Replies

** However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were. There were some minor errors in copying, for the earliest texts we have don't totally agree with each other-though there's 99 percent verbal agreement among different manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient writings. ** - Kreeft

Have any Catholic really thought through what Textual Criticism implies? Let me try...

Frequently, Protestants are attacked with an argument such as the following: "You don't have infallible knowledge of what Scripture Is! Unless you accept the Church's infallible role in determining the Canon, and thereby accept the Church's infallible authority to interpret scripture, you have no solid basis for any of your arguments concerning Scripture!"

My questions are along the following lines:

1) Do YOU have _infallible_knowledge_ of what Scripture Is? Tell me, is John 8:1-11 Canon? You know, the part where the woman is caught in adultery and Jesus writes in the sand. Or how about the end of Mark, or the end of Romans? Or perhaps the other myriads of verses and words that textual criticism has determined were not within the original texts? How has the Catholic Church "Infallibly" ruled concerning these cases?

2) Copying Errors indicate something bad... real bad. Let's quote Kreeft:

"Fundamentalists take Scripture out of the context of the historical Church that wrote it, canonized it, preserved it and now teaches and interprets it."

Ummm... If the church did not preserve it infallibly, then how can it assert that it wrote, canonized, and interpreted it infallibly? Please note: The fact that there are errors clearly show by Kreeft's own admission that the Church erred in copying it.

3) If the Church did not "infallibly" transmit scripture, why does it think it infallibly transmitted tradition? At least with scripture, we have early texts that we can go to and verify the differences that have crept in over the years. How about oral tradition?

4) The Vulgate, canonized by the RC church contains translations of many of these passages that were not originally apart of the canon. How did the infallible church propagate these errors?

5) Please also note: Kreeft stated "Sometimes you even find fundamentalists claiming divine inspiration for the King James version!" How exactly is this different than the Catholic Church's view of the Latin Vulgate? (BTW, I do not view the KJV in the way described by Kreeft)

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to respond.

* However, we don't even have the original autographs of any of the books of the Bible, so we're not absolutely sure what the exact words were. *

Go back to the first page of this thread and read the answers already posted there.

I won't, however, drop the thrust of my argument in Post #105.

Does any Roman Catholic have infallible proof that Jesus wrote in the sand as recorded in John 8:1-11? Can any Roman Catholic state "the Church's" official position concerning the canonicity of this passage?

If not, then the Roman Catholic Church is in exactly the same position as the protestant church: You do not have an infallible declaration as to what is and what is not scripture.