Who is telling the truth?

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you

I have read a few of the threads that deal with which Bible one prefers and some threads on traditions and the sort.

From my point of view one needs to show that anything they use for scripture is exactly like the original writings word for word and in the original languages or else you are putting your trust in someone else and their translation or interpretation of the word of God.

The same is for the T or traditions that all Churches in some way or another observe.

So if the original writings exist where are they, who has them, what languages are the writings in and who has the authority to authenticate them as so and where did these people receive this authority?

Someone at some point must have the authority to say what is or is not the Truth.

Your trust lies on the word of another that what he or she is passing on to you is true if you have not read and understood the originals for yourself.

Even if you could have the originals in front of you, You are still confronted with the traditions that are not written down anywhere. What they are and why they are and what they represent.

Many claim this authority without any of the above and say that Holy Spirit gives them the Authority.

One must prove this authority in some sort of fashion and that it comes from the original Authority which is Jesus Himself in the matters of His Church.

We rely on others to teach us from the time we are born and at some point we begin to question for ourselves. Where we look to for the answers depends on the answers we receive.

If we use corrupt information or go to teachers that use corrupt materials how are we to grow with proper formation and come to know truth?

There are as many people who claim this authority as there are different churches or else everyone would belong to one church. There is only one True Church the thing is in finding and accepting it and all that it teaches or else you exclude yourself from the truth. We do not have the authority to pick and choose what we want to be the truth or to change it to make it fit what we want to believe or how we want to live.

Either it is or is not Truth. It’s all or nothing when it comes to the truth and those who have the true Authority to Govern the Body of Christ.

It’s not what I like or what I want to hear to soot my lifestyle that makes something true.

It’s my willingness to be changed into the true nature of what God intends for me and to obey those whom God places in authority over me and accept their teachings.

Ron

 

[Liberian]

sirknightron:

Peace be with you

And also with you.

From my point of view one needs to show that anything they use for scripture is exactly like the original writings word for word and in the original languages or else you are putting your trust in someone else and their translation or interpretation of the word of God.

Well, in the case of Catholics, we are putting our trust in Mother Church to safeguard the faith as received from the Apostles and to make it clear to us. We have Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. Protestants, on the other hand, are up the creek on this one.

So if the original writings exist where are they, who has them, what languages are the writings in and who has the authority to authenticate them as so and where did these people receive this authority?

The original Bible manuscripts have been destroyed. The copies we have are written in ancient Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, and the Catholic Church is the only one with the authority to authenticate and interpret them. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only one with the authority to declare what is and what is not Bible. She received this authority from Jesus.

One must prove this authority in some sort of fashion and that it comes from the original Authority which is Jesus Himself in the matters of His Church.

What sort of proof are you looking for? How much proof do you need?

• Liberian

 

[JimG]

sirknightron:

Someone at some point must have the authority to say what is or is not the Truth.

Yes. That person is Jesus, in whose name the Apostles preached.
He told them “He who hears you, hears me.”

He passed on his authority to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors.

Let me use a small example. I know many stories about my mother, father, and grandparents. I heard them over and over growing up. I have not the slightest doubt that they are true, because they have been faithfully handed on to me. None of them are written down, nor do they need to be. Everyone in the family knows them to be true. And we do not even have the guaranty of the Holy Spirit! But the Church does.

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you.

I for one personaly accept Mother Church and all Her Authority and teachings.
What I am asking is why and for proof from those that wish to accept other translations as truth and claim that our Bible is either in error nor good enough to use for study. The same is for their teachers.
Our Bibles have to have the approval of an authority(a Bishop) yet other bibles do not. In fact they have copy rights telling us we may not coppy or alter any part of their version without their permision. This is statement to me is some sort of authority over the scriptures without any proof of any such authority.Who permision do seek the book printing companies or someone else?
Then people use them as valid authorised versions out of personal prefferances.
We need to seek truth not just what soots us at the time. I am asking for proof fromthose who use these other translations as to their validity.

Some state that we are to read for ourselves and pray directly to jesus and no others, yet they listen to a preacher’s interpritation of the bible and accept it as truth. They give sermmons in their own words instead of reading word for word from the Bible. What and why are they teaching the meaning of scripture if we can go directly to sorce for private interpritation?
These are the things I am asking of those who wish to look outside the Church. What proof do you have to offer other than personal prefferance?

Ron

 

[JimG]

sirknightron:

Some state that we are to read for ourselves and pray directly to jesus and no others, yet they listen to a preacher’s interpritation of the bible and accept it as truth. They give sermmons in their own words instead of reading word for word from the Bible.

You are correct. If the bible was all that was needed, the preacher would only need to pass out bibles. In fact, he preaches from his own tradition.

 

[Jim_Baur]

“Hear, O Israel!”

This is saying–believe. The Church and the individual must first believe.

The Roman Catholic Church does this first, that is, faith first.

I believe. Then I can learn and know and have charity.

If we wanted to put scholarship first, we just might use the LXX as the only true source.

The Hebrew manuscripts are accepted on faith for the O. T. by Roman Church.

For the sake of discussion, Moses could have received the Ten Words in Egyptian or Hebrew, just to mention two languages. Biblically we don’t know, as far as I know. If I am not mistaken, Talmudic literature does have stories about the language being Egyptian. Moses could have written in the Egyptian of his day.

The N. T. is in Greek (as of now).

Therefore the Greek of the LXX could be considered the official language of the Holy Bible or God, based on scholarly argument. (I don’t want to brag, but I am not a scholar.)

Scholars, in my opinion, would not be able prove which we should use, that is, the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

Thus we must believe first.

A Lutheran scholar (of MLS) told me that it is through scholarship that they decided on their canon.

If that is correct, they put scholarship or knowledge first and not faith (history’s best example of irony).

Also the old argument, only the Bible just does not stand. Unless some people pick the books of the Bible you can’t have a Bible. This were my Lutheran friend said we must use scholarship. Again, they discerned the Holy Bible through scholarship, not faith (if I understood and recall accurately). Again, I believe this is the best example of irony.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Oh, we are saved by faith. We need faith first. Then we can have charity and preserve to the end. Then we can be involved in the mystery of work. Then we can be involved in the mystery of good.

 

[Jim_Baur]

There are many things that are needed to be saved: hope, keeping the commandments, good works, gospel, faith working with charity, and one that perseveres (just to name a few).

**SAVED BY HOPE—For in HOPE we were SAVED. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance (Romans 8: 24).

****Works Are a Part (Aspect/Dimension) of Faith—Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (St. John 14: 11-15).

**Gospel and Salvation—For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek (Romans 1: 16).

**Galatians 5: 6—For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only ****FAITH WORKING through LOVE.

****I Corinthians 13: 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all ****mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

**Perseveres Saved—But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved (St. Mark 13: 13 and St. Matthew 24: 13.)
**
Again, ironically, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does not even have an official doctrine on the canon of the Bible.
**

 

[Mystophilus]

sirknightron:

I for one personaly accept Mother Church and all Her Authority and teachings.
What I am asking is why and for proof from those that wish to accept other translations as truth and claim that our Bible is either in error nor good enough to use for study. The same is for their teachers.

Biblical scholarship among Protestants tends to be more academically expert for the simple reason that the Bible is more important to Protestants: it is all that they have as the Source of Truth. In Protestantism, Biblical exegesis is the highest of all arts.

Protestant translations, then, need to have the approval of expert scholars, rather than bishops, which is why their versions tend to be less heavily affected by theological preconceptions and closer to the source text. The translators believe that the theology should be modified by the text, rather than the other way around.

The weakness of such a position lies in the fact that expert translations are subsequently read by inexpert readers, and bizarre theologies sometimes result.

In fact they have copy rights telling us we may not coppy or alter any part of their version without their permision. This is statement to me is some sort of authority over the scriptures without any proof of any such authority.Who permision do seek the book printing companies or someone else?

What you are asking about is a matter of Intellectual Property Rights as defined in law, particularly in a given country’s adherence to the Berne Convention. When wishing to copy something from a copyrighted text, one must first seek permission from the publisher. It should be noted that many countries also have legislation specifying that the reproduction of a certain percentage of a text may be performed without such permission, especially within educational institutions.

The rights to translations of the Bible stem not from any claimed ownership of the source text, but rather from ownership of the translation, which is the product of considerable labour.

Some state that we are to read for ourselves and pray directly to jesus and no others, yet they listen to a preacher’s interpritation of the bible and accept it as truth. They give sermmons in their own words instead of reading word for word from the Bible. What and why are they teaching the meaning of scripture if we can go directly to sorce for private interpritation?

Few people have the education necessary to read the Scriptures in as thorough a way as possible, or the patience or wealth to acquire such an education. As a result, they depend upon teachers who may or may not genuinely understand the text. This is the source of most of the cults within Protestantism.

 

[sirknightron]

Peace be with you

Thank you all for your answers.
Would this not be even more reason then to choose more carefuly
a Validly Authorised Bible and teaching that are to go in conjunction?

 

[Ignatius]

sirknightron:

Peace be with you

Thank you all for your answers.
Would this not be even more reason then to choose more carefuly
a Validly Authorised Bible and teaching that are to go in conjunction?

What version did the Church use? When was the Canon determined? What version was that?

 

[Knight4God]

Although we don’t have any originals, we have many, many manuscripts and codices. The difference with some translations is which of these pieces are valued more. There are good books on textual criticism (Which I started a class on this semester, yay!). Is this what you were getting at? Even Jerome’s Vulgate had to use some form of textual criticism, because there would be variations in the texts. The same for Erasmus’s text which became the Textus Receptus and now both the Nestle-Aland 27th and UBS 4th (which are basically the same Greek text with different apparatus). I see no reason to distrust most translations out there. Even with all the variation, there is not enough “corruption” to hurt any vital or major doctrine. Most Bibles come with the variant readings, so you can look at them if you like. Biblical scholars with many years of education and practice have worked on getting as close to the originals as we can get right now.I don’t know enough about the process of translation and text critical that the bibles from Catholic publishing groups have produced, and so cannot comment on them. If you’re really concerned and or interested you can read more in:

“The Text of the New Testament: It’s transmission, Corruption and Restoration” by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman

 

[sirknightron]

Knight4God:

Although we don’t have any originals, we have many, many manuscripts and codices. The difference with some translations is which of these pieces are valued more. There are good books on textual criticism (Which I started a class on this semester, yay!). Is this what you were getting at? Even Jerome’s Vulgate had to use some form of textual criticism, because there would be variations in the texts. The same for Erasmus’s text which became the Textus Receptus and now both the Nestle-Aland 27th and UBS 4th (which are basically the same Greek text with different apparatus). I see no reason to distrust most translations out there. Even with all the variation, there is not enough “corruption” to hurt any vital or major doctrine. Most Bibles come with the variant readings, so you can look at them if you like. Biblical scholars with many years of education and practice have worked on getting as close to the originals as we can get right now.I don’t know enough about the process of translation and text critical that the bibles from Catholic publishing groups have produced, and so cannot comment on them. If you’re really concerned and or interested you can read more in:

“The Text of the New Testament: It’s transmission, Corruption and Restoration” by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman