Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Todd_Easton]

Shibboleth:

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not **practicing **homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The word **practicing **never exists in the original text. But the Catholic Church accepts and uses the NAB. Why is this?

According to Webster’s Dictionary, a homosexual is an individual characterized by a sexual desire for those of the same sex as himself. The original Greek word, arsenokoites, according to my Strong’s Lexicon, means “one who lies with a male as with a female.” Notice homosexual and arsenokoites are not equivalent expressions. Arsenokoites means a homosexual who acts on his desire, i.e., a practicing homosexual. I think the NAB translators got it right or at least made an acceptable word choice

 

[Shibboleth]

Todd Easton:

According to Webster’s Dictionary, a homosexual is an individual characterized by a sexual desire for those of the same sex as himself. The original Greek word, arsenokoites, according to my Strong’s Lexicon, means “one who lies with a male as with a female.” Notice homosexual and arsenokoites are not equivalent expressions. Arsenokoites means a homosexual who acts on his desire, i.e., a practicing homosexual. I think the NAB translators got it right or at least made an acceptable word choice

Part 1

Wow…. you wanted “Sola Scriptura” you got it…

You are oversimplifying. Yes the Strongs Concordance that you have does simplify the word to “one who lies with a male as with a female” but that is probably not the meaning of the word “arsenokoites.” A couple of months back I look at Strongs most exhaustive concordance that they make and if I remember right they do not simplify “arsenokoites” to this…

If you pick up an Ancient Greek lexicon you will find out that “arsenokoites” is composed of two words “man” and “bed.” Now this could very well mean a male prostitute and not a homosexual. The uncovering of Pompeii and other archeological finds have discovered that male prostitutes for women were a common practice in that day.

(cont)

 

[Shibboleth]

I put this on another thread…

A look at changing words in the Bible during translations…
I believe all of these are accepted translations by the Catholic Church.
Quote:
The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958
1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

As you can see all of the translations agree on the first three sins(fornicators, idolater, adulterers.)
Pornos = fornicator
Eidololatres = idolators (image – servent or worshiper)
Moicho = adulterer

That leaves but two words left in the original Greek to come up with the last two sins. Huge difference arise in the next two translated words, which is not good considering that they are very important as they outline what will keep us out of heaven.

The two words are (malakoi) and (arsenokoites.)

Malakoi literally translated means “soft”
Arsenokoites is made up of two words meaning “man” and “bed.”

Now in the NAB it has these words translated as “boy prostitute” and “practicing homosexual” I have a hard time believing that they got the word “boy prostitute” from the word “malakoi” alone considering that it means “soft” and is used that way in the bible two other times. So they must have combined the two words “malakoi” and “arsenokoites” to come up with the words “boy prostitute.” I do not have a problem with this but then how do you get the word “practicing homosexual” out of the verse – “arsenokoites has already been used. They added a word or at least repeated one and then changed the meaning of it in the second interpretation. The word “practicing” does not exist in the original text.

The New American Catholic Addition has the two word translated as “effeminate” and “sodomites” in which there is no problem with the translation by itself but, the orthodox study bible has “effeminate” translated as “homosexual” What?

You have two words being translated as

NAB …Boy prostitute …practicing homosexual
New American …Effeminate …sodomites
Orthodox …Homosexual …sodomites

This is just one example and not a very extreme one about how words are rutinely added to the Bible during translations.

 

[Shibboleth]

part 3

But since Catholic’s believe in oral tradition, I still think that the best measure of the meaning of the word “arsenokoites” comes from the Church Fathers. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345 – 407) gave speeches on homosexuality. Guess what in none of his speeches on this topic did he use the word “arsenokoites.” Also, he did speak on 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 and he never mentioned homosexuality.

This is funny considering his first language was Greek.

What do you think?

 

[bob]

Shibboleth,

1. Your version on Sola Scriptura is Scripture + other sources but Scripture prevails.
2. Cosidering that you are so adamant that:
   a) the scriptures as we have them is full of errors, and
   b) you do not always trust the other sources except your own interpretation or views,
   surely your stand on Sola Scriptura is extremely shaky?

 

[Shibboleth]

bob:

Shibboleth,

1. Your version on Sola Scriptura is Scripture + other sources but Scripture prevails.
2. Cosidering that you are so adamant that:
   a) the scriptures as we have them is full of errors, and
   b) you do not always trust the other sources except your own interpretation or views,
   surely your stand on Sola Scriptura is extremely shaky?

Not the scriptures but people’s attempts at translating them. People are fallible- Luther was fallible and I would guess that you have problems with his translation.

My views on this came from a Catholic homosexual that did research in the area. So although I agree with his findings and research - they are not neccesarily mine.

I ask you of the translations above which one is more correct – they differ so one must be closer to the original Greek than the others – which one is it? The verse in question did not mention homosexuality until fairly recently. Why is that…?

 

[Shibboleth]

KJV
1 Cor 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Mankind does not mean man but all humanity.

RSV
1 cor 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

I believe that this is the Douay-Reims but I am not sure – could someone please check.
Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

 

[Cathkelley]

I am new to the forums and just wanted you to know that I have not accomplished one thing that I set out to do today because of all the time I spent on this crazy computer!!! I did, however, receive quite an education just in reading this one thread. I have to admit that at times it got a little beyond where I am right now in my knowledge of scripture and church history but my interest has been more than slightly sparked in continuing to learn more. Can I ask just one simple “baby” question? What are some examples of church traditions that are not in scripture? Goodnight for now…my eyes are tired!

 

[Cathkelley]

Can I ask just one simple “baby” question? What are some examples of church traditions that are not in scripture?

Are you talking about things like the infallability of the Pope, the Assumption of Mary, the Ascenscion etc? Sorry to be so basic with such an intellectual crowd!

 

[bob]

Shibboleth:

Not the scriptures but people’s attempts at translating them. People are fallible- Luther was fallible and I would guess that you have problems with his translation.

My views on this came from a Catholic homosexual that did research in the area. So although I agree with his findings and research - they are not neccesarily mine.

I ask you of the translations above which one is more correct – they differ so one must be closer to the original Greek than the others – which one is it? The verse in question did not mention homosexuality until fairly recently. Why is that…?

The thread on homosexuality should be a separate thread from this.
They sound Greek to me! Pardon the pun.

However my question still stands:
There is no original biblical text, whether Greek, Aramiac or Hebrew in existence. And if you cannot accept any of the translations as correct, isn’t your stand on Sola Scriptura shaky?

 

[LaSalle]

Every time some Catholic tries to question SS, the usual response from the Protestants will include how wrong and how evil the RCC is.

Fine. Reject the RCC.

How does the ‘fact’ that the RCC is wrong make SS correct?

 

[Shibboleth]

bob:

The thread on homosexuality should be a separate thread from this.
They sound Greek to me! Pardon the pun.

Just a refutation by a comment of Todd Easton – if you trace it back it comes from someone claiming that Luther added a word to the Bible. I simply showed him and others that he is not the only one – provided that one sees it as an addition and not an attempt at translating the verse in a vernacular that necessitates the use of additional words to convey the probable meaning.

However my question still stands:
There is no original biblical text, whether Greek, Aramiac or Hebrew in existence. And if you cannot accept any of the translations as correct, isn’t your stand on Sola Scriptura shaky?

Is it? I have seen on this message board many many people stating that Priests and higher officials have misunderstood and misused the documents of Vatican II. We do have the original texts of this and people still misunderstand them within the Church that produced them. You can give me documents from the Church for me to read and I will, but if the RC’s own clergy cannot effectively discern their true meaning, why should I be able to do more than them.

Perhaps I can, just as perhaps I can discern the meaning of scriptures, with the assistance of other more knowledgeable people, at a better level than some within the Catholic Church.

Just keep in mind that whenever you argue Sola Scriptura with me that I am not saying that I can figure something out infallibly. I will never be able to do such a thing. I might get some things right but I know that I will get many things wrong. I believe that not I or anyone else can know for certain when they have correctly interpreted the Scriptures.

My theory may be shaky in your eyes but my faith is not.

 

[Shibboleth]

LaSalle:

Every time some Catholic tries to question SS, the usual response from the Protestants will include how wrong and how evil the RCC is.

Fine. Reject the RCC.

How does the ‘fact’ that the RCC is wrong make SS correct?

You are right proving that the RC is wrong does not make Sola Scriptura right, nor does proving Sola Scriptura wrong make the RC right. I have not seen anyone making such a claim.

Have Protestants pointed out certain problematic features about authority and the like with the RC? Yes… but only in refutation to similar comments about Protestantism. A Pot calling the Kettle Black – situation.

I do not remember anyone calling the RC evil on this thread? I do not think that they are evil – in fact I see them as a very noble institution.

 

[BobCatholic]

Sola Scriptura cannot be practiced anyway.

Show me, using the principles of Sola Scriptura, how to determine which one of the thousands of biblical interpretations is correct.

Oh wait. First we need to define Sola Scriptura. I’ve seen many different definitions of it. Some say “anything outside of the Bible is man-made and thus not authoritative” others say “literal (or literalist) interpretation of the scripture only” while others have Scripture first with a magisterium (teaching authority) of some kind (many non-denoms have this) and so on.

Once agreement on which definition is decided, there STILL is no way to determine what the correct interpretation is. So schism results. And more schism. And even more schism. Where’s the unity? Sorry, SS prohibits it.

SS fails has one giant achilles’ heel: the denial that an interpretation of scripture is also authoritative, denying that scripture requires an interpretation.

If I went to a foreign country whose language I do not know, I would hire an interpreter who would not just “literally” translate what others say but also explain (interpret) what they MEAN by what they say. If I tried to do it by myself, I’d make a fool out of myself and perhaps even get in trouble there.

God’s Word in the Bible works the same way. Yes, there was a literal translation, but it also requires an interpretation.

How do we know for sure John 6 is symbolic or literal? Someone interpreted that (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and told us so. How do we know that Matthew 1:25 what the word “until” means?
Someone interpreted it (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and told us so.

So back to what I mentioned earlier that SS cannot be practiced anyway.

Who determines that a teaching is scriptural? “I DO”
Who determines that a teaching is contrary to scripture? “I DO”
Who determines that a teaching is a man-made tradition? “I DO”
Who determines which interpretation is correct? “I DO”

The Bible won’t spout legs and a mouth, stand up and scream “HEY YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME!”

So basically someone makes the authoritative decision: “I DO”

So SS is really Solo Ego “Just Me”

 

[MariaG]

Originally post by Shibboleth

Just keep in mind that whenever you argue Sola Scriptura with me that I am not saying that I can figure something out infallibly. I will never be able to do such a thing. I might get some things right but I know that I will get many things wrong. I believe that not I or anyone else can know for certain when they have correctly interpreted the Scriptures.

Unfortunately, in these discussions, people like you get lumped together with those who believe with the help of the Holy Spirit they can infallibly interpret Scripture because the Holy Spirit doesn’t lie. When it is kindly and sometimes unkindly asked how that can be true when there are different interpretations on the same Scripture by people who say the same thing, they ask things like “Do you think the Holy Spirit lies?” No but clearly lots of people don’t listen hard enough since different interpretations abound.
God Bless
Maria

 

[Shibboleth]

Oh wait. First we need to define Sola Scriptura. I’ve seen many different definitions of it. Some say “anything outside of the Bible is man-made and thus not authoritative” others say “literal (or literalist) interpretation of the scripture only” while others have Scripture first with a Magisterium (teaching authority) of some kind (many non-denoms have this) and so on.

Once agreement on which definition is decided, there STILL is no way to determine what the correct interpretation is. So schism results. And more schism. And even more schism. Where’s the unity? Sorry, SS prohibits it.

Yes many definitions disagree with each other. This is a problem not so much with sola scriptura but with people misnaming and using sola scriptura. The problem arises in that Sola Scriptura is a label that has been pasted on many things. One has two choices when dealing with this. They can discount Sola Scriptura on that basis or they can use reason to try and interpret what one means when they use the word. Connotation not denotation….

Many things have a single label that stand for a variety of things. Look at the label Christian – how does one determine if they are a Christian or not and what is the criteria. In truth no real criteria exists in which one can adequately decide if one theology is Christian and one is not.

I could say - well we are appointing this person based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that one person will decide the definition. Great but by what authority did I come about making that decision and who’s interpretation did I use in determining that it was the correct course of action - additionally, the one person could make a statement on what Sola Scriptura actually was but it would again come down to me to interpret what that one person was trying to say. As the documents on Vatican II have shown us, even though a single consensus was reached by the Magisterium it still does not protect one from misinterpreting what was concluded.

If I went to a foreign country whose language I do not know, I would hire an interpreter who would not just “literally” translate what others say but also explain (interpret) what they MEAN by what they say. If I tried to do it by myself, I’d make a fool out of myself and perhaps even get in trouble there.

Yes you do need an interpreter if you do not know the language. If you do have the knowledge to understand the language then you do have the power to understand those in a foreign country without the assistance of an interpreter. Also one can still look a fool if the interpreter is inept but we fail to realize his incompetence and put blind faith in what we think that he is translating.

Who determines that a teaching is scriptural? “I DO”
Who determines that a teaching is contrary to scripture? “I DO”
Who determines that a teaching is a man-made tradition? “I DO”
Who determines which interpretation is correct? “I DO”

Who ultimately determines what the Vatican is trying to say is Scriptural? “I do”
Who determines what the Vatican is trying to state in contrary to Scripture? “I do”
Who determines what the Vatican teaches on what traditions are man made? “I do.”
Etc…

The Bible won’t spout legs and a mouth, stand up and scream “HEY YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME!”

Neither do the documents from the Council of Trent.

So SS is really Solo Ego “Just Me”

No more than a Roman Catholic is just me in that the ultimate determination comes down to yourself. A Sola Scriptura individual looks to the more gifted and more wise also for direction. They do not take all literally and work to understand things in the context in which they are written.

 

[BobCatholic]

Shibboleth:

Who ultimately determines what the Vatican is trying to say is Scriptural? �I do�
Who determines what the Vatican is trying to state in contrary to Scripture? �I do�
Who determines what the Vatican teaches on what traditions are man made? �I do.�
Etc�

So basically you’re saying that the only way to go is “my way” and there is no Truth. No way to determine which interpretation is correct which is guaranteed (by the Holy Spirit) to be free from error. The Christian faith is 100% subjective no matter which way you go.

No wonder doctrinal relativism rules the SS world.
Too bad we were left orphans, eh? (according to SS doctrine)

Neither do the documents from the Council of Trent.

The Magisterium stands up for them. It produced them and knows what they mean. The Bible, on the other hand, was written by Apostles and prophets long dead. Without a magisterium, who stands up for the Truth? According to SS…[insert your answer here]

A Sola Scriptura individual looks to the more gifted and more wise also for direction.

Unfortunately, that makes those “more gifted” and “more wise” people authorities in violation of the principles of SS.

Here’s something to think about.

Look at the Scriptures. First they were orally passed down then they were written down. Then they were copied, translated, distributed, protected by marytrs (who died for them) and thanks to all of these Holy Spirit filled folks, you got your Bible that you’re holding on today. This was done 100% correctly since SS’ers believe the scriptures are inerrant.

Now, look at the Apostolic Interpretation of Scriptures. According to Sola Scripturists, this was lost. The Apostles passed on their interpretation of scripture (which of course was correct!) and then that’s it, it was lost somewhere between then and now. The only way, according to SS, is to let the “holy spirit guide the individual to the correct interpretation.”

This appears to be inconsistent. Why did God use all those human beings to protect the scriptures (when they were being passed on to the next generation of believers) but not to protect the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture (when they’re being passed on to the next generation of believers)? Interesting.

Because I am a Catholic, I believe that God didn’t work like this. God is consistent, and provided a mechanism to protect both the scriptures, and the Apostolic Interpretation of the Scriptures, and both were correctly passed down throughout the centuries.

 

[Shibboleth]

So basically you’re saying that the only way to go is “my way” and there is no Truth. No way to determine which interpretation is correct which is guaranteed (by the Holy Spirit) to be free from error. The Christian faith is 100% subjective no matter which way you go.

No wonder doctrinal relativism rules the SS world.
Too bad we were left orphans, eh? (according to SS doctrine)

No I do not think that it is 100% subjective – I am just showing that deciding what the Magisterium is trying to say is the very same as trying to decipher what the Scriptures state.

I believe that the Holy Spirit helps guide us along our paths, but some people unfortunately think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them down a certain path when it is not.

I do not believe that we are orphans. I believe that we all have our gifts in which God gave us to help find our way. I also believe that we can use the gifts given of others to help ourselves. A blind man cannot fully see the path before him but that does not mean that he cannot use his other senses to do what those that see can do. In addition, the blind man can ask for directions from those that can see around him. He is not guaranteed though that those people are not lying or actually know the way. He has to have faith that they know the way. True faith is not ours but is given to us through God and his Grace. This is how we are not orphans…

The Magisterium stands up for them. It produced them and knows what they mean. The Bible, on the other hand, was written by Apostles and prophets long dead. Without a Magisterium, who stands up for the Truth? According to SS…[insert your answer here]

This is a problem what you are saying here because the Magisterium can produce infallible documents about things but only the Magisterium fully understands them.

Unfortunately, that makes those “more gifted” and “more wise” people authorities in violation of the principles of SS.

Once again Sola Scriptura does not mean that any and every person can interpret the Bible infallibly. So no this does not put them in violation. A person with developmental disabilities may not have the capability to understand the Bible. We all have disabilities on one level or another; else we would all be the Catholic equivalent of a Pope. Some people have more gifts in certain areas.

 

[BobCatholic]

Shibboleth:

No I do not think that it is 100% subjective – I am just showing that deciding what the Magisterium is trying to say is the very same as trying to decipher what the Scriptures state.

Ah. The old “interpreting the interpreter” (ITI) argument.

The Magisterium is an authority outside of us, showing us the way. Sometimes it is not a good teacher (in explaining for some people don’t understand) but it is better than being on our own. This does not mean they’re teaching falsehood because one does not understand them.

True faith is not ours but is given to us through God and his Grace. This is how we are not orphans…

Well, here’s the thing: If one doesn’t know what the Bible means (because people are disabled per your statement earlier) then how does one know if one is in the faith? One keeps testing to see if one is in the faith, but are unsure if one is in the faith, since there’s no way to infallibly determine if the interpretation(s) they hold are 100% true.

In other words, the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures using ordinary men and the resulting product: inerrant. How do we read the minds of those who wrote them (including the Holy Spirit’s) - and determine what they truly meant - when we don’t have mind-reading capabilities?

Keep in mind the simple math:

Inerrant Scriptures + uninfallible interpretation = error
Inerrant Scriptures + infallible interpretation = truth

This is a problem what you are saying here because the Magisterium can produce infallible documents about things but only the Magisterium fully understands them.

And the Magisterium can fully explain it to us. However, sometimes the faith is not clarified as much as people like. Hence, they become dissenters for they fall into the ITI trap.

Once again Sola Scriptura does not mean that any and every person can interpret the Bible infallibly.

Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that one can determine WHO is interpreting it infallibly and having an infallible assurance of such a determination as well, according to Sola Scriptura principles. I’m sure there is no Bible verse that says “and lo, [insert the name of a modern protestant pastor you don’t like] shall come along and preach the heresy of [insert heresy here] and it is condemned ahead of time.”

Do you want to take a crack at this part of my post?

Here’s something to think about.

Look at the Scriptures. First they were orally passed down then they were written down. Then they were copied, translated, distributed, protected by marytrs (who died for them) and thanks to all of these Holy Spirit filled folks, you got your Bible that you’re holding on today. This was done 100% correctly since SS’ers believe the scriptures are inerrant.

Now, look at the Apostolic Interpretation of Scriptures. According to Sola Scripturists, this was lost. The Apostles passed on their interpretation of scripture (which of course was correct!) and then that’s it, it was lost somewhere between then and now. The only way, according to SS, is to let the “holy spirit guide the individual to the correct interpretation.”

This appears to be inconsistent. Why did God use all those human beings to protect the scriptures (when they were being passed on to the next generation of believers) but not to protect the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture (when they’re being passed on to the next generation of believers)? Interesting.

Because I am a Catholic, I believe that God didn’t work like this. God is consistent, and provided a mechanism to protect both the scriptures, and the Apostolic Interpretation of the Scriptures, and both were correctly passed down throughout the centuries.

 

[Shibboleth]

I do not have time to go into it right now but I will if I get the time. I can only do basic messages becuase I write them during program load times at work.