Sola Scriptura proven by the New King James Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ocuinn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ocuinn

Guest
In a conversation I am having with a Free presbyterian we are still on level one - discussing sola scriptura. He makes the point that the greek word used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (artios) means complete as in the man of God being complete with scripture. This suggests that we need nothing else but scripture.

Now I realise that he is taking a stab in the dark with this one seeing as “artios” can only be very loosely translated as complete. I have never heard of a bible translating this verse with the word “complete”. But guess what!! He presented me with a bible with “artios” in this verse translated as “complete”.

The bible version is the New king James version which many on Catholic answers have been touting as being a good translation (or at least better that the King James version). So what is going on?

Does the New King James bible prove sola scriptra? Is this a good translation?

IF NOT then are there any other subtle overtranslations in ths bible designed to mislead catholics?
IF NOT why is it being touted as good?

All help appreciated

Thanks

Adrian Quinn
 
It can be translated as “complete”, but that still doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. If I’m going to go into battle in ancient times I would get a breastplate, helmet, provisions, spear, and then, when somebody puts a sword in my hand, I may be said to be artios, complete for the task of war. But that doesn’t mean that with a sword alone I would be artios for war. Same thing with Scripture.

You may find an article on this word helpful:

thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2008/04/st-paul-teaches-sola-scriptura-nope.html
 
ocuinn said:
In a conversation I am having with a Free presbyterian we are still on level one - discussing sola scriptura. He makes the point that the greek word used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (artios) means complete as in the man of God being complete with scripture. This suggests that we need nothing else but scripture.

Now I realise that he is taking a stab in the dark with this one seeing as “artios” can only be very loosely translated as complete. I have never heard of a bible translating this verse with the word “complete”. But guess what!! He presented me with a bible with “artios” in this verse translated as “complete”.

The bible version is the New king James version which many on Catholic answers have been touting as being a good translation (or at least better that the King James version). So what is going on?

Does the New King James bible prove sola scriptra? Is this a good translation?

IF NOT then are there any other subtle overtranslations in ths bible designed to mislead catholics?
IF NOT why is it being touted as good?

All help appreciated

Thanks

Adrian Quinn
Click to expand...
The KJV is probably not the best translation to use.

NAS translated it as adequate.

The main translation of Artios is “fitted” The translation as complete or perfect is referenced as having special aptitude for a specific use.

So the original Greek would be more closely translated as

“That the man of God may be fitted, equipped for all good works”

or
“that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” This is how the RSV translates it.

And this is true. The Bible does equip us for good work. It does not say “that the man of God may be complete, holy and equipped for salvation”

I think this would be quite a stretch to say that it justifies Sola Scriptura.
 
I don’t know the ancient Greek, so I can’t affirm or refute this person’s assertation. A few things for the person you’re speaking with to think about:
  1. By interpreting this passage such that it says that Scripture alone is sufficient for teaching, one is making it say something that I don’t think any Christian would admit to:
2 Tim 3:16-17 - “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

But don’t forget the context of 2 Tim 3:15:

2 Tim 3:15 - “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

From Timothy’s infancy? In Timothy’s infancy, the only portions of Scripture written were in the Old Testament - the New Testament was not yet written. Even when Timothy grew up and St. Paul wrote these words, not much of the New Testament was written, and that which was written was not yet declared to be the inspired word of God.

If one interprets 2 Tim 3:16 as saying that Scripture alone is sufficient or complete, they must necessarily interpret it also as saying that the Old Testament alone is sufficient by it’s proper context. One can’t have it both ways without “twisting Scripture to their own destruction”, as Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:16.
  1. Unless this person has another greek translation trick, this doesn’t change Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 3:15:
1 Tim 3:15 - “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

If Paul really was saying in 2 Tim 3:16 that Scripture alone is sufficient, then why would he say in 1 Tim 3:15 that the church, and not Scripture, was the upholder and defender of truth (Jesus)? If Scripture alone is sufficient, why give the church such a formative role in the faith?

This is definitely a case of a single verse being taken out of context and used to speak for the whole Bible. If you ask some of these questions, the “complete” translation may take on a different type of “completeness” from what was originally touted…
 
No Protestant Bible or Catholic Bible proves Sola Scriptura. The KJV is the best the Protestants have out on the market. Far better than the NKJV. If want a Catholic Bible that you can use in defense of Sola Scriptura, I suggest the Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate English Catholic Bible.
 
Not to take things a bit off topic, but maybe you could ask your Prodesent friend this question.

If Sola Scripture is indeed ok, (by no means am I saying it is, I"m just posing a question for your friend.) Then why do the Prodesent Churchs need or have a Minister? Better yet, then why are their Churchs part of a “Larger Prodesent Organization”.

If we can read the Bible and only believe in the “Sola Scripture” idea, then truely what is the point of Having Ministers explain what the Bible says?

I don’t mean any disrespect with my ideas for questions for you to ask your friend. But maybe this would show them/ or give them the idea that truely Jesus founded the Church. Then Jesus appointed Peter to be the first Pope…you could go on from there.
 
From Timothy’s infancy? In Timothy’s infancy, the only portions of Scripture written were in the Old Testament - the New Testament was not yet written. Even when Timothy grew up and St. Paul wrote these words, not much of the New Testament was written, and that which was written was not yet declared to be the inspired word of God.
Click to expand...
I believe that this meant from the time Timothy was new in the faith, as we are considered children in the faith from the time we are baptized. As Christ said, we are to become like children, and I believe that to not only mean in innocence, but also in spiritual knowledge and understanding, as children also are.
 
Minus the contextual clues within the New Testament itself already laid out here in this thread, some very practical theological problems arise with a Sola Scriptura interpretation:

One must accept that God allowed for fifteen hundred years of error to creep into his church by way of Tradition and Catholic/Orthodox teaching without meaningful (lasting) opposition until Luther. And then Calvin. Or Hus. Or Henry. Or someone else who happened to get it right while everyone else was led astray for a millennium and a half, and accepting that greater minds than the Reformers, such as Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas, got it wrong.

There is no mention of the dogma of the Trinity; it’s hinted at obliquely, but the word itself is never present, nor the formula laid out in the Nicene Creed, which is professed by most Christian denominations in one for or another almost universally. The Trinity is a dogma inferred, not expressed. Certainly, the formula of three persons in one God, not to mention the old Nesotorian arguments, can’t be solved using only the Bible as a guide.

If one were to accept the sacrament of Baptism solely on its presence in the NT, then how does one apply it? For men aged 30, as Jesus was? Only on the banks of the Jordan? One can easily see where rigidity in interpretation can spawn a hundred heresies and a thousand barriers.

How does one interpret Paul’s circumcision of the spirit? He never advocates discarding Kashrut (kosher), yet most of mainstream Christianity can now enjoy shellfish and pork.

And last, where is the key for interpretation written into the New Testament? Very, very few have enough of a grasp on the cultural context in which the NT was written, command of Aramaic linguistic subtleties, such as idiomatic expression (e.g., “it’s raining cats and dogs”), to make authoritative judgments on much of what they are reading. That brings in the arguments on King James vs. NIV vs. NAB, etc., ad nauseam. Which interpretation from the original sources is best? Why? And why stop there? Why not learn Koine Greek and a little Aramaic and Hebrew, and take some graduate level courses on Hebrew culture circa two millennia ago? Oh, and Pythagorean philosophy as well (ref. John Chapter 1, the Logos; it’s there), not to mention Jewish apocalyptic/messianic thought (ref. Enoch).

All of that is a mouthful, but my way of saying I’ll go with the experts and with the consensus on this one. The teaching authority of the Church is absolutely necessary, the sum of which is our Tradition. History didn’t end with John of Patmos writing the Apocalypse, nor did God’s revelation to mankind. To believe so is to believe God is either two thousand years dead, if he ever existed at all, or that he decided long ago to quit speaking to us; neither is an agreeable proposition to a Christian.
 
Well said Palaeologus.

I have a question however about kosher. Paul did say in Romans chapter 14 that one mans faith would allow him to eat everything, but a man with weak faith will eat only vegetables. Does this not give us an inference for it to be ok? Wasn’t kosher meant for the Hebrews in keeping with the idea of purity to keep the bloodline pure for Christ’s arrival? This was part of the Jewish Law, and as far as I am concerned, we as Christians are not blood Jews bound by the law. (Not the we should discredit the law, because it is a great tool for spiritual growth)

EDIT:

Also, it just struck me that Paul is referring to the Jews who were stuck on their old faith, and not able to grasp this new faith (or faith renewed) in it’s ideas that Christ made perfect what was not.
 
“Sola Scriptura proven by the New King James Bible?”

No. the KJB was a political invention to promote a *political *cause – the triumph of Protestantism in England. Secondly, the Bible is the product of Catholic tradition. The Catholic Church gave the world the first Christian Bible. Therefore, the Bible, when removed from its greater Catholic context, if you will, is an incomplete account of the Christian religion. Third, the Bible can’t rationally be used to definitively establish its *own *authority. *OF COURSE *it’s going to promote itself. Cross-reference validation is required, as in the case of any other source of authority, to address the ultimate authority of the Bible. Catholic history and tradition serve as those ‘references’. :knight1:
 
James 1:4, “And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

St. James uses the Greek word holoklepoi. Holoklepoi is a much stronger word than artios (source 1 and 2).

Side note:

I would take James 1:4 and ask your friend if he believes that perseverance alone is necessary. I guess that would be called sola perseverance 😃
 
If you are staying with Timothy’s passage then you probably won’t make progress with him. You might not anyway but if he’s talking its worth while.

For me it was three things :
  1. The undeniable reality that the Church started before the NT canon. After pentecost it was preached both in Jerusalem and beyond. The Church was not established by NT scripture, neither gospel or epistle. So the entire Church was oral tradition. This in and of itself is scriptural in that every single epistle assumes an already existing church. They reference previously known Christian teachings in the Churches.
  2. Thesselonians 2:15 “So then brethern stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Thats RSV but KJV, NKJV etc. get the point home. Its plain for all to see that Paul expected them to hold to the oral tradition as well as the written scripture. This text is never mentioned in protestant proofs of Bible Only. Most don’t even know it exists. There are other texts, several, in the NT the protestants gloss over but none so compelling as this one.
  3. The canon of scripture itself depends upon tradition. This is true for OT and NT canon. The question of what books are scripture and what are not can only be defined by tradition. The protestant view of the apocryphal books is the best example for them. To determine if the books are scripture or not they point to the council of jamnia amongst other things to argue jewish tradition did not include them in the canon, or at least the palestinain jews did not. With respect to the NT canon, questions were resolved by the church over time to decide which gospels were canonical and which were not. There were gospels and epistles that were rejected and what was accepted as NT canon is accepted by all, east, west and protestant.
The last point is so key, especially to me. The impacts of accepting the protestant assertion the church was corrupted from the times of the earliest documents we have onward culminating in constantine and thru the middle ages are profound. They have not thought them through. There were many groups in the early days that didn’t agree with the canon, they also didn’t agree with the trinity etc. If one says the early church was corrupt and cannot be trusted one must also reevaluate the canon of scripture itself. If one trusts the church to have established canon correctly then one trusts tradition and even the authority of the church itself.

Thats my $0.02.

Keep in mind you may only plant the seed you may not be the one that reaps the harvest.
 
Context context context…

Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God useful for doctrine, reproof…

Did the New Testament exist then? No, it wouldn’t be until the council at Nicea that an official New Testament would be canonized. So what scriptures was Paul talking about? The Old Testament. If someone wants to make a sola scriptura defense based on this verse then the only ones that they should be using is the Old Testament canon.
 
luciasclay said:
  1. Thesselonians 2:15 “So then brethern stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Thats RSV but KJV, NKJV etc. get the point home. Its plain for all to see that Paul expected them to hold to the oral tradition as well as the written scripture. This text is never mentioned in protestant proofs of Bible Only. Most don’t even know it exists. There are other texts, several, in the NT the protestants gloss over but none so compelling as this one.
Click to expand...
The problem I see in using 2Thess2:15 as in an argument against sola scriptura is that for it to be valid as an argument, those traditions, whatever they may be that Paul is talking about, would have to remain outside of scripture.

The fact is, we don’t know what Paul mean by “tradition” in this verse.
 
Pwrlftr said:
The problem I see in using 2Thess2:15 as in an argument against sola scriptura is that for it to be valid as an argument, those traditions, whatever they may be that Paul is talking about, would have to remain outside of scripture.

The fact is, we don’t know what Paul mean by “tradition” in this verse.
Click to expand...
It is true we don’t know which traditions. I’m a protestant, going to attend my first catholic service shortly this am. What this passage does say is that Paul considers his teaching whether oral or in writing to be the same.

I’m just telling you how this particular protestant got convinced.

Have a great Sunday.
 
luciasclay said:
It is true we don’t know which traditions. I’m a protestant, going to attend my first catholic service shortly this am. What this passage does say is that Paul considers his teaching whether oral or in writing to be the same.

I’m just telling you how this particular protestant got convinced.

Have a great Sunday.
Click to expand...
That’s awesome. I am converting this spring so we are in a similar situation.
 
We have drifted away from the OP’s question, which was not asking for a debate on the lack of merits of the sola scriptura position, but on the word artios. Anyone else has anything to say on this matter? I’m not a Greek student, and would be really interested to read more on that.
 
kobudodave said:
I believe that this meant from the time Timothy was new in the faith, as we are considered children in the faith from the time we are baptized. As Christ said, we are to become like children, and I believe that to not only mean in innocence, but also in spiritual knowledge and understanding, as children also are.
Click to expand...
Whether you consider Timothy’s biological infancy or Spiritual infacy as a Christian, the context is the same. This difference is maybe a matter of 20-30 years; the New Testament wasn’t infallibly defined until over 350 years after the death of Christ.
mpernot said:
Even when Timothy grew up and St. Paul wrote these words, not much of the New Testament was written, and that which was written was not yet declared to be the inspired word of God.
Click to expand...
and
Phillipos said:
Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God useful for doctrine, reproof…

Did the New Testament exist then? No, it wouldn’t be until the council at Nicea that an official New Testament would be canonized. So what scriptures was Paul talking about? The Old Testament. If someone wants to make a sola scriptura defense based on this verse then the only ones that they should be using is the Old Testament canon.
Click to expand...
My take on the Greek translation (which I have said I don’t have knowledge of) is that it has become irrelevant in this instance becasuse the passage has been taken so far out of context.
 
ocuinn said:
In a conversation I am having with a Free presbyterian we are still on level one - discussing sola scriptura. He makes the point that the greek word used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (artios) means complete as in the man of God being complete with scripture. This suggests that we need nothing else but scripture.

Now I realise that he is taking a stab in the dark with this one seeing as “artios” can only be very loosely translated as complete. I have never heard of a bible translating this verse with the word “complete”. But guess what!! He presented me with a bible with “artios” in this verse translated as “complete”.

The bible version is the New king James version which many on Catholic answers have been touting as being a good translation (or at least better that the King James version). So what is going on?

Does the New King James bible prove sola scriptra? Is this a good translation?

IF NOT then are there any other subtle overtranslations in ths bible designed to mislead catholics?
IF NOT why is it being touted as good?

All help appreciated

Thanks

Adrian Quinn
Click to expand...
WHAT ABOUT TRADITION THATS IN THE BIBLE
 
Sola Scriptura fails from Scripture alone:

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did - so many, indeed, that if every one were recorded the world itself, I suppose, could not contain the books that should have been written.

Not everything Jesus said or did is recorded in scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top