Why Christians can't read Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the problem that “christians” have as defined in the OP, not including Catholic Christians. The Protestant dilema is that they believe that translations are filled with error and they are. The question for them is which translation to trust and on whose authority they are true. Catholics read all sorts of Scripture as defined by the Church. No problem for me and you. The Church has recognized Scripture.

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903clas.asp

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES?

By HENRY G. GRAHAM
But we know from history and tradition that these were the books they wrote, and they have been handed down to us in a most wonderful way. What we have now is the printed Bible; but before the invention of printing in 1450, the Bible existed only in handwriting—what we call manuscript—and we have in our possession now copies of the Bible in manuscript that were made as early as the fourth century. These copies, which you can see with your own eyes today, contain the books that the Catholic Bible contains today. That is how we know we are right in receiving these books as Scripture, as genuinely the work of the apostles and evangelists.👍
Protestants have history and tradition however as always revised history and fallible tradition of men.
 
You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the problem that “christians” have as defined in the OP, not including Catholic Christians. The Protestant dilema is that they believe that translations are filled with error and they are. The question for them is which translation to trust and on whose authority they are true. Catholics read all sorts of Scripture as defined by the Church. No problem for me and you. The Church has recognized Scripture.
The bolded part of your statement is where my disagreement lies. The translations we have today are not “filled with error”. Yes, there is no doubt that there are translations out there that have been intentionally twisted and shaped to fit a particular denomination’s dogma. The New World Translation, used by Jehovah’s WItnesses is one example. Joseph Smith’s version of the KJV is another. But these are readily recognized and identified by the majority of Christians as bogus. Most translations which have been accepted by both Catholic and Protestant are reliable. I will say that the rejection of the Septuagint by Protestants remains a problem (for them), but the text that they do possess is reliable and is not filled with error.
 
The bolded part of your statement is where my disagreement lies. The translations we have today are not “filled with error”. Yes, there is no doubt that there are translations out there that have been intentionally twisted and shaped to fit a particular denomination’s dogma. The New World Translation, used by Jehovah’s WItnesses is one example. Joseph Smith’s version of the KJV is another. But these are readily recognized and identified by the majority of Christians as bogus. Most translations which have been accepted by both Catholic and Protestant are reliable. I will say that the rejection of the Septuagint by Protestants remains a problem (for them), but the text that they do possess is reliable and is not filled with error.
I have little time right now. There is controversy in Protestant thought as you know as to which Bible to read. In a family Dad reads one, kids read another, teens another, and mom reads one that is comfortable.

davnet.org/kevin/articles/bibletrans.html

Formal Equivalence
There is a large correspondence between words in the original language and the translation including attempts to preserve word order where possible. Examples: King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible
Dynamic Equivalence
Rather than translating words, these translate ideas and whole thoughts. Examples: CEV, New Living Translation.
Paraphrases
They tell you what they think the text says (or ought to say) in their own words. They are not actually translations, but paraphrases. Examples: The Living Bible, The Message.
You and I are not Sola Bible dependent. I can read the Geneva, Scofield or any translation for that matter and think and believe as I will as long as I do not find myself doubting or questioning the Church as it concerns what I read. The numerous translations can lead to confusion for those dependent on a translation.👍
 
[BIBLEDRB]John 1:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]

My favorite translation of the Bible. 🙂

My next very best favorite translation is the RSV.
 
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.
As you understand what?
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.
You think this is a problem?
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. .:eek:👍
Cop, I would like you to take your infallible Catholic, verified scripture and open it to Isaiah 53 then compare it to this
Code:
		Isaiah53
1’Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of HaShem been revealed?
2For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
3He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
6All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and HaShem hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
9And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
10Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand:
11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
12Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Except for the substitution of HaShem for Lord I’m willing to bet that they are almost identical. The difference is that what I have reproduced here was taken directly from the Isaiah scroll of the dead sea scrolls written approximately 125BC. So if you are saying that these scrolls cannot be verified as scripture, you are saying that the bible you read also cannot be verified. Doesn’t that leave you in a very precarious position
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.
The Masoretic text and the Catholic OT agree even to the inclusion of the deuterocanoncals. So again if you reject one you reject both and are left without the Word.
One Protestant disagrees with you and then I am to wonder…do I believe Richard Kastner or the following…:confused:
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.
This guy isn’t disagreeing with anything I have said

“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”

What he does say is that “we do not know what they thought of some of the smaller ones”

And I really don’t care what the essenes thought about the books they copied. The irrefutable fact is that these writing were in existence long before any council of the Catholic church, long before any verification process of the Catholic or Protestant churches. They are consistant with the canon that we now read and contrary to your statement above do confirm that the OT that we read today is the same as the one Jesus read and in fact gave to the world.
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?:eek:
If Protestants that follow the OT canon are following doctrines of men and you are following the OT canon of the CC, you also are following the doctines of men also.
 
As you understand what?

You think this is a problem?

Cop, I would like you to take your infallible Catholic, verified scripture and open it to Isaiah 53 then compare it to this
Code:
		Isaiah53
1’Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of HaShem been revealed?
2For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
3He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
6All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and HaShem hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
9And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
10Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand:
11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
12Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Except for the substitution of HaShem for Lord I’m willing to bet that they are almost identical. The difference is that what I have reproduced here was taken directly from the Isaiah scroll of the dead sea scrolls written approximately 125BC. So if you are saying that these scrolls cannot be verified as scripture, you are saying that the bible you read also cannot be verified. Doesn’t that leave you in a very precarious position

The Masoretic text and the Catholic OT agree even to the inclusion of the deuterocanoncals. So again if you reject one you reject both and are left without the Word.

This guy isn’t disagreeing with anything I have said

“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”

What he does say is that “we do not know what they thought of some of the smaller ones”

And I really don’t care what the essenes thought about the books they copied. The irrefutable fact is that these writing were in existence long before any council of the Catholic church, long before any verification process of the Catholic or Protestant churches. They are consistant with the canon that we now read and contrary to your statement above do confirm that the OT that we read today is the same as the one Jesus read and in fact gave to the world.

If Protestants that follow the OT canon are following doctrines of men and you are following the OT canon of the CC, you also are following the doctines of men also./QUOTE]

In your opinion, may you remain in Christ.
 
👍
The bolded part of your statement is where my disagreement lies. The translations we have today are not “filled with error”. Yes, there is no doubt that there are translations out there that have been intentionally twisted and shaped to fit a particular denomination’s dogma. The New World Translation, used by Jehovah’s WItnesses is one example. Joseph Smith’s version of the KJV is another. But these are readily recognized and identified by the majority of Christians as bogus. Most translations which have been accepted by both Catholic and Protestant are reliable. I will say that the rejection of the Septuagint by Protestants remains a problem (for them), but the text that they do possess is reliable and is not filled with error.
I want to point out the Catholic Websites and instruction are not filled with advice on how to get a properly translated Bible. This is a symptom of a Protestant problem. If what you say is true, then there would be no one on the Protestant side discussing the errors in translation. The KJ only crowd have a wild scenario as to translation. The Geneva Bible as you know was filled with footnotes to promote Calvinism. The Scofield Bible as you know had footnotes to promote Dispensationalism and perpetuated the Church as the whore of Babylon. The trend has been to change translations to suit the Doctrinal/Theology of Protestants, chaning priest to pastor and other sorts of translations that feed into the Protestant paradigm. If you wish I can point those out.👍
 
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?
My answer on that is that I agree… to a point. Though I am not Catholic and do not believe the Magisterium is always right, I believe they acted in good faith and by a good process in establishing the Canon and in preserving Scripture, and the result was correct. And perhaps the CC was used by God in that, to preserve Scripture for all Christians and indeed for all mankind.

Just because I’m not Catholic, doesn’t mean I think the CC is wrong about everything. To the contrary, I can read the Catechism and agree with 90-95%. That last 5-10% is where we disagree.
 
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.
The dead sea scrolls tell us our Jewish brethern did a remarkable job in preserving the Old Testament

The scrolls prove nothing about the new testament
 
The dead sea scrolls tell us our Jewish brethern did a remarkable job in preserving the Old Testament

The scrolls prove nothing about the new testament
Clear as mud…

livius.org/se-sg/septuaginta/septuaginta.html
The result is that it is impossible to reconstruct the original version of the Septuagint. Because the Masoretic text has a similar editorial
history, we must conclude that we can not know the original wording of the books of the Jewish Bible. The texts of the Dead Sea scrolls are sometimes closer to the Masoretic tradition, and sometimes closer to the Septuagint; therefeore, they can not be used to decide which version is better.
Who knows how many scrolls yet to be found are hidden and in the end that will not change our Faith…Some in this world believe absent any evidence of their own history.👍

As far as I know it proves that there were non-christian communities living in caves with Scrolls. The Essenes as far as I know were not Christian.
 
Coptic,
Are you waiting for a Protestant to say that the Catholic church preserved and compiled the writings that became the NT? Kudos for tenacity but shame on you for perpetuating the myth that Protestants and Catholics can’t agree on anything.
 
The Church Fathers took care of the validity of scriptures for all of us.

If the record shows that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, I see no reason why the Protestant version of the bible excludes books that were included in that translation.

I’d think that Paul, of all people, would have pointed out any “issues” with it.

In Him.
 
I honestly don’t understand what you are driving at.:confused:

OTE]
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - St. Augustine,
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

I think that’s what the OP is getting at. If you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic church on the matter of what belongs in the Bible, how do you know which gospels belong and which of the other testaments of Jesus mentioned in the Bible do not? And if you believe the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in the matter of the canon of the Bible, why not believe in all the other teachings the same men, guided by the Holy Spirit, believed? I read a good analogy. Imagine you’re standing watching a pagan parade. You look at their leaders and dress and reject them. You look at their symbols and practices and reject them. You know their beliefs and lifestyles and reject them. But then you see them carrying high their sacred books and run up to grab them, sure they’re the Holy Word of God.
 
AmateurPianist;8489973:
I honestly don’t understand what you are driving at.:confused:

OTE]
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - St. Augustine,
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

I think that’s what the OP is getting at. If you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic church on the matter of what belongs in the Bible, how do you know which gospels belong and which of the other testaments of Jesus mentioned in the Bible do not? And if you believe the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in the matter of the canon of the Bible, why not believe in all the other teachings the same men, guided by the Holy Spirit, believed? I read a good analogy. Imagine you’re standing watching a pagan parade. You look at their leaders and dress and reject them. You look at their symbols and practices and reject them. You know their beliefs and lifestyles and reject them. But then you see them carrying high their sacred books and run up to grab them, sure they’re the Holy Word of God.
The Oriental Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church accept the Septuagint…the canons vary however Protestants have a canon that was based on the authority of a bible society and the cost of printing. The additional books were too expensive to print.
 
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.
** I have been a victim of “the right translation”. I have a shelf full of Bibles. It is so easy to get caught up in pulling 5 or 6 translations off a shelf to compare. Read whatever you have, let the spirit guide you, and rely on the Church to give you the full understanding.**
 
CopticChristian;8498937:
Yes, the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham and many other Protestants have affirmed our debt to the Catholic Church in establishing the canon. While I am by no means so august or well known as they are, I am present in this thread
and they aren’t, and I have done so. (I am not too worried about the differences between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons. All of them include the 66 Protestant books, and if they include a few more, **I’m fine with that… **though I’ll reserve judgment on the extra books until I’ve actually read each of them.) 👍

You may not be August, September or October but you are Izdaari and I may say that your thoughts cause me to say Amen. PTL.👍

May I encourage you to read the “extra books” and get back to the post on your thoughts, August or not.
 
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 think your argument just takes us back one step further. We have faith the scriptures accurately shed light on the Apostolic teachings of Christ that were circulating during the first third of the first century into the mid and late 1st c. The validation you imply comes from the early church therefore we must have faith that the teachings of the church reflect historical reality. One could argue using your implied limitations of a lack of an extant autograph of any NT book that since multiple versions of Christianity existed in the first century (ie gnosticism) that we really cant attend church or at minimum we have a 50/50 shot we are attending church when we might not be. ( since we dont have the external validation the church is historically accurate except for those translations of mid and late 1st c writings) I might be totally misunderstanding your argument but on the surface it appears to artificially lump a large percentage of Non Catholics into your “cannot read Scripture” category.
 
I think your argument just takes us back one step further. We have faith the scriptures accurately shed light on the Apostolic teachings of Christ that were circulating during the first third of the first century into the mid and late 1st c. The validation you imply comes from the early church therefore we must have faith that the teachings of the church reflect historical reality. One could argue using your implied limitations of a lack of an extant autograph of any NT book that since multiple versions of Christianity existed in the first century (ie gnosticism) that we really cant attend church or at minimum we have a 50/50 shot we are attending church when we might not be. ( since we dont have the external validation the church is historically accurate except for those translations of mid and late 1st c writings) I might be totally misunderstanding your argument but on the surface it appears to artificially lump a large percentage of Non Catholics into your “cannot read Scripture” category.
No. If you put your faith in a book and say it is Scripture how do you know. If you put your faith in Christ you know He founded a Church that wrote Scripture and preserved it and even if the originals are gone the deposit as you say is sound. What you say is implied by believing in a book for which there is no original creating uncertanity and believeing in a Church for which there is an original that incorporates the book providing certainty.

This is not a step back rather a step forward to the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top