The Bible was never in God's explicit plan. Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.
Judaism was passed on as oral tradition until 500 BC. From Adam until approximately 6th century BC there was nothing in the form of inspired writing. Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.
Hebrew Scriptures do not agree en toto. Judaism was not monolithic. The Sadducees, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and some smaller groups deviated from each other in their beliefs and their Scriptures reflected that. Modern (rabbinical) Judaism was pretty much formed after Jamnia in 100 AD.
The Septuagint (LXX), the Qumran fragments, the Masoretic text all vary, in length, quantity and content, so it is really difficult to believe that humans could have passed on unaltered Scriptures from generation to generation by word of mouth if their written Scriptures differ.
The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.
Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.
There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.
That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world, in context and cultural setting, and could therefore correctly interpret what was passed on.
In doing so, we are assured that our understanding is not lost or corrupted. We can never achieve that simply by reading the Bible.
I am willing to listen to St. Ignatius and take his interpretations a little more seriously than say, the private interpretations of someone completely removed in time an culture and context from original Christinaity, just as I would take more seriously any impressions and interpretations of America of those who actually knew America and not some individual half way around the world who only read about it!
St. Ignatius was ordained bishop by St. Paul, the Apostle, in person! And St. Polycarp's words carry the same weight for the same reason, having been a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. If other bishops' writings and interpretations agree with those of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I would say that they have safeguarded the truths passed on by the Apostles and that what the Church believed then is what the Church believes now.
And you know this how??? You continue:
Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.
Are you saying that God didn't plan the Bible because it didn't show up until it did? Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?
Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.
No, I would expect there to be errors in passing down oral tradition, both from the Hebrews and from the Catholics. That's why I don't trust them. It's only natural that fallible men will make mistakes. I do believe that God's written word was authored by God Himself and is infallible and not subject to mistake, unlike tradition.
The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.
Yes, and........? :) This doesn't address the truth and authority of the Bible. Of course scripture will be taught orally, we are commanded to do just that. But the basis of our teaching and whether it is righteous is to what degree it parrots God's word. I think you would agree that we will be judged based upon what we know, so it is irrelevant that relatively few have had clear access to the actual book. Oral teaching is fine as long as it doesn't change the meaning of scripture. Of course, we would disagree on what this means.
Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.
Forget a trickle, how about none! :) This is why I say that God is responsible for it all. If you believe in man's real participation, then you're right, the Bible is a highly improbable document to be perfectly accurate.
There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.
There is no substance that you will accept as evidence. Your tradition disallows you. I also assume you just admitted your belief that the Bible is not inerrant, in favor of men's beliefs. You appear to say that men's interpretations of the Bible trump God's own interpretations as revealed in scripture.
That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world...
Then why were so many of these exact writings and teachings rejected as unworthy of inclusion in the Bible? Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in? So, who is to know what to trust?