It appears that my original question may have been a bit ambiguous, as roamer also had a similar question. The crux of my question is this, "How do we know that the Scriptures we have today are accurately preserved (not taught about), if we reject the testimony of the Church?" That is, during the time period of AD 100-AD 300, we don't have full copies of the written Word, so how can anyone independently verify their veracity?
If God can give the RCC divine direction to interpret his Word correctly, then he certainly can give those copying the NT source documents divine direction to avoid corruption.
I agree. However, again, we have no way of independently verifying the Scriptures we have today. So, if we are to believe the NT we have today is an accurate representation of what was taught (believed) between AD 100- AD 300, then we must either just accept it as an axiom (a rather weak claim), or accept the witness of the Church. IOW, we have to find a church that has existed since AD 90, and the Catholic Church is only a handful of such churches that could possibly make such a claim.
If God allowed the NT source documents to be corrupted, how do you know he isn’t allowing the RCC to misinterpret it?
But that's really the point. I don't believe the NT is corrupted, but I must have a *reason* to believe this. I can't simply claim, "the Holy Spirit tells me so", for anyone can make that claim. And indeed, as I pointed out earlier, St. Peter exhorts us to have a *reason* for our faith (cf 1 Peter 3:15) , which necessarily implies a fact. For those who don't believe, the Holy Spirit isn't a fact. Thus, to convince anyone of anything with regards to theology, we must have a reason apart from this relatively simplistic claim.
If the NT source was corrupted and the RCC was misinterpreting it unknowingly, how would you know the truth?
An interesting question. I must admit, I don't have an answer to that one at this time, however, this doesn't negate my original question (at least for me). For myself, I cannot simply just put the question (How do I know that the Scriptures we have today are accurate?) down, simply because of the possibility that the only institution I can historically see preserving it at the time (AD 100-AD 300) might have corrupted it. To me, while the point you make is a valid one, it doesn't get me any closer to the the answer to the question, "How do I know the Scriptures are accurate?", since the point you raise could also be used against any verification scheme I may posit. That is, let's say the "RCC" did corrupt the NT during the period of AD 100- AD 300, do I have any other way of verifying it?
I certainly can't verify it relying solely on the reason, "The Holy Spirit tells me so", for reasons I explained above. I also can't rely on the claim "it's self authenticating" because of the reason I explained in my #145, which was, that if the entire NT is corrupted, then it could still "authenticate itself", it would simply be "authenticating error" though.
If you cannot trust the foundation a tower is built on, you cannot trust the tower.
Very true. This is why I believe God inspired the human author to write, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
If God has given the RCC the divine direction necessary to interpret corrupted NT sources, then the RCC has enough divine direction that they don’t need the NT sources.
Again, I'm not talking about "interpretation" of the Scriptures, I'm merely talking about preservation thereof here. However, you do raise a salient point in the portion, "then the RCC has enough divine direction that they don’t need the NT sources."
Two points to consider here. The Church never claims to be "based on" the Scriptures, for the Church claims that She came before the Scriptures (at least the NT portion). So, the Church doesn't "need" the NT sources, insomuch as She isn't based on them.
But the Church does teach that we "need" the NT, for many long and complex reasons, but for what can simply be defined by what St. Paul wrote already to St. Timothy, in the (now famous, if not hotly debated passage) 2 Tim 3:16-17. She teaches that the Scriptures are for our edification and learning, and that they do indeed "complete" us. So I'm not trying to suggest that the Church teaches the Scriptures aren't necessary; I was only questioning how one can know they are accurate apart from the witness of the Church.
"It appears that my original question may have been a bit ambiguous, as roamer also had a similar question. The crux of my question is this, "How do we know that the Scriptures we have today are accurately preserved (not taught about), if we reject the testimony of the Church?" That is, during the time period of AD 100-AD 300, we don't have full copies of the written Word, so how can anyone independently verify their veracity?" [excerpt]
"St. Peter exhorts us to have a *reason* for our faith (cf 1 Peter 3:15) , which necessarily implies a fact." [excerpt]
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1st Peter 3:15
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1