Sola Scriptura and English Translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter thessalonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"to the extent that they faithfully represent the original"

That’s a pretty tall qualifier isn’t it?
 
And more from the Chicago 300:

“Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.”
 
40.png
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 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.
Click to expand...
This statement is a biased version of what went on. There were no doctrinal errors that led to the deformation, and you’ll note that Xavier (as usual) makes an unsuppported allegation against the Catholic Church. (It’s his favorite pastime). He alleges that The Church was arrogant and in error which is patently untrue and if one ever read Luther’s original 95 theses one would see that he did not cite doctrinal errors but abuses, and certainly nothing that warranted the deformation & rebellion that occured.

See this that I found and posted elsewhere:

Listen to Luther’s own words:
“You tell me what a great row the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone’, say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and say: Papists and asses are one and the same thing’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know that very well the word 'alone is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.” (John L. Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith TAN Books, 1990)

Then Listen again:
" I hate Esther and 2nd Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little hrathen vice." (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture , 101)

All this because he chose to alter the very Word of God on his own egotistical authority and to support the very errors that he created that had not existed prior to 1517.
To borrow and alter something they say on the street:
“Don’t believe the” fundamentalist “hype”. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Xavier:
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?
Click to expand...
This form a guy who believes everything his pastors and his books say about the Catholic Church. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
Xavier:
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?
Click to expand...
Your simply not engaging your mind in this. I do find your statements helpful for me however in thinking about it. You are quite right about all languages. I only speak of English because it is the vernacular where I live. You only expand the problem.
You fail to answer my question. Tranlastions in some sense can be viewed as interprutations but with the added complexity of going from one language to another. Do you know anything about tranlations. I know enough to be dangerous. Would you say that a translation that just tries to capture the context of what is said is inerrant/infallible? Isn’t that what one does when he gives a sermon. So sermans can be infallible?

What is the mechanism of inerrancy/infallibility for translations? Engage in the conversation rather than ducking.
 
Church Militant:
This form a guy who believes everything his pastors and his books say about the Catholic Church. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Click to expand...
This is dishonest. You know my background.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
Your simply not engaging your mind in this. I do find your statements helpful for me however in thinking about it. You are quite right about all languages. I only speak of English because it is the vernacular where I live. You only expand the problem.
You fail to answer my question. Tranlastions in some sense can be viewed as interprutations but with the added complexity of going from one language to another. Do you know anything about tranlations. I know enough to be dangerous. Would you say that a translation that just tries to capture the context of what is said is inerrant/infallible? Isn’t that what one does when he gives a sermon. So sermans can be infallible?

What is the mechanism of inerrancy/infallibility for translations? Engage in the conversation rather than ducking.
Click to expand...
OK where in the english translations do you have an issue with the meaning.
 
Church Militant:
This statement is a biased version of what went on. There were no doctrinal errors that led to the deformation, and you’ll note that Xavier (as usual) makes an unsuppported allegation against the Catholic Church. (It’s his favorite pastime). He alleges that The Church was arrogant and in error which is patently untrue and if one ever read Luther’s original 95 theses one would see that he did not cite doctrinal errors but abuses, and certainly nothing that warranted the deformation & rebellion that occured.

See this that I found and posted elsewhere:

Listen to Luther’s own words:
“You tell me what a great row the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone’, say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and say: Papists and asses are one and the same thing’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know that very well the word 'alone is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.” (John L. Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith TAN Books, 1990)

Then Listen again:
" I hate Esther and 2nd Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little hrathen vice." (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture , 101)

All this because he chose to alter the very Word of God on his own egotistical authority and to support the very errors that he created that had not existed prior to 1517.
To borrow and alter something they say on the street:
“Don’t believe the” fundamentalist “hype”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The issue of indulgences is clearly an error.
 
Church Militant:
This statement is a biased version of what went on. There were no doctrinal errors that led to the deformation, and you’ll note that Xavier (as usual) makes an unsuppported allegation against the Catholic Church. (It’s his favorite pastime). He alleges that The Church was arrogant and in error which is patently untrue and if one ever read Luther’s original 95 theses one would see that he did not cite doctrinal errors but abuses, and certainly nothing that warranted the deformation & rebellion that occured.

See this that I found and posted elsewhere:

Listen to Luther’s own words:
“You tell me what a great row the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone’, say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and say: Papists and asses are one and the same thing’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know that very well the word 'alone is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.” (John L. Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith TAN Books, 1990)

Then Listen again:
" I hate Esther and 2nd Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little hrathen vice." (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture , 101)

All this because he chose to alter the very Word of God on his own egotistical authority and to support the very errors that he created that had not existed prior to 1517.
To borrow and alter something they say on the street:
“Don’t believe the” fundamentalist “hype”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
which of Luthers 95 theses do you disagree with?

Dont answer here Ill start a thread on the nonCatholic board
 
40.png
Xavier:
OK where in the english translations do you have an issue with the meaning.
Click to expand...
Well if I had an original Greek and Hebrew version I would know. But I don’t and so I trust in the tranlators (men). Now in Catholicism I have a different view of infallibility and their can be infallible men and infallible interprutations so this is not the issue for me. I’m asking you to reconcile the dilema yourself. How do you know if you have an issue with the text if you haven’t looked at the Hebrew and Greek? You wouldn’t trust in men would you (the translators) :).
 
40.png
thessalonian:
Well if I had an original Greek and Hebrew version I would know. But I don’t and so I trust in the tranlators (men). Now in Catholicism I have a different view of infallibility and their can be infallible men and infallible interprutations so this is not the issue for me. I’m asking you to reconcile the dilema yourself. How do you know if you have an issue with the text if you haven’t looked at the Hebrew and Greek? You wouldn’t trust in men would you (the translators) :).
Click to expand...
A good interlinnear bible can be had at a very reasonable price.
 
40.png
Xavier:
A good interlinnear bible can be had at a very reasonable price.
Click to expand...
Your simply not engaging in the conversation. Oh well, thanks for allowing me to explore the possibility that there is in fact a problem rather than trusting in men such as yourself and EA_Man who are simply trusting in men. 🙂 Thanks for playing.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
Your simply not engaging in the conversation. Oh well, thanks for allowing me to explore the possibility that there is in fact a problem rather than trusting in men such as yourself and EA_Man who are simply trusting in men. 🙂 Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
Again you have set up your own straw man, and nothing else.
 
40.png
Xavier:
Again you have set up your own straw man, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Straw man? You don’t believe the English translations are infallible?

Where in scripture does it say that every translation in every one of the hundreds or thousands of languages will be infallible (I haven’t even gotten in to the issue of language creep)? Are the moron or Jw versions infallible as well? How about Oneness Pentecostals. If one who is translating has errant theology (and you Protestants believe that all Christians have some errant theology as noone is infallible) you don’t believe that it will not have the slightest bit of influence in the translation? Your just not considering the scope of this issue and washing your hands of it, trying to redirect the conversation rather than face it head on and come to a solid conclusion. You simply open the can of worms wider with every post.
 
Church Militant:
This form a guy who believes everything his pastors and his books say about the Catholic Church. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the example of ad hominem argumentation - I’ll add it to my collection.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
Straw man? You don’t believe the English translations are infallible?

Where in scripture does it say that every translation in every one of the hundreds or thousands of languages will be infallible (I haven’t even gotten in to the issue of language creep)? Are the moron or Jw versions infallible as well? How about Oneness Pentecostals. If one who is translating has errant theology (and you Protestants believe that all Christians have some errant theology as noone is infallible) you don’t believe that it will not have the slightest bit of influence in the translation? Your just not considering the scope of this issue and washing your hands of it, trying to redirect the conversation rather than face it head on and come to a solid conclusion. You simply open the can of worms wider with every post.
Click to expand...
I am not a sola scriptura person. I do believe that it is better than what went before. The greatest men of the bible (sans Jesus) were fallible. We (Catholic and Protestant) believe the bible is inerrant.
As such you disagree with your own denominations teachings.
 
40.png
Xavier:
I am not a sola scriptura person. I do believe that it is better than what went before. The greatest men of the bible (sans Jesus) were fallible. We (Catholic and Protestant) believe the bible is inerrant.
As such you disagree with your own denominations teachings.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said anywhere that I do or don’t think translations are inerrant. If I have find it.

Actually come to think of it I did imply my position strongly above when I said that in Catholicism we have a mechanism for infallibility/inerrancy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top