Sola Scriptura and English Translations

[reen12]

Also:

quote:E_A Man

Furthermore, it is a common assertion on these threads that there was “no Bible” in the early church - until the Catholic Church “gave” it to us, but here we have the Bible saying that the people that Paul preached to had the Scriptures. Hmmmm…

I have little knowledge on when the gospels were
written, in terms of time period.

Would copies of the gospel have even been
available to Paul’s listeners, in terms of the
dates of composition?

reen12

 

[ScottH]

Chris W:

The magesterium is in fact needed. But a clarification needs to be made here. One can read the Bible and understand what he reads, but on cannot read the Bible and be sure he understands** correctly** (with certainty), without a truth verifying source external to the Bible.

But even more problematic for the Protestant, is the fact that you cannot even know with certaintly what the words of the Bible are, much less what they mean, without relying on the Catholic Church. The original complete texts do not exist. What then will you compare your english translation to? Translations of the 3rd or 4th century?

And Catholics and Protestants alike wouldn’t be able to read the book of Isiah and point to the Messianic prophecies therein without at one time relying on the Jewish authorities and their biblical canon…

So whats your point again? Or are we coming back to…
“Mines better than yours- na …na-na-na…na…”

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Back to the issue at hand: (all verses in English)

The Bereans were approved of in Acts 15:11 as they verfied what was SAID with what was WRITTEN, not the other way around; " they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Here we have an example of common everyday people testing the ORAL TRADITION of an APOSTLE with the WRITTEN WORD. But how can that be? How could they be reading and interpreting Scripture (personal interpretation) for themselves without an infallible teaching authority? Furthermore, it is a common assertion on these threads that there was “no Bible” in the early church - until the Catholic Church “gave” it to us, but here we have the Bible saying that the people that Paul preached to had the Scriptures. Hmmmm…

Peace

Hmmmm. You blew this one EA_man. I let the first mistake (acts 17:11 actually) slide. But the second error you make is significant. You see the Bereans that Paul was preaching to were Jews.

10]
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.

11] Now these **Jews **were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

So these Jews were using New Testaments?:nope:
The scriptures they were using were the Old Testament Scriptures. I don’t know of anyone who says the OT Scriptures were not available. (are those the ones you search daily as the Bereans did) And I don’t know of any Catholic who says you shouldn’t check the scriptures. I do. I read them every day. The assertion is not that there weren’t scriptures. The assertion is that there was not a Bible because it was not bound together. Further there were nearly 200 books that were considered authoritative by varying authorities. You need to bone up on your history.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

reen12:

Also:

quote:E_A Man

I have little knowledge on when the gospels were
written, in terms of time period.

Would copies of the gospel have even been
available to Paul’s listeners, in terms of the
dates of composition?

reen12

reeb12, see my post above. The scriptures spoken of in Acts 17.11 (the actual verse EA is quoting) were not New Testament scriptures.

 

[Chris_W]

ScottH:

And Catholics and Protestants alike wouldn’t be able to read the book of Isiah and point to the Messianic prophecies therein without at one time relying on the Jewish authorities and their biblical canon…

Hmmm. Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand. Perhpas I am just not understanding your point, so feel free to elaborate, k?

I understood the purpose of this thread was to discuss the english translation of the Bible in regards to Sola Scriptura. My resoponse was to EA Man who rejects that the idea we need the magesterium to aid in determining proper wording or interpretation of the Bible. My reply to this assertion is to say that in fact EA Man does need to rely on the magesterium, because the original manuscripts that he inferred we can compare our modern day texts against, no longer exist.

ScottH:

So whats your point again? Or are we coming back to…
“Mines better than yours- na …na-na-na…na…”

If you take some time to read through my posts in these forums, I believe you will find I am respectful, honest, and fair in my dialogue, ScottH. Please do not therefore suggest that I am being snide or otherwise disrespectful. It doesn’t do anyone any good to reduce the discussion to bickering.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[reen12]

Hi, thessalonian,

quote: thessalonian

reeb12, see my post above. The scriptures spoken of in Acts 17.11 (the actual verse EA is quoting) were not New Testament scriptures

Thanks!

That’s what I figured, but I couldn’t challenge
without knowing the Pauline reference, so that I could
read it in context.
Thanks for the actual verse, Acts 17:11

reen

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Hmmmm. You blew this one EA_man. I let the first mistake (acts 17:11 actually) slide. But the second error you make is significant. You see the Bereans that Paul was preaching to were Jews.

So these Jews were using New Testaments?:nope:
The scriptures they were using were the Old Testament Scriptures. I don’t know of anyone who says the OT Scriptures were not available.

You need to bone up on your history.

Blessings

Talk about grasping at straws!

I never said the Bereans were reading the NT. I said they were reading the scriptures.

The point, which you so unartfully tried to avoid, is that we see the Bereans lauded for checking the testimony (oral preaching / tradition) against scripture to check its veracity. Not the other way around. Also, I don’t see Luke condemning the Bereans for verifying Paul’s testimony, on the contrary, he says they were of much nobler character.

Get that? Using scripture to check oral tradition for its trustworthiness.

Speaking as someone with a Masters in History, I can tell you that oral traditions stand a FAR greater likelihood of incurring transmittal errors than do written records. But, thanks for the advice.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

DaveBj:

I use PC Study Bible, also very good. Unfortunately, both Quickverse and PCSB are Protestant. PCSB doesn’t have the full OT or any Catholic resources. I don’t know about Quickverse; what say you?

DaveBk

It’s very well done - it is Protestant, but I’m sure that you’ve gathered by now that I don’t consider that a drawback. It’s not cheap, though.
Fortunately I was able to buy my copy on e-Bay.

Thanks for the good advice on the research.

Peace

 

[DeFide]

EA_Man:

Talk about grasping at straws!

I never said the Bereans were reading the NT. I said they were reading the scriptures.

The point, which you so unartfully tried to avoid, is that we see the Bereans lauded for checking the testimony (oral preaching / tradition) against scripture to check its veracity. Not the other way around. Also, I don’t see Luke condemning the Bereans for verifying Paul’s testimony, on the contrary, he says they were of much nobler character.

Get that? Using scripture to check oral tradition for its trustworthiness.

Speaking as someone with a Masters in History, I can tell you that oral traditions stand a FAR greater likelihood of incurring transmittal errors than do written records. But, thanks for the advice.

Peace

1. Notice that Paul was teaching what was prophecied in the Old Testament with authority, he wasn’t allowing Scripture to interpret itself.
2. When other people rejected Paul after considering the Scriptures, did Paul say, "Good for you, come up with any interpretation you want on your own. "? No, he shakes the dust off his feet at them.

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Talk about grasping at straws!

I never said the Bereans were reading the NT. I said they were reading the scriptures.

The point, which you so unartfully tried to avoid, is that we see the Bereans lauded for checking the testimony (oral preaching / tradition) against scripture to check its veracity. Not the other way around. Also, I don’t see Luke condemning the Bereans for verifying Paul’s testimony, on the contrary, he says they were of much nobler character.

Get that? Using scripture to check oral tradition for its trustworthiness.

Speaking as someone with a Masters in History, I can tell you that oral traditions stand a FAR greater likelihood of incurring transmittal errors than do written records.
But, thanks for the advice.

Peace

Your kidding me right? You said that we say there were no scriptures around and use this verse to “prove” it. Talk about grasping at straws. I wouldn’t give you a cup of coffee for that Masters I am sorry to say.

As for the Bereans being lauded for checking scriptures, you simply don’t read very carefully, which may be a part of your history problem.

11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, FOR THEY RECIEVED THE WORD WITH ALL EAGERNESS , examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Their nobility was in their eagerness at hearing the word of God coming from Paul’s mouth. He wasn’t handing out Bibles. He was giving them oral teaching. It thrilled them that it matched with what was in scripture.

God bless EA

 

[EA_Man]

1. Notice that Paul was teaching what was prophecied in the Old Testament with authority, he wasn’t allowing Scripture to interpret itself.

1. When other people rejected Paul after considering the Scriptures, did Paul say, "Good for you, come up with any interpretation you want on your own. "? No, he shakes the dust off his feet at them.

1. Paul had authority, that is made plain by scripture. John and Peter had authority. How did Paul prevent scripture from interpreting itself?
2. I have not endorsed coming up with “any interpretation you want on your own”.

Peace

 

[DeFide]

1) Paul had authority, that is made plain by scripture. John and Peter had authority. How did Paul prevent scripture from interpreting itself?

1. I have not endorsed coming up with “any interpretation you want on your own”.

Peace

1. I didn’t say “prevent”. Paul did not just allow them to come to any interpretation they wanted. He taught with authority. By the way, if mere writing was the only evidence, I would’t believe the New Testament at all (loosely paraphrasing St. Augustine).
2. Good!

 

[thessalonian]

“I wouldn’t give you a cup of coffee for that Masters I am sorry to say.”

I apologize for this comment.

I read the scriptures daily and do not find one contradiction with the Catholic faith.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Your kidding me right? You said that we say there were no scriptures around and use this verse to “prove” it. Talk about grasping at straws. I wouldn’t give you a cup of coffee for that Masters I am sorry to say.

As for the Bereans being lauded for checking scriptures, you simply don’t read very carefully, which may be a part of your history problem.

11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, FOR THEY RECIEVED THE WORD WITH ALL EAGERNESS , examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Their nobility was in their eagerness at hearing the word of God coming from Paul’s mouth. He wasn’t handing out Bibles. He was giving them oral teaching. It thrilled them that it matched with what was in scripture.

God bless EA

It is the people on these forums that continually recite the “fact” that “there were no Bibles” until the RCC gave them to us.

I am pointing out that there was scripture. And first-century Jews and early Christians had those scriptures to read - they didn’t have to wait until “the Catholic church” delivered the Bible.

Luke is not lauding the Bereans only for the eagerness with which they received the Word.

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

They knew that Paul’s words were true because they were verfied by scripture and it thrilled them.

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

Your pointing out nothing. Setting up a straw and knocking it over. There were no Bibles. What is wrong with that statement. Nothing. It is a fact. You have it set in your mind that scripture = Bible but historically at that time there was no word bible. No bound book and not all the scriptures were written. Thus what we call Bible today did not exist. Parts of it did to be sure. I don’t know of any Catholics who say there was no scripture.

“They knew that Paul’s words were true because they were verfied by scripture and it thrilled them.”

Is there an echo in here. The difference between the bereans and the Thessolinians (who also had the scriptures) is that the Thessalonians were not even open to what Paul had to say. They had their interprutations of scripture to be sure. But they were not open to what Paul had to say and therefore it was dead on arrival. Tell me, if you come up to someone who does not have a bible what would you base their nobility on? Would you say they weren’t noble because they didn’t check the Bible they don’t have, even though they accepted what you preached to them readily?

Once again I have no problem comparing the Catholic teachings with the Bible. It thrills me to read what the Catholic Church teaches so plainly in scripture. It is only in your mind that they are unscriptural.

God bless

 

[EA_Man]

“I wouldn’t give you a cup of coffee for that Masters I am sorry to say.”

I apologize for this comment.

I read the scriptures daily and do not find one contradiction with the Catholic faith.

Apology accepted.

Thank You

I appreciate your dilligence in applying yourself to reading God’s Word.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Your pointing out nothing. Setting up a straw and knocking it over. There were no Bibles. What is wrong with that statement. Nothing. It is a fact.

I don’t know of any Catholics who say there was no scripture.

Perhaps I should add some detail. In addition to the “there were no Bibles” meme goes the claim that ALL the early church had was oral teaching - that is false. That’s my point.

thessalonian:

Once again I have no problem comparing the Catholic teachings with the Bible. It thrills me to read what the Catholic Church teaches so plainly in scripture. It is only in your mind that they are unscriptural.
God bless

I have no problem comparing Catholic teachings with Bible either. We just reach different conclusions.

Peace

 

[Hans_A]

EA_Man:

I have no problem comparing Catholic teachings with Bible either. We just reach different conclusions.
Peace

How can this be? The Bible is the final authority, is it not? If you claim that the Holy Spirit guides you and thessalonian claims the Holy Spirit guides him/her (to the authority of the Magesterium) then how can you come up with different conclusions. Can the Holy Spirit really cause this confusion?

It surprises me that when Protestants wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, they set up a judicial branch to interpret the constitution. We all know what is says. Why do we need those people in black robes tell us what it means? Sheesh!

Maranatha,
Hans

 

[reen12]

Hello, E_A Man,

I’m reading along on this thread, and what I don’t
get in all of the discussion is the following:

Paul wrote letters to the various Church communities
which, by definition, were contemporaneous with
the lives of early Christians. I make the assumption
that they may have been copied and circulated.

Based on your study, when would you say that
what were later designated as the synoptic gospels
were available to the early Christians?

[Based on the discussion in this thread, I’ve
ordered a copy of Quickverse.]

Thanks,
reen12

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Perhaps I should add some detail. In addition to the “there were no Bibles” meme goes the claim that ALL the early church had was oral teaching - that is false. That’s my point.

Peace

Well I haven’t been on this board for long but I’ve been doing message boards for 6 years and have never seen a Catholic say that. I’ve seen Protestants mistake what we say because we emphasize one point, that we exclude another such as because we say Peter is the Rock we exclude Christ as being the rock, or because we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura that we don’t hold the scriptures as sacred. I would say that if someone did actually say what you said it would be very foolish and I will call them on it myself. It was quite clear for instance in Luke 24 on the road to emaus

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