Why Christians can't read Scripture

[CopticChristian]

I posted in a thread concerning the surety of Scripture and I was advised that this should be for another thread. Protestants are of various types and I believe there is agreement that there are at least 5 streams. The dilema comes with those that identify themselves as “christian”, “just christian” or “non-denominational”. The question is routinely asked as to how they know Scripture is Scripture and there starts a dance. The following information…has been found.

ag.org/top/

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P…_inerrancy.pdf

1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
   us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
   36:2).

1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
   without value.

I appreciate AOG honesty. There is no original Scripture only translations.

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.

If no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect.

These Protestants point out that no original Scripture exists and argue on behalf of translations pointing out the problems with translations.

When these “christians” are asked as to the surety of Scripture answers like this are found.

Paul identifies Luke as Scripture:

Paul being confirmed by writer of Peter

But who wrote Hebrews and how do we know that it is Scripture. The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus are often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles, and, after Hebrews are the most disputed of all the epistles attributed to Paul. So if Paul did not write them how do we know that they are Scripture?

James and Jude were not Apostles. The second epistle of Peter may not have been written by Peter.

When asked about the surety of Scripture, I get…

What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God and you can trust what you can believe from this book?

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things.

When asked to explain how the prophecy prove Scripture nothing comes forth…

One Protestant put forth this notion…

Sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same.

The “at this time” aspect recognizes that what has provided by God has changed over time. In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. In 60 AD the answer to the question would have been “in the inspired teachings, both oral and recorded, of the apsotles and the Jewish scriptures”. The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim.

The usual attempt to use Scripture to define Scripture is a dead horse and rarely do we see feeble attempts to resurrect and explain these verses…

1. 2 Timothy 3:16
2. Acts17:11
3. 1 Corinthians 4:6
4. Mark 7

So I am left with no answer. I can conclude that there is no original Scripture, there are only translations, translations cannot be trusted and since all we are left with Sola Translation then christians cannot be reading Scripture without validating what they read by some method and as of yet I have seen no validation as to translation validation.

Jesus never promised Scholarship, Paul never said that Scholarship was the pillar and foundation of truth or that Scholarship was the mystery hidden for all ages…this is why christians cannot read Scripture.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Reading scripture is ok and recommended as long as its interpretation is in accord with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church. People ignore this though.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things.

When asked to explain how the prophecy prove Scripture nothing comes forth…

Cop, If you would take the time to read this statement of mine it completely answers your question. “how the prophecy prove Scripture” We went round and round with this and to be quite frank, I’m mystified that you can’t seem to understand this statement.

“The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things.”

There are approximately 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that prophesy various aspects of Jesus Christ, His Messiahship, and His ministry. Every one of them, 100%, came true. Because of this fact I believe the rest of the prophecies will come true.

Revelation 12
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This womaan of Rev.12 contrary to Catholic belief is not Mary but Israel (Rom.9:4-8) or God’s Church. She is clothed (a symbol of Christ’s righteousness) in the sun, and the moon is under her feet. The moon is symbolic of the OT and as the moon reflects the light of the sun so the OT reflects the light that is manifest in Jesus Christ in the NT. I know you probably don’t agree with any of this, but they are reasons for me believing in the veracity of the bible.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The truth of Scripture is not dependent on the correct words but is dependent on the Spirit of God. Jesus did promise us understanding which is a Gift of that Spirit.

 

[CopticChristian]

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things.

Cop, If you would take the time to read this statement of mine it completely answers your question. “how the prophecy prove Scripture” We went round and round with this and to be quite frank, I’m mystified that you can’t seem to understand this statement.

“The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things.”

There are approximately 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that prophesy various aspects of Jesus Christ, His Messiahship, and His ministry. Every one of them, 100%, came true. Because of this fact I believe the rest of the prophecies will come true.

Revelation 12
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This womaan of Rev.12 contrary to Catholic belief is not Mary but Israel (Rom.9:4-8) or God’s Church. She is clothed (a symbol of Christ’s righteousness) in the sun, and the moon is under her feet. The moon is symbolic of the OT and as the moon reflects the light of the sun so the OT reflects the light that is manifest in Jesus Christ in the NT. I know you probably don’t agree with any of this, but they are reasons for me believing in the veracity of the bible.

So, are you saying that the Scriptural validity of every book in the New Testament can be validated by your method?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

So, are you saying that the Scriptural validity of every book in the New Testament can be validated by your method?

I’m not looking to “validate” anything. In my opinion the bible doesn’t need validation. Jesus says in Jn.8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I have faith, I believe that the bible Old and New testaments is that word. I really don’t need to “validate” my faith to anyone.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I honestly don’t understand what you are driving at.

Is there a real problem here? I can’t see a problem here unless you are a literalist (example King James version only). Then we have a problem because per them only one version (KJV) is the Word of God while everything else is a perversion.

I am not a literalist so this is not an issue to me.

 

[CopticChristian]

I honestly don’t understand what you are driving at.

Is there a real problem here? I can’t see a problem here unless you are a literalist (example King James version only). Then we have a problem because per them only one version (KJV) is the Word of God while everything else is a perversion.

I am not a literalist so this is not an issue to me.

The question is routinely asked as to how they know Scripture is Scripture and there starts a dance.

I believe the bible to be Scripture and is truly Scripture because it was birthed, in the Catholic Church, declared to be Scripture by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church teaches that what I read is Scripture. How about you?

 

[Tyuiop411]

I’m not looking to “validate” anything. In my opinion the bible doesn’t need validation. Jesus says in Jn.8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I have faith, I believe that the bible Old and New testaments is that word. I really don’t need to “validate” my faith to anyone.

The point I think he’s driving at is that there is no way to prove the canon or the infallibility of the particular books we have in the Bible unless we appeal to Church authority.

 

[CopticChristian]

The point I think he’s driving at is that there is no way to prove the canon or the infallibility of the particular books we have in the Bible unless we appeal to Church authority.

I believe that would be correct.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I appreciate AOG honesty. There is no original Scripture only translations…

This isn’t correct. It would be correct to say there are no autographs extant that we know of and all Scripture in the original languages are copies.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

There is also the dead sea scrolls. These were written about the time of Christ and are almost word for word identical to any modern bible.

 

[CopticChristian]

The truth of Scripture is not dependent on the correct words but is dependent on the Spirit of God. Jesus did promise us understanding which is a Gift of that Spirit.

You have a point when you have a guide as Catholic Christians do. We have the surety of teaching as passed on through Apostolic succession through the magesterium. We are not dependent on any translation. Consider the following for our Protestant/Christian brethren that depend on the words and their fallible interpretation.

libchrist.com/bible/niv.html

The problem is not God or the original scriptures but the perverted false translations of the texts into English based on an agenda, not the original scripture texts.

The NIV is one example of this perversion of “Gods word”.

One clear example of this is the NIV s false translation of Ex 21:22 where it tries to make a dead fetus a live birth to promote its anti-choice agenda by changing what scripture really said.

The deception of the English translations, in some areas, is far more of an abomination and sin, for example in the area of homosexuality, than gays living their lives in love as God created them. Scripture never says a word about homosexuality the natural sexual orientation, only about the terrible unnatural acts of pederasty. The false teachings of heterosexual sexual repression such as regarding polyamory and singles sexuality is another area having nothing to do with understanding the original texts, but based on a conservative Christian agenda…not the Bible’s original text.

With their merits they all have their shortcomings. The KJV neglects translating some words. The NKJV and NIV insert strong doctrinal biases in some places. The descriptions I wind up giving is that some translations do a fair job of translating one verse and others don’t do a fair job with the same verse. Regrettably, there are some verses that are totally in error in all translations.

 

[CopticChristian]

This isn’t correct. It would be correct to say there are no autographs extant that we know of and all Scripture in the original languages are copies.

I agree with honesty and I believe you are correct.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is also the dead sea scrolls. These were written about the time of Christ and are almost word for word identical to any modern bible.

Did the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the surety confirm the surety of Scripture or was the surety of Scripture a reality after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and on what basis were the Scriptures sure before and after discovery?

 

[asd72]

There is also the dead sea scrolls. These were written about the time of Christ and are almost word for word identical to any modern bible.

Only the Old Testament though. There was no copy of the New Testament in the dead sea scrolls.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Did the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the surety confirm the surety of Scripture or was the surety of Scripture a reality after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and on what basis were the Scriptures sure before and after discovery?

The dead sea scrolls tell us that the bible we read today is the same as the bible Jesus read. 1Jn.5 talks about the record that God gave of His son.

1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

And Jesus talks of this record

Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So the dead sea scrolls confirms that the OT we have today is the same bible that Jesus read and in fact gave to us and as Jesus says if you don’t believe the writings of Moses how can you believe Him. So I believe the bible is true not because any church says so, but because Jesus says so.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Only the Old Testament though. There was no copy of the New Testament in the dead sea scrolls.

So you don’t believe the new testament?

 

[CopticChristian]

The dead sea scrolls tell us that the bible we read today is the same as the bible Jesus read. 1Jn.5 talks about the record that God gave of His son.

1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

And Jesus talks of this record

Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So the dead sea scrolls confirms that the OT we have today is the same bible that Jesus read and in fact gave to us and as Jesus says if you don’t believe the writings of Moses how can you believe Him. So I believe the bible is true not because any church says so, but because Jesus says so.

I am no expert in the Dead Sea scrolls. There are several questions and problems. The Scrolls as I understand it do not confirm anything. There are books in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. There are consistencies with the
Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant concept of the OT.

The problem is who verifies that the Dead Sea Scrolls are Scripture? There is no infallible Protestant authority and was no Protestant authority at the time of writing of these Scrolls. We are left with fallible men in the Protestant arena to declare that these are Scripture. .

The same question then becomes on whose authority was the Masoretic text, used by Protestants for their OT canon declared to be Scripture. Fallible men declared this canon.

One Protestant disagrees with you and then I am to wonder…do I believe Richard Kastner or the following…

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bets/vol01/dss_anderson.pdf

Meanwhile, in summary, we may tentatively conclude that while the men of Qumran recognized the authority of all the main books of the Old Testament, we do not know what they thought of some of the smaller ones, nor how they compared in their estimation with the more popular extra-canonical books, some of which they valued highly.

In the end, the OT canon becomes, a fallibly declared Protestant doctrine, and as I recall Protestants are forever telling me that they do not follow Doctrines of men. What about this Doctrine of the OT. Is it not a Doctrine of men?

 

[SteveVH]

So I am left with no answer. I can conclude that there is no original Scripture, there are only translations, translations cannot be trusted and since all we are left with Sola Translation then christians cannot be reading Scripture without validating what they read by some method and as of yet I have seen no validation as to translation validation.

Jesus never promised Scholarship, Paul never said that Scholarship was the pillar and foundation of truth or that Scholarship was the mystery hidden for all ages…this is why christians cannot read Scripture.

I completely agree that we need an infallible authority to guide us through the scriptures. The divine inspiration of scripture guaranties its truth, not its interpretation. I disagree, however, with your premise that the translations we have today cannot be trusted.

The New Testament, in the form in which it exists today, is the most relaible text that we have from ancient times. We have a great number of ancient manuscript copies, some of them which are very close to the dates the originals were composed. Mark Shea and Dr. Edward Sri, authors of “The DaVinci Deception” point out that when compared with other ancient texts, which are readily accepted by the world as authentic and accurate, the Bible stands out as the most reliable and authentic. For instance, The Illiad was written by Homer around 800 B.C. but we have no original manuscript. Todays editions are base upon manuscripts that date long after Homer lived. There are approximately 650 extant manuscripts which date around 200-300 A.D., almost 1000 years after Homer died. Yet most scholars recognize them as accurate representations.

We have over 5,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament, compared with around 650 copies of The Illiad. These copies are also much closer in date to the originals than that of The Iliad, with some of these copies dating to within just a few decades of the original compositions. This principle holds true for other ancient writers such as Plato and Aristotle which are held to reliable by todays scholars.

In addition, if this is God’s word, we can be certain that he will protect his word, which he did by entrusting it to his Church who has preserved and guarded it throughout the centuries. We cannot forget that this is a divine work. It is also a Catholic work, written for Catholics by Catholics. Who better to authenticate its relaibility than the Catholic Church itself.