant but are translations from other languages. However, any good literal translation of the Bible is able to make one wise unto salvation (2tim 3) and bring one God’s truths. Scholars nevertheless become experts in the original languages so that they can create resources for the rest of us to understand whatever textual issues there may be.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

However, any good literal translation of the Bible is able to make one wise unto salvation (2tim 3) and bring one God’s truths.

Wow! No Kidding.

 

[Xavier]

thessalonian:

Question for Protestants. In translating Bibles there are many different methods by which the translators try to capture the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew. There is the literal approach for instance where the best word is selected. There is the paraphrasing approach where the gist of what the greek and hebrew is trying to say is the focus. Others I can’t think of offhand but suffice it to say that neither of these will fully capture what the Greek and Hebrew intend. Further the English language is not as rich as Greek and Hebrew. For instance there are as I understand 7 words in Greek for love. Two of which are phileo (friendship time love) and agape (deep abiding love). In English they just come out love. Meaning is lost in the translation. A part of the Word of God is truly lost. This inability to capture the complete meaning of the Greek and Hebrew seems like a rather large problem in sola scriptura protestantism. Essentially if the English does not capture all the meaning then you have an incomplete Bible. A bible that is not “sufficient” as is so often quoted from Timothy.

What say ye?

God bless

Your question lacks understanding on how we got to where we are.
Before Sola Scriptura we had a church that depended on a few dictating to the many as to what was doctrine, many times not by scripture but by the whimes of those making the decision. When folks started comparing what scripture said against what was being taught by man they realized that there were discrepences.
In an effort to right the ship the doctrine of sola scriptura was born.

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Wow! No Kidding.

Point is not infallible. Do try to stay on topic. You cannot practice sola scriptura with an English translation. There has to be an authority over those parts that are not infallibly stated.

I take it you find the Old Testament completely sufficient since that is what Paul was speaking of in that verse.

 

[RyanL]

Xavier:

Your question lacks understanding on how we got to where we are.
Before Sola Scriptura we had a church that depended on a few dictating to the many as to what was doctrine, many times not by scripture but by the whimes (sic) of those making the decision. When folks started comparing what scripture said against what was being taught by man they realized that there were discrepences.
In an effort to right the ship the doctrine of sola scriptura was born.

I would say, rather, that in an effort to right the ship, they burned the ship and floated away on a different vessel: the S.S. Sola Scriptura.

 

[Xavier]

RyanL:

I would say, rather, that in an effort to right the ship, they burned the ship and floated away on a different vessel: the S.S. Sola Scriptura.

Why do you not hold accountable those who would distort so precious a gospel?

 

[Xavier]

thessalonian:

Point is not infallible. Do try to stay on topic. You cannot practice sola scriptura with an English translation. There has to be an authority over those parts that are not infallibly stated.

I take it you find the Old Testament completely sufficient since that is what Paul was speaking of in that verse.

You spend all your time building straw men and then knocking them down.

 

[thessalonian]

Xavier:

Why do you not hold accountable those who would distort so precious a gospel?

What would you suggest?
If it is so precious then why isn’t there more of an outcry over all the conflicting denominations. If every word of scripture is God breathed why is it more important for individuals to interprut it for themselves rather than to get it right.

 

[Xavier]

thessalonian:

Here is the answer to my question I got from a pastor I know. He is quite conservitive with regard to sola scriptura (by the way, he doesn’t like altar calls either (not biblical he says).

This is a complex issue. Usually they talk about the original manuscripts. Those who question the doctrine of inerrancy speak of people “retreating” to the non-extant original manuscripts. There was a symposium on this in the 1970’s that resulted in a statement called the Chicago 300 statement. The issues are thoroughly discussed in a book called “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Norm Geisler.

But the short answer is that English versions are not infallible/inerrant but are translations from other languages. However, any good literal translation of the Bible is able to make one wise unto salvation (2tim 3) and bring one God’s truths. Scholars nevertheless become experts in the original languages so that they can create resources for the rest of us to understand whatever textual issues there may be.

Any person that does not uphold biblical inerrancy is not conservative.

 

[thessalonian]

Xavier:

Any person that does not uphold biblical inerrancy is not conservative.

So you believe that English translations are inerrant. Who were the infallible translators. What guaranteed their infallibility? Certainly the Apostles did not write in English.

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Wow! No Kidding.

EA_MAN,

So since Paul is talking about the Old Testament, would you say that the New Testament is not neccessary for salvation?

I think the alternate version of 2 Tim 3:16 sheds light.

1. Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness

 

[Xavier]

thessalonian:

So you believe that English translations are inerrant. Who were the infallible translators. What guaranteed their infallibility? Certainly the Apostles did not write in English.

Why limit your question to english? What about spanish, french, german? Maybe we should go back to latin surely the oracles of God were written in latin .
If you read more than one translation you can see various shades of menaing. Does this mean that the bible is errant? No what it shows is the richness of the text.
Is it better to but ones faith in the revealed word of God or some teacher?

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

EA_MAN,

So since Paul is talking about the Old Testament, would you say that the New Testament is not neccessary for salvation?

I think the alternate version of 2 Tim 3:16 sheds light.

1. Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness

Here is part of the Chicago 300’s statement:
Chicago 300:

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation
Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer’s mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Peace

 

[Chris_G]

Here is something on the Chicago 300:

bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

 

[Chris_G]

From the LinK:

"WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

Second bold emphasis mine.